你这个题目很宽泛..有个英语辩论赛技巧的帖子,希望能对你有用 On Debating Clarity: Avoiduse of terms which can be interpreted differently by different readers.When we are talking to people who substantially agree with us we canuse such terms as "rednecks" or "liberals" and feel reasonably surethat we will be understood. But in a debate, we are talking to peoplewho substantially disagree with us and they are likely to put adifferent interpretation on such words. Evidence:Quoting an authority is not evidence. Quoting a majority opinion is notevidence. Any argument that starts with, "According to Einstein..." isnot based on objective evidence. Any argument that starts with, "Mostbiologists believe..." is not based on objective evidence. Saying, "TheBible says..." is not evidence. Authorities and majorities can be wrongand frequently have been. （历届辩论赛中出现最多的问题） Emotionalism: Avoidemotionally charged words--words that are likely to produce more heatthan light. Certainly the racial, ethnic, or religious hate words haveno place in rational debating. Likewise, avoid argumentum ad hominem.Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectualbankruptcy. Also, slurs directed at groups with whom your opponent isidentified are usually nonproductive. Try to keep attention centered onthe objective problem itself. There is a special problem when debatingsocial, psychological, political, or religious ideas because a person'stheories about these matters presumably have some effect on his ownlife style. In other words, rather than saying "and that's why you aresuch 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 hocwhich declares that because some event A happened and immediatelyafterward event B happened that event A was the cause of event B.(Iknew someone whose car stalled on the way to work. She would get outand open the hood and slam it and then the car would start. Singing asong would have been just as effective to allow time for a vapor lockto dissipate!) Also avoid the popular fallacy that correlation provescausation. People who own Cadillacs, on average, have higher incomesthan people who don't. This does not mean that if we provided peoplewith Cadillacs that they would have higher incomes. Innuendo(影射):Innuendois saying something pejorative about your opponent without coming rightout and saying it but by making more or less veiled allusions to somecircumstance, rumor, or popular belief. If you want to see someexcellent examples of innuendo, watch Rush Limbaugh. Politicians are,unfortunately, frequently guilty of using innuendo. It is an easy wayto capitalize on popular prejudices without having to make explicitstatements which might be difficult or impossible to defend againstrational attack. Besure of your facts. What is the source of your information? If it is anewspaper or a magazine, are you sure that the information hasn't been"slanted" to agree with that publication's political bias? Wherecrucial facts are concerned, it is best to check with more than onesource. Often international publications will give you a differentperspective than your hometown newspaper. Check to see whether the bookyou are using was published by a regular publishing company or whetherit was published by some special interest group like the John BirchSociety or a religious organization. These books cannot be trusted topresent unbiased evidence since their motivation for publishing is nottruth but rather the furtherance of some political or religious view. Understandyour opponents' arguments. It is good practice to argue with a friendand take a position with which you do not agree. In this way you maydiscover some of the assumptions your opponents are making which willhelp you in the debate. Remember that everybody thinks that hisposition is the right one, and everybody has his reasons for thinkingso. Do not impute ridiculous or malevolent ideas to your opponent. An example of this is the rhetorical statement, "Haveyou stopped beating your wife?" This imputes or presupposes that youropponent has beaten his wife. One frequently sees references byconservative speakers and writers to the idea that gay activists want"special privileges." This would be ridiculous if it were true. Itisn't true, but speaking as if it were true and well known to all isegregiously unfair to listeners or readers who may not be wellinformed. It is probably always wise to treat your opponent withrespect, 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 totake into account regression to the mean. This is a bit technical, butit is very important, especially in any kind of social or psychologicalresearch which depends upon statistical surveys or even experimentswhich involve statistical sampling. Rather than a general statement ofthe principle (which becomes more and more unintelligible as thestatement 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 mentallyretarded kids. So we give a thousand intelligence tests and select the30 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. 4. Is this evidence that the drug increased the IQ? Notnecessarily! Suppose we want to show that smoking marijuana lowers theIQ. Well, we take the 30 highest scoring kids in our sample and givethem THC and test them again. We find a lower average IQ. Is this evidence that marijuana lowers the IQ? Notnecessarily! Any statistician knows that if you make some kind of ameasurement of some attribute of a large sample of people and thenselect the highest and lowest scoring individuals and make the samemeasurement again, the high scoring group will have a lower averagescore and the low scoring group will have a higher average score thanthey did the first time. This is called "regression to the mean" and itis a perfectly universal statistical principle. Thereare undoubtedly more points to be made here. Suggestions will begratefully 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 individuals. · Cite sources for statistics and studies used. · Literacy works. Break posts into sentences and paragraphs. · Read the post you are responding to. Stay open to learning