How is the debate style formed?

The reason why a team or a debater will form an obvious style is not the mysterious thing of Hua Xiongru at all. The following is the debate style I collected for you. Welcome to learn from it.

1, dependence on talent or path

When you find that what you are good at can bring you victory, you will continue to use this trick involuntarily. For example, if a team succeeds in pushing the battlefield, it will unconsciously push every game. Of course, a good swimmer will drown, and your talent and play are sometimes unreliable.

For example, Cheng of our school has a good knowledge of Chinese and quick response, so the whole freshman and sophomore are very dependent on his response and don't want to spend more time and energy on some deeper arguments because he doesn't think it is necessary. It was not until 17 that the first round of management lost to the economy that deliberately used sophistry. At this time, in a small rebuttal, he exposed the process that the other party did nothing on the overall situation, only to realize that his original talent was not so reliable, and he began to practice his overall situation.

Besides, Fan Jiaer, the best female attacker in Jiangsu in recent years, didn't take one. When she was a freshman, she showed never nervous psychological quality and strong visual talent, which was very bright on the court. However, in the first two years of college, she also became dependent on her own style of play, imitating Han Xiao too much, so that the traces of tactics became heavier and heavier, and the rigid style of play began to be criticized. Fortunately, she realized her own problems as early as possible, and began to change her style after her junior year, gradually becoming an all-round player who can attack and defend, and is flexible and elegant.

The dependence on the path and style of play is common and the most hidden. Generally speaking, if a team has formed the idea that it can win if it plays like this, then over time, if it loses because it doesn't play well, it may push its team to the extreme. The most common thing is the dependence on field push, which is very common in the southern trials in previous years. Many teams think that they should win by pushing hard, but they completely ignore their rigid operation and lack of confrontation. 10 I wrote a long article about the attention points of pushing on the battlefield, which mentioned that pushing on the battlefield is an amplification of the argument. Once the argument has problems, the stronger the push, the easier it is to lose.

Therefore, at the China Championship on 13, when I felt that we had played all the games we should have played and lost to Tianda, we did not think like some teams, but seriously thought: Is there something wrong with Shen Nan's inherent style?

2, short board and defects

Capital Normal University is an extraordinary debating team. Their arguments are all very low. Even if what they say feels right, they don't say anything at all, but they have strong defense and counterattack ability on the court. According to a judge's description, Capital Normal University, like Italy, basically does not attack, but has been defending, but because of its tight defense, it can block all kinds of avalanche attacks of opponents. When the opponent has a loophole, they will suddenly fight back. Stealing a penny is a penny. Therefore, although they all feel that there is nothing to prove, they always make the judges feel that their opponents have proved something wrong, so they always win with a slight advantage. Later, I chatted with their players and coaches, and they frankly said that this was because they could not push hard or play a strict framework, so they simply played lower and relied on the loopholes of the other side to fight back. This effectively solved their own defects and played a very good role.

Tell me something you are familiar with, Wang Tong. There are still many debaters in Jiangsu. I dare not rank Wang Tong in disorder, but she is the first female debater in Jiangsu. In the past two years, I have played against domestic celebrities such as Anjiao-Lai Yanan, Okechen, Wu Da Pan Ze, Tianda, and Wu Yao, and the performance is not bad. Wang Tong can't compare with these debaters in culture, image, expression and appeal, but she just avoided them well and formed her own style. Her argument that she is a native play is actually a more realistic play. It doesn't sound high-end or foreign at all, but it makes you feel very reasonable.

Besides, Nanyou is now the leading debater in Jiangsu (I think, Hu, are the three strongest debaters in Jiangsu in recent years), but his response is actually not so fast, so he has made more preparations than ordinary people. Once he played a game and wrote seven closing drafts, all of which were memorized. With this preparation, I believe that all kinds of arguments can be learned by heart, even if he loses his manuscript and makes a closing statement on the spot, it won't be too bad.

If the first point is to remind some debaters who feel good about themselves, then the second point is to give some advice to some unconscious debaters. Every debater has defects, but you have to use your own brains to find ways to solve your defects and even turn them into your advantages.

3. Judges' preferences

After the Chinese championship, I asked the director of the executive middle school about Shen Nan. His answer was sincere: the advantage of the Shen Nan team is that it is not as rigid as the mainland team, but it retains the advantages of the mainland team; As for the shortcomings, the argument is mediocre and the style of play is too regular. I think this evaluation is quite in place. Although the arguments of Nan Shen are rigorous, they are also quite plain. This is actually a practice of seeking stability, because we can't judge the taste of the judges, so we dare not mess around.

In 2008-09, Wuda University was at a low ebb, and in two years, all competitions suffered from Waterloo. At that time, there were many analytical articles on the Internet. At that time, I chatted with a debater of Wuhan University, and his point of view was unique: he thought that Wuhan University lost a lot in those two years because they were used to winning under the judgment of provincial judges in 2004-06, so they often felt that perfection was enough in the fields that these judges liked. However, the judges outside may not think so. What they value is not necessarily the advantage of Wu Da. Therefore, when Wu Da meets some teams with a strong sense of confrontation, it is often judged as negative. Therefore, the 20 10 martial arts debater paid special attention to on-the-spot response, so he won the championship.

Refer to the technical and tactical analysis of Wuhan University Debate Team with Peng Feiyu, Guo Biao, Chen Ming and Mun-il Jang as national players? -Xia Weitong's answer

Wang Xiaoyang, the top scholar in Gansu Province, once wrote a diary, in which he mentioned that the judges in Gansu had made a strange judgment. If teams from other provinces go to Gansu, they will basically not win according to the original style of play; Gansu teams going to other provinces, according to the habit of playing, will definitely lose.

In fact, the above examples mean the same thing. Due to the subjectivity of the judging criteria of the debate competition, sometimes the team needs to make some targeted adjustments according to the tastes of the judges, but sometimes it needs to reflect on whether its style has been influenced by the school/local judges. There is no fixed judgment, and there is no fixed style or style that can last forever. Only by checking leaks and filling gaps can we get better results as much as possible.

Of course, no matter how the judges change, some common things must be adhered to, such as good language skills, solid arguments and deduction, adequate response and confrontation. If these are done well, 90% of the judges will buy it.