英语辩论赛技巧(外研社辩论赛思辨和语言训练)

英语辩论赛技巧（外研社辩论赛思辨和语言训练）

Introduction About Debate

MATTER 素材

1. ‘Matter’ relates to the issues in debate, the case being presented and the material used to substantiate argumentation.

2. The issues under debate should be correctly prioritized (by teams) and ordered (by individuals), dealing with the most important/pertinent first.

3. Matter should be logical and well reasoned.

4. Matter should be relevant, both to the issue in contention and the cases being advanced.

5. Matter should be persuasive.

wNo ‘new matter’ is to be introduced during Reply Speeches. The Reply Speech presents teams with an opportunity to focus on the major issue(s) in the debate and the way in which both teams approach that ‘point of Clash’. The Reply Speech should also give an ‘optimistic overview’ of the general approach to the debate by both sides and focus on the relative merits of the case by the side Replying, and the relative weaknesses in the case of the opposing team.

wAll speakers should develop ‘positive matter’ in advanc ing their respective cases. While an Opposition team may win by demonstrating that the Government has not proved the motion true, they should not rely purely on their rebuttal of the Government case and will likely benefit from presenting positive matter in opposition to the motion.

MANNER 辩论风格

a) Vocal Style: Volume, clarity, pronunciation, pace, intonation, fluency, confidence, and authority.

b) Language: Conversational.

c) Use of notes: Should not distract, should not be read.

d) Eye Contact: With audience.

e) Gesture: Natural, appropriate.

f) Sincerity: Believability.

g) Personal Attacks: (derogatory comments are not to be tolerated).

h) Humor: Effectiveness, appropriateness.

METHOD 辩论方法

The major influence on an adjudicator must be: ‘Is the speaker’s and team’s Method EFFECTIVE in advancing the case?’

a) Organization: The structuring of individual arguments and ordering of collective arguments in the speeches .

b) Issue Selection: The identification of relevant points of clash in the round.

c) Perspective: The ability to explain the relevance of individual arguments to the motion being argued.

d) Refutation: The willingness and ability to engage and critique the points offered by the opposing team.

e) Teamwork: The degree to which the members of a team work together to collectively advance a strategy.

How to Choose Motions?

Prioritization of 3 Motions Given Based on:

a) Knowledge Resource of Team members

How much do we know of this issue?

b) Debating Positions of Your Team

What advantage will we have with this motion as Government/Opposition team?

c) Knowledge of Opposing Team’s status

What are the strengths/weaknesses of our Opponents in this debate?

Case Construction involves:

Defining the Motion & Creating Arguments that support it:

Defining the Motion means

a) Clearly stating meanings of “key terms”

E.g. “This House believes that professional athletes are good role models for Chinese youth.”

b) Establish Team Line (Base Line) & Split:

Motion

(THBT the world is a global village)

Team Line/Base Line/Stance

Because of the existence of interdependence and common interest

Spilt/Case Division

This is true in the a) social arena, b) geopolitical realm and c) economic sphere

c) Creating Arguments that support it

wPrioritize the Arguments with the strongest presented first to prove global interdependence and growing common interest:

wArgument 1 (1stSpeaker)

wSocial Arena --evidence, case studies, statistics, trend analysis, etc

wArgument 2 (1stSpeaker)

wGeopolitics --ditto

wArgument 3 (2ndSpeaker)

wGlobal Economics --ditto

w3rd Speakers must not carry new arguments

Setting Opposition Case

wProposing “Status Quo”

“Why change when things are fine now …”

wOffering a “Counter Proposal”

“Our plan works better than yours ….’

wProvide “Positive Objections”

“Yours does not work and will be harmful to…”

w** Oppn needs to have team line, split, prioritized arguments in 1stand 2ndSpeakers too!

Refutation Strategies

wWhat are Rebuttals?

Arguments raised in response to Oppn’s arguments. Comprises analysis of why Oppn is wrong, is consistent with own case, as well support/reinforce own team line

wHow to do it?

State what argument is rebutted, explain flaw(s) in argument, support it with evidence. examples, case studies, and finally linking it relevantly to your side of the topic.

