染雾英语辩论赛技巧 篇一
在英语辩论赛中，技巧是取得胜利的关键。下面将介绍一些有效的英语辩论赛技巧，帮助参赛者在比赛中取得好成绩。
首先，了解辩论的结构是非常重要的。一般来说，英语辩论赛由开场陈述、正方立场陈述、反方立场陈述、辩论和总结等几个部分组成。在开场陈述中，参赛者需要介绍辩题、背景信息和立场观点，以吸引观众的注意。在正方立场陈述和反方立场陈述中，参赛者需要清晰地表达自己的立场观点，并提供论据和证据来支持自己的观点。在辩论环节中，参赛者需要与对方辩论，通过提出问题、回应问题和反驳来展示自己的辩论技巧。在总结部分，参赛者需要简洁地总结自己的观点和论据，并强调为什么自己的观点更加合理和有说服力。
其次，熟悉常用的辩论技巧也是非常重要的。在英语辩论赛中，参赛者可以使用一些常见的辩论技巧来增加自己的说服力。例如，参赛者可以使用比喻、排比和对比等修辞手法来强调自己的观点。参赛者还可以使用调查数据、专家意见和案例研究等证据来支持自己的观点。此外，参赛者还可以使用反驳和提问来回应对方的观点，并揭示对方观点的漏洞和不足之处。
最后，良好的表达和语言能力也是英语辩论赛中的关键因素。在比赛中，参赛者需要清晰地表达自己的观点，并使用准确、流利的英语来与对方进行辩论。为了提高自己的表达能力，参赛者可以多读英语文章，多听英语演讲，锻炼自己的听说能力。此外，参赛者还可以练习辩论的口头表达，通过模拟辩论赛场的情景来提高自己的辩论技巧。
总之，英语辩论赛技巧对于取得好成绩非常重要。参赛者需要了解辩论的结构，熟悉常用的辩论技巧，并提高自己的表达和语言能力。通过不断的练习和提高，参赛者可以在英语辩论赛中展现自己的实力，取得优异的成绩。
英语辩论赛技巧 篇二
英语辩论赛是一项需要技巧和准备的比赛。下面将介绍一些有效的英语辩论赛技巧，帮助参赛者在比赛中取得好成绩。
首先，对辩题进行深入的研究和思考是非常重要的。在比赛前，参赛者需要仔细阅读辩题，并了解相关的背景信息和观点。参赛者需要思考辩题的各个方面，并为自己的立场观点提供充分的论据和证据。通过对辩题的深入研究和思考，参赛者可以更好地理解辩题的本质，并为自己的辩论提供更有力的支持。
其次，参赛者需要注意辩论的语言和表达方式。在英语辩论赛中，参赛者需要使用准确、流利的英语来表达自己的观点和论据。参赛者可以通过多读英语文章、多听英语演讲来提高自己的语言能力。此外，参赛者还需要注意用词的准确性和语法的正确性，避免在辩论中出现错误和不清晰的表达。
最后，参赛者需要掌握一些辩论技巧来增加自己的说服力。在英语辩论赛中，参赛者可以使用一些常见的辩论技巧来增强自己的观点和论据。例如，参赛者可以使用比喻、排比和对比等修辞手法来强调自己的观点。参赛者还可以使用调查数据、专家意见和案例研究等证据来支持自己的观点。此外，参赛者还可以使用反驳和提问来回应对方的观点，并揭示对方观点的漏洞和不足之处。
总之，英语辩论赛技巧对于取得好成绩非常重要。参赛者需要对辩题进行深入的研究和思考，注意辩论的语言和表达方式，并掌握一些辩论技巧来增加自己的说服力。通过不断的练习和提高，参赛者可以在英语辩论赛中展现自己的实力，取得优异的成绩。
英语辩论赛技巧 篇三
英语辩论赛技巧
On Debating
Clarity: Avoid use of terms which can be interpreted differently by different readers. When we are talking to people who substantially agree with us we can use such terms as "rednecks" or "liberals" and feel reasonably sure that we will be understood. But in a debate, we are talking to people who substantially disagree with us and they are likely to put a different interpretation on such words.
