When I was thirteen years old, I discovered an effective way to debate with my father, that is, to use his own method to refute him according to classics.
Example 1:
Kang Youwei Because Guangzhou built a road, it was about to destroy Minglun Hall . He got angry and called Cen Wu, calling him "insulting the saint and destroying the lun". He said, "I have traveled all over the country, and I have not heard of it before." Mr. Kang's words are really good. Traveling all over the country, and I can find out what Confucius there. Even more, I can’t find any Minglun Hall.
admits that his words are right, and then reason about the materials in which he says, there are contradictory places, places that do not conform to reality and common sense, and places that are absurd.
Example 2:
Mr. Kang also said, "It is not suitable for the Republic of China to demolish it." This is strange! Is it necessary to keep the matter of "the king is the main body of the minister" and "the king is the king, the minister is the minister" to be considered "appropriate for the Republic of China"?
uses the original words as material and then deduces the absurdity.
Example 3:
Deng Rong said in the new parliament, "There is no need to set up a special official to respect Confucius, the 〈provincial〉 funds are paid." Zhang Yuanqi said, "The Ministry of Internal Affairs worships Confucius, and the tea room is recorded by the tea room, and the deputy director ignores it, so a special official must be set up." The tea room record of the Ministry of Internal Affairs is roughly not a human being. If you say you are a human being, how can you not even worship Confucius?
uses the original words as material and reasoned that the tea house records things, but it is roughly not a human being. And this is obviously ridiculous.
Example 4:
This girl's school student is so stubborn that he never goes out, as if walking is exclusive to men.
doesn’t go out at all, and it turns out that walking is exclusive to men. And this is not in line with the facts.
Example 5:
Some of them are false changes, which easily reveal their feet. I am so embarrassed by this kind of person! Very dangerous for him!
reveals his strength, and reasoning out—shamed and dangerous. This is bad, so I am ashamed of him and dangerous for him. This is a secondary reasoning.
Example 6:
For others criticizing him,
"What military do you know? You are nothing more than copying the two books "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" and " Sun Tzu's Art of War ".
From this sentence, you can infer that this person should have read "The Art of War", so just test him,
"Since you say I can only copy "The Art of War", then you know "The Art of War" How many articles are there in the Law? What is the title of the first article? "
As a result, the other party couldn't answer it. Obviously, he had not read "The Art of War", so he revealed this contradiction,
"Since you haven't read it, why do you speak nonsense and say that I can only copy "The Art of War"?"
Summary
Step : Acknowledge the other party's words first is correct.
Step 2 : Deduce several conclusions and reality based on the other party’s conclusion and the materials provided in the words.
Step 3 : Find out the absurd, contrary to common sense, contrary to reality, and contradictory conclusions and reality.
Step 4 : If there are no conclusions and reality that meet the conditions, you can perform secondary reasoning or even three-way reasoning on the inferred conclusions and reality, such as the "shame" and "danger" mentioned above, which can also have a refutation effect.
Step 5 : Throw this conclusion drawn from his words, and directly refute the other party from right to wrong, which is both profound and impressive.
This adds a reasoning process, which gets the other party's meaning, so that you do not let yourself take care of yourself, only say your own words, and do not understand the other party's words. At the same time, you let the other party know his fault and achieve your goals. Three wins in one go!
If the other party is right, then you can also wake up from your mistakes, which is called listening to the other party’s words.
Therefore, whether the other party has reason depends on the additional reasoning process rather than a pure judgment process, which avoids arbitrary, impulsive and simple and unconvincing negation and veto. This is a popular approach.