Rebutting Parts of Arguments

w1. Factual Error: Your argument is factually wrong

“Your statistics/example/case studies are wrong because ….”

w2. Your argument is not supported by any evidence

“You merely asserted that ... without providing any relevant examples…”

w3.The consequences of your argument are not acceptable (morally, socially, etc)

w“How could you ban smoking in pubs when it violates the right of the smoker and his friends to socialize

to gether …”

w4.Not Important: Your argument is correct but has little weight in this debate

w“Your policy helps on the minority, the smokers, but what about the majority of the non-smokers who have to inhale second-hand smoke in pubs …”

w5.Your argument is illogical –the conclusions do not follow from the premises

w“You claim that banning cigarette advertisements on TV will cause more young people to smoke as it makes smoking more mysterious and enticing, like a forbidden fruit, but I submit to you that the opposite is more likely to be true: banning a steady stream of advertisements depicting smoking as glamorous/attractive

will REDUCE the number of young people who smoke.”

w6. Not Relevant/Irrelevant:

w“The fact that smoking causes cancer is not relevant to this debate because the issue at hand is the right of individual citizens to make informed choices concerning their own personal health ….”

w7. Contradiction in Opponents’ Arguments

wPoint out that the speakers/team are not clear about their own case. To be able to catch the opponents contradicting themselves requires good tracking skills, that is, skills in good note-taking and Active Listening.

w8. Failure to perform roles/responsibilities declared

wPM: “ To totally destroy the Opposition and win today’s debate, the Government will do the following 3 things: wshow that women are stronger than men

wshow that women are smarter than men

wshow that women are wiser leaders than men

wto prove that women are true heroes of the New Millennium.”

wTo damage the oppo nents, point out their failure to cover the areas they promised to go over in the PM’s speech.

Rebutting the Case as a Whole

wTo break down the case of the opponents, it is not enough to rebut each/all/random arguments put forth by them.

wWinning a deb ate will require you to systematically break down a team’s case.

Here are the questions/points to consider

w1 What is their approach to the case? Is it flawed? Why?

w2 What tasks did they set themselves? Did they address them? What problems are there in the way they address them?

w3 What is the general emphasis of the case? What assumptions are made? Can they be refuted?

w4 What are the key arguments of the other side? How can they be shown to be flawed?

w5.Focus on identifying the key issues/arguments which are used to support the case of the opponents and then systematically breaking them down by showing that they cannot stand up to scrutiny.

w**Do not try to shoot down all examples/arguments as there will not be enough time, and is unsystematic. Point of Information（POI）

wPOIs are comments made by members directed at the speech of

wthe member holding the floor; POI should be brief, pertinent and

wpreferably witty. Points of order and points of personal privilege

ware prohibited.

Offering & Responding to Points of Information (POIs)

wA POI can be a Question or a Statement/Clarification/Contradiction and should not take more than 15 seconds

wEach Speaker is strongly encourage toAccept at least 2POIs

wAll team members should try to give POIs without being disruptive

How POIs offered are judged

w1.The threat they pose to the strength of the argument of the debater,

w2.Value of its wit and humour

How POIs taken are judged

w1.Promptness and Confidence in answering

w2.Strength of the Response

w3.Value of wit and humour

“please answer my question” “my dear friend”

wWe think this is tremendous waste of your words by always saying “my dear friends”, “please answer my questions” so bluntly.

