英语辩论演讲技巧
辩论赛和辩论两者的参评标准是不一样的，辩论赛作为辩手的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。下面是具体方法和技巧，1供有需要的朋友们参考!
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。
2.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。
3 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。
ntroduction About Debate
4.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.
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.
5.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.
6.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
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…”
3.The 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 …”
4.Not 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 …”
5.Your 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?
5.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.
**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
1.The threat they pose to the strength of the argument of the debater,
2.Value of its wit and humour
How POIs taken are judged
1.Promptness and Confidence in answering
2.Strength of the Response
3.Value 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.