Evidence: Quoting an authority is not evidence. Quoting a majority opinion is not evidence. Any argument that starts with, "According to Einstein..." is not based on objective evidence. Any argument that starts with, "Most biologists believe..." is not based on objective evidence. Saying, "The Bible says..." is not evidence. Authorities and majorities can be wrong and frequently have been. (历届辩论赛中出现最多的问题)
Emotionalism: Avoid emotionally charged words--words that are likely to produce more heat than light. Certainly the racial, ethnic, or religious hate words have no place in rational debating. Likewise, avoid argumentum ad hominem. Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. Also, slurs directed at groups with whom your opponent is identified are usually nonproductive. Try to keep attention centered on the objective problem itself. There is a special problem when debating social, psychological, political, or religious ideas because a person's theories about these matters presumably have some effect on his own life style. In other words, rather than saying "and that's why you are such an undisciplined wreck" say, "a person adopting your position is, I believe, likely to become an undisciplined wreck because ..."
Causality: Avoid the blunder of asserting a causal relationship with the popular fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc which declares that because some event A happened and immediately afterward event B happened that event A was the cause of event B.(I knew someone whose car stalled on the way to work. She would get out and open the hood and slam it and then the car would start. Singing a song would have been just as effective to allow time for a vapor lock to dissipate!) Also avoid the popular fallacy that correlation proves causation. People who own Cadillacs, on average, have higher incomes than people who don't. This does not mean that if we provided people with Cadillacs that they would have higher incomes.
Innuendo(影射):Innuendo is saying something pejorative about your opponent without coming right out and saying it but by making more or less veiled allusions to some circumstance, rumor, or popular belief. If you want to see some excellent examples of innuendo, watch Rush Limbaugh. Politicians are, unfortunately, frequently guilty of using innuendo. It is an easy way to capitalize on popular prejudices without having to make explicit statements which might be difficult or impossible to defend against rational attack.
Be sure of your facts. What is the source of your information? If it is a newspaper or a magazine, are you sure that the information hasn't been "slanted" to agree with that publication's political bias? Where crucial facts are concerned, it is best to check with more than one source. Often international publications will give you a different perspective than your hometown newspaper. Check to see whether the book you are using was published by a regular publishing company or whether it was published by some special interest group like the John Birch Society or a religious organization. These books cannot be trusted to present unbiased evidence since their motiv
Understand your opponents' arguments. It is good practice to argue with a friend and take a position with which you do not agree. In this way you may discover some of the assumptions your opponents are making which will help you in the debate. Remember that everybody thinks that his position is the right one, and everybody has his reasons for thinking so.
Do not impute ridiculous or malevolent ideas to your opponent.
An example of this is the rhetorical statement, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This imputes or presupposes that your opponent has beaten his wife. One frequently sees references by conservative speakers and writers to the idea that gay activists want "special privileges." This would be ridiculous if it were true. It isn't true, but speaking as if it were true and well known to all is egregiously unfair to listeners or readers who may not be well informed. It is probably always wise to treat your opponent with respect, even if he doesn't deserve it. If he doesn't deserve respect, this will probably soon become obvious enough.
Regression to the mean(逻辑退化): Another source of error which occurs very frequently is the failure to take into account regression to the mean. This is a bit technical, but it is very important, especially in any kind of social or psychological research which depends upon statistical surveys or even experiments which involve statistical sampling. Rather than a general statement of the principle (which becomes more and more unintelligible as the statement becomes more and more rigorous) an example will be used.
Let's consider intelligence testing.
1. Perhaps we have a drug that is supposed to raise the IQ of mentally retarded kids. So we give a thousand intelligence tests and select the 30 lowest scoring inpiduals.
2. We then give these low scoring kids our drug and test them again.
3. We find that there has been an increase in the average of their IQ scores.
4. Is this evidence that the drug increased the IQ?
Not necessarily! Suppose we want to show that smoking marijuana lowers the IQ. Well, we take the 30 highest scoring kids in our sample and give them THC and test them again. We find a lower average IQ.
Is this evidence that marijuana lowers the IQ?
Not necessarily! Any statistician knows that if you make some kind of a measurement of some attribute of a large sample of people and then select the highest and lowest scoring inpiduals and make the same measurement again, the high scoring group will have a lower average score and the low scoring group will have a higher average score than they did the first time. This is called "regression to the mean" and it is a perfectly universal statistical principle.
There are undoubtedly more points to be made here. Suggestions will be gratefully received. Larry has made the following suggestions:
· Apply the scientific method. (运用科学方法)
· Cite relevant personal experience. (合理引用相关的`个人经历)
· Be polite. (辩论过程中有礼待人)
· Organize your response. (Beginning, middle, end.) (对你辩词进行合理的组织)
· Treat people as inpiduals.
· Cite sources for statistics and studies used.
· Literacy works. Break posts into sentences and paragraphs.
· Read the post you are responding to.