考核要求及标准

w辩论技巧：辩手语言是否流畅，说理、分析是否透彻，反驳和应变能力是否强，说服力和逻辑性是否强。w内容：论点和论据内容是否正确、充实，引用资料和实例是否恰当。

w风度和幽默感：辩手的表情、动作是否恰当，是否有风度及幽默感。

w自由辩论：各队在自由辩论中的识辩能力、说明能力和逻辑性是否强，接句是否合适，回答是否中肯，反驱是否有力、有理，反应是否机敏，用语是否得体。

w整体合作：全队各辩手的论点是否一致，结构是否完整，队员之间的配合、合作是否默契。

w个人表现：全队每个辩手的参与度如何，全队辩手的整体实力是否强。

附：上交辩论素材形式模版

Topic：World Governments Should Conduct Serious Campaigns Against Smoking

The argument : key words

1. Definite link: smoking and bronchial troubles, heart disease, lung cancer.

2. Governments hear, see, smell, no evil.

3. A few governments: timid measures.

4. E.g. Britain: TV adverti sing banned; nation’s conscience appeased; cancerous death.

5. Official reactions to medical findings: lukewarm.

6. Tobacco: source of revenue. E. g. Britain: tobacco tax pays for educations.

7. A short- sighted policy.

8. Enormous sums spent fighting the disease; lives lost.

9. Smoking should be banned altogether.

10. We are not ready for such drastic action.

11. But governments, if really concerned, should conduct aggressive anti-smoking campaigns.

12. The tobacco industry spends vast sums on advertising.

13. Advertising: insidious, dishonest.

14. Never shown pictures of real smokers coughing up lungs, only virile young men.

15. Smoking associated with great open-air life, beautiful girls, togetherness, Nonsense!

16. All advertising should be banned; anti-smoking campaign conducted.

17. Smoking should be banned in public places.

18. Young people should be warned, dire consequences.

19. Warning, death’s head, included in every packet.

20. Governments should protect us from ourselves.

The counter-argument key words

1. There are still scientists who doubt smoking / cancer link.

2. People who don’t smoke should keep quiet.

3. Smoking brings many psychological benefits:

4. Relieves stresses of everyday life: provides constant consolation.

5. E. g. we smoke when taking exams, worried, bereaved, etc.

6. Associated with good living; social contacts made easier.

7. Smoking is very enjoyable: relaxing, e.g. with a cup of coffee; after a meal, etc.

8. It’s absurd to suggest we ban it after so many hundreds of years.

9. Enormous interests involved: governments, tobacco growers, tobacco industries, retail businesses.

10. Tax apart, important source of income to many countries: e.g. USA, Rhodesia, Greece, Turkey.

11. People should be free to decide, not bullied by governments; banning is undemocratic.

12. The tobacco industry spends vast sums on medical research.

13. Improved filters have resulted; e.g. Columbia University.

14. Now possible to smoke and enjoy it without danger.

6.11 语言反应训练

英语绕口令训练

1. A big black bug bit a big black bear, made the big black bear bleed blood.

2. A flea and a fly flew up in a flue. Said the flea, "Let us fly!" Said the fly, "Let us flee!" So they flew through a flaw in the flue.

3. A tidy tiger tied a tie tighter to tidy her tiny tail.

4. A writer named Wright was instructing his little son how to write Wright right. He said: "It is not right to write Wright as 'rite'---try to write Wright aright!"

5. Betty Botter had some butter, "But," she said, "this butter's bitter. If I bake this bitter butter, it would make my batter bitter. But a bit of better butter -- that would make my batter better."

6. Bill's big brother is building a beautiful building between two big brick blocks.

7. He thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.

8. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? He would chuck, he would, as much as he could, and chuck as much wood as a woodchuck would if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

9. I thought a thought. But the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I thought.

10. If you notice this notice you will notice that this notice is not worth noticing.

11. If a shipshape ship shop stocks six shipshape shop-soiled ships, how many shipshape shop-soiled ships would six shipshape ship shops stock?

12. Sarah sitting in her sitting room, all she does is sits and shifts, all she does is sits and shifts.

13. She sells seashells by the sea shore. The shells she sells are surely seashells. So if she sells shells on the seashore, I'm sure she sells seashore shells.

14. Three gray geese in the green grass grazing. Gray were the geese and green was the grass.

15. While we were walking, we were watching window washers wash Washington's windows with warm washing water.

16. A Finnish fisher named Fisher failed to fish any fish one Friday afternoon and finally he found out a big fissure裂缝in his fishing-net.

17. Where is the watch I put in my pocket to take to the shop because it had stopped?

18. Mr. Cook said to a cook: "Look at this cook-book. It's very good." So the cook took the advice of Mr. Cook and bought the book.

19. How much dew would a dewdrop drop if a dewdrop could drop dew?

20. Sandy sniffed sweet smelling sunflower seeds while sitting beside a swift stream.

英语单词描述训练

目的：锻炼学生的语言表达能力、接受能力和理解能力

television；fridge；policeman；umbrella；doctor；housewife；taxi；subway；red；black；blue；cup；flower；……

故事接龙

目的：锻炼学生用英语思维、组织语言、表达思想的能力

? One day, I saw a girl on a bus...

