英語辯論演講技巧

辯論賽和辯論兩者的參評標準是不一樣的，辯論賽作為辯手的希望對方能夠接受我們的觀點，而是期盼能打動裁判。為了獲取最終的勝利，我們可以使用語言當中的各種技巧，心理學中的技巧等等。下面是具體方法和技巧，1供有需要的朋友們參考!

　　l.辯論賽和辯論所給予參與者的機會和時間不同

比賽要具有可觀賞性，這就要有時間控制;辯論則相對來説沒有時間限制，你可以隨着研究的深入不斷提出新的證據來支持自己的觀點，可以四處請教高人來為自己出謀劃策，你可以修改自己口誤説錯的話等等。

　　2.辯論賽和辯論參與者的策略方法不同

在 真正的辯論比賽當中，無論對方説的多麼有道理，即便連自己聽得都有道理，我們都不能承認其論點，具體的做法無非是：1)視而不見(下策)2)避重就輕 (上策，一般來説，辯手會故意誇大自己提出的本來不那麼重要理由，而使裁判輕視對方提出的未加修飾和誇大的但卻很重要的理由。)

反觀辯論，為尋求解決辦法的辯論雙方都會本着實事求是的原則，客觀的考慮對方的觀點，並且在自己的原來總的觀點上作出微小的修正：以使自己的方案更能符合事實。

楊立民教授：

作為一個教育工作者，我覺得這些辯論賽傳達給我們的年輕學生三個重要的訊息。

第一，外語能力(包括口語能力)是值得為之奮鬥終身的一種才能。

人們常説外語是交際的工具，是就業的保障，是打開個人幸福之門的金鑰匙，是價值幾十億的`大產業。實際上，外語的重要性不能完全從功利主義的角度去理解。我們還要看到它對我們現代化的成敗，文化的再造，民族的復興的作用。

我 們都知道金錢是一種力量，科學家告訴我們知識也是一種力量，作為一個外語教師，我要説，語言也是一種力量，口才也是一種力量。歷史上叱吒風雲的偉人，大多 同時也是語言大師。試想一個人，不仗權勢，不動刀槍，不靠錢財，僅憑三寸不爛之舌，用我們熟悉的詞加以不同排列組合，結果就能如此影響人，感動人，激勵 人，説服人，團結人，組織人，改造人;就能如此一呼百應，讓人捨生忘死，衝鋒陷陣，是多了不起的力量!當年馬克思一句“全世界無產者聯合起來”，曾經激勵 多少革命者為之獻身。美國革命時期又有多少戰士默默唸着帕特里克?亨利的那句名言“不自由，毋寧死!”走上戰場。講到歷史上的雄辯家，我們會想起林肯著名 的葛底斯堡演説，短短272字，卻字字閃耀着光輝，成為不朽的經典。中國古代歷史上曾經有個叫鬼谷子的，他的兩個學生蘇秦和張儀，一個周遊列國，説服他們 聯合抗秦，結果掛了六國相印;另一個卻説服秦國將六國各個擊破，結果統一了中國。説到培養一流雄辯家的傑出專家，這位老先生應該算是祖師爺。我們現在的各 類辯論賽，應該説重新喚起了我們對辯才的重視，讓我們記起它是多麼難得的藝術，多麼有力的武器，多麼巨大的力量。

辯論賽的第二個啟示是：我們的學生應該有一種關切社會的精神，用一位名人的話説，就是要有一種指點江山的精神。

人 生來就有生存、温飽、發展的要求，在這一點上，人和動物沒有差別。人之所以成為人，正是因為人還有列在馬斯洛需求金字塔上層的要求。人類文明進步的過程説 到底也就是人類從只關心自己，到逐步關心家庭、部落、氏族、國家、社會、全世界、全人類的過程。這些年來，社會上出現了一種拜金主義和只顧個人眼前物質利 益，對社會各種問題，人類面臨的各種挑戰冷漠無知的危險傾向。感謝這些辯論賽，讓成千上萬的年輕學生深入思考各種重大問題，讓他們去研究全球化的利弊，轉 基因食品的得失，取消死刑的是非，安樂死的考慮等等。實際上圍繞辯論賽準備的題材遠遠超過了以上的範圍，而且可以肯定，隨着改革開放的進一步深入，國內政 治空氣日益寬鬆，人們會享有越來越多的言論自由，辯論必將越來越體現“真理面前無禁區”的原則，涉及越來越多的重大的敏感話題。這對於培養新世紀人才，培 養能夠應對種種複雜的新問題，新挑戰的年輕一代具有難以估量的意義。

　　3 辯論賽的第三個啟示是：我們的學生必須有一種獨立思辯的能力。

他 們看問題不能簡單化;不能人云亦云，隨大流，瞎起鬨;不能只知其一，不知其二;不能先入為主，靠喜好，憑感覺，無根無據，胡言亂語;不能不尊重對方觀點， 肆意歪曲，斷章取義，攻其一點，不及其餘。辯論賽的好處就在於讓我們養成一個習慣，一種凡事都要問為什麼的習慣;讓我們學會一種本領，一種通過分析，思辯 找到真理的本領。我們的學校不能生產只具有一定謀生本領的學生，不能出品只裝有一些固定軟件的機器人，我們要為社會提供的應該是具有強烈求知慾望，能夠進 行創造性思維的不同的個體。

ntroduction About Debate

　　ER 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.

No ‘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.

All speakers should develop ‘positive matter’ in advancing 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.

　　ER 辯論風格

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.

　　OD 辯論方法

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

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

Argument 1 (1stSpeaker)

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

Argument 2 (1stSpeaker)

Geopolitics --ditto

Argument 3 (2ndSpeaker)

Global Economics --ditto

3rd Speakers must not carry new arguments

Setting Opposition Case

Proposing “Status Quo”

“Why change when things are fine now …”

Offering a “Counter Proposal”

“Our plan works better than yours ….’

Provide “Positive Objections”

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

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

Refutation Strategies

What 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

How 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

1. Factual Error: Your argument is factually wrong

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

2. Your argument is not supported by any evidence

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

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

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

Important: Your argument is correct but has little weight in this debate

“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 …”

argument is illogical –the conclusions do not follow from the premises

“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.”

6. Not Relevant/Irrelevant:

“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 ….”

7. Contradiction in Opponents’ Arguments

Point 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.

8. Failure to perform roles/responsibilities declared

PM: “ To totally destroy the Opposition and win today’s debate, the Government will do the following 3 things:

show that women are stronger than men

show that women are smarter than men

show that women are wiser leaders than men

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

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

Rebutting the Case as a Whole

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

Winning a debate will require you to systematically break down a team’s case.

Here are the questions/points to consider

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

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

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

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

s 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.

**Do not try to shoot down all examples/arguments as there will not be enough time, and is unsystematic.

Point of Information(POI)

POIs are comments made by members directed at the speech of

the member holding the floor; POI should be brief, pertinent and preferably witty. Points of order and points of personal privilege are prohibited.

Offering & Responding to Points of Information (POIs)

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

Each Speaker is strongly encourage toAccept at least 2POIs

All team members should try to give POIs without being disruptive

How POIs offered are judged

threat they pose to the strength of the argument of the debater,

e of its wit and humour

How POIs taken are judged

ptness and Confidence in answering

ngth of the Response

e of wit and humour

“please answer my question” “my dear friend”

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