? The animals in the forest are holding a meeting...

? I saw a woman in a car accident...

用所给词汇讲故事

目的：锻炼学生的反应能力、逻辑能力、和语言表达能力

? flower, butterfly, cry

? frog, cloud, horse

? boy, death, laugh

? TV, president, writer

个人对抗辩论赛辩题

1. If I were the Dean of Foreign Languages Department…

2. Planes, Cars, bicycles, or on foot, which do you prefer?

3. If I were a reporter, I’d like to cover entertainment news, international news, domestic news, or documentaries.

4. If I were a writer, I would focus on … in my novels in this Wenchuan Earthquake.

辩论赛和辩论两者的参评标准是不一样的

辩论赛是三方的事：正方，反方还有裁判。我们说一个队伍赢了是因为裁判说他们赢了（裁判判罚无法改变），然而裁判评判过程当中会综合的考虑到各种因素：双方论点的厉害程度；某方观点能否击倒对方；两人配合是否默契；时间分配是否合理；辩手自身的口才；裁判个人的情感主观因素......我们自己作为辩手的并

不希望对方能够接受我们的观点，而是期盼能打动裁判。为了获取最终的胜利，我们可以使用语言当中的各

种技巧，心理学中的技巧等等。

辩论，是两方的事。它的评判标准是谁的方案（观点）更能够符合事实，更能解决问题谁就获胜（这是理论上的），它的评判是相当客观的。实际中辩论的结果也是多种多样：一胜一负；双方各有道理，博采众长，

采用两者结合的优化方案－－双赢；两者皆输（即两方答案均不正确）。

l 辩论赛和辩论所给予参与者的机会和时间不同

比赛要具有可观赏性，这就要有时间控制；辩论则相对来说没有时间限制，你可以随着研究的深入不断提出

新的证据来支持自己的观点，可以四处请教高人来为自己出谋划策，你可以修改自己口误说错的话等等。

l 辩论赛和辩论参与者的策略方法不同

在真正的辩论比赛当中，无论对方说的多么有道理，即便连自己听得都有道理，我们都不能承认其论点，具

体的做法无非是：1）视而不见（下策）2）避重就轻（上策，一般来说，辩手会故意夸大自己提出的本来不那么重要理由，而使裁判轻视对方提出的未加修饰和夸大的但却很重要的理由。）

反观辩论，为寻求解决办法的辩论双方都会本着实事求是的原则，客观的考虑对方的观点，并且在自己的原

来总的观点上作出微小的修正：以使自己的方案更能符合事实。

杨立民教授：

作为一个教育工作者，我觉得这些辩论赛传达给我们的年轻学生三个重要的讯息。

第一，外语能力（包括口语能力）是值得为之奋斗终身的一种才能。

人们常说外语是交际的工具，是就业的保障，是打开个人幸福之门的金钥匙，是价值几十亿的大产业。实际上，外语的重要性不能完全从功利主义的角度去理解。我们还要看到它对我们现代化的成败，文化的再造，

民族的复兴的作用。

我们都知道金钱是一种力量，科学家告诉我们知识也是一种力量，作为一个外语教师，我要说，语言也是一

种力量，口才也是一种力量。历史上叱咤风云的伟人，大多同时也是语言大师。试想一个人，不仗权势，不

动刀枪，不靠钱财，仅凭三寸不烂之舌，用我们熟悉的词加以不同排列组合，结果就能如此影响人，感动人，激励人，说服人，团结人，组织人，改造人；就能如此一呼百应，让人舍生忘死，冲锋陷阵，是多了不起的

力量！当年马克思一句“全世界无产者联合起来”，曾经激励多少革命者为之献身。美国革命时期又有多少战

士默默念着帕特里克?亨利的那句名言“不自由，毋宁死！”走上战场。讲到历史上的雄辩家，我们会想起林肯著名的葛底斯堡演说，短短272字，却字字闪耀着光辉，成为不朽的经典。中国古代历史上曾经有个叫鬼谷子的，他的两个学生苏秦和张仪，一个周游列国，说服他们联合抗秦，结果挂了六国相印；另一个却说服秦

国将六国各个击破，结果统一了中国。说到培养一流雄辩家的杰出专家，这位老先生应该算是祖师爷。我们

现在的各类辩论赛，应该说重新唤起了我们对辩才的重视，让我们记起它是多么难得的艺术，多么有力的武器，多么巨大的力量。

辩论赛的第二个启示是：我们的学生应该有一种关切社会的精神，用一位名人的话说，就是要有一种指点江

山的精神。

人生来就有生存、温饱、发展的要求，在这一点上，人和动物没有差别。人之所以成为人，正是因为人还有

列在马斯洛需求金字塔上层的要求。人类文明进步的过程说到底也就是人类从只关心自己，到逐步关心家庭、部落、氏族、国家、社会、全世界、全人类的过程。这些年来，社会上出现了一种拜金主义和只顾个人眼前

物质利益，对社会各种问题，人类面临的各种挑战冷漠无知的危险倾向。感谢这些辩论赛，让成千上万的年

轻学生深入思考各种重大问题，让他们去研究全球化的利弊，转基因食品的得失，取消死刑的是非，安乐死

的考虑等等。实际上围绕辩论赛准备的题材远远超过了以上的范围，而且可以肯定，随着改革开放的进一步

深入，国内政治空气日益宽松，人们会享有越来越多的言论自由，辩论必将越来越体现“真理面前无禁区”的

原则，涉及越来越多的重大的敏感话题。这对于培养新世纪人才，培养能够应对种种复杂的新问题，新挑战

的年轻一代具有难以估量的意义。

辩论赛的第三个启示是：我们的学生必须有一种独立思辩的能力。

他们看问题不能简单化；不能人云亦云，随大流，瞎起哄；不能只知其一，不知其二；不能先入为主，靠喜好，凭感觉，无根无据，胡言乱语；不能不尊重对方观点，肆意歪曲，断章取义，攻其一点，不及其余。辩

论赛的好处就在于让我们养成一个习惯，一种凡事都要问为什么的习惯；让我们学会一种本领，一种通过分析，思辩找到真理的本领。我们的学校不能生产只具有一定谋生本领的学生，不能出品只装有一些固定软件

的机器人，我们要为社会提供的应该是具有强烈求知欲望，能够进行创造性思维的不同的个体

英语辩论赛成为好辩手

Instructions

Things You'll Need:

Step 1

KNOW YOUR SUBJECT

A good debater learns and knows what he/she is talking about. Make sure you spend time in research and review. You cannot afford to be sloppy in a debate. Your strongest points should be argued with clarity and conviction.

Step 2

KNOW YOUR OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS

Research on the likely points your opponent might use. Get strong counter-arguments to those points. Great debaters outlearn their opponents so they can use what their opponents have to defeat them.

Step 3

USE SHORT, POWERFUL STORIES TO START YOUR POINTS

People love stories and they adore great storytellers. Get a great story for your point of view and deliver it well. Make your audience a part of your presentation. Appeal to their sense of decency, value and humanity.

Step 4

THINK ON YOUR FEET

When you encounter a brilliant opponent, you might be thrown a curveball. Your reaction to your opponent's points can make or break your likelihood of winning. Use brief and humorous phrases to tone down or erase the impact of your opponent's strategy.

Step 5

BE COMFORTABLE AND CONFIDENT

Let your audience and judges feel your passion for the subject. A debater has to be an orator as well. Your ability to capture the attention of the audience will pay in the end.

Step 6

GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT

Incorrect statistics and wrong dates can provide an opening to your opponent. Get everything in order and cross-checked. Come to the debate with the certainty that you are arguing with the right facts.

Step 7

BE CLEAR WITH YOUR PRESENTATION

A debate is a conversation with a lot of structure. Incomplete sentences will be translated into incomplete ideas. This can weaken a strong argument. Pronunciation, pitch and enunciation is critical to this step.

2012年外研社杯英语辩论赛技巧

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 motivation for publishing is not truth but rather the furtherance of some political or religious view.

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 individuals.

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.