【导语】“susanwendy”通过精心收集，向本站投稿了5篇英语辩论赛的技巧，下面是小编整理后的英语辩论赛的技巧，欢迎大家阅读分享借鉴，欢迎大家分享。
篇1：英语辩论赛技巧
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.
4. Is this evidence that the drug increased the IQ?
Not necessarily! Suppose we want to show that smoking marijuana lowers the IQ. Well, we take the 30 highest scoring kids in our sample and give them THC and test them again. We find a lower average IQ.
Is this evidence that marijuana lowers the IQ?
Not necessarily! Any statistician knows that if you make some kind of a measurement of some attribute of a large sample of people and then select the highest and lowest scoring individuals and make the same measurement again, the high scoring group will have a lower average score and the low scoring group will have a higher average score than they did the first time. This is called “regression to the mean” and it is a perfectly universal statistical principle.
There are undoubtedly more points to be made here. Suggestions will be gratefully 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.
篇2：关于英语辩论赛有什么技巧
英语辩论赛的技巧：多用反问句
在进行比赛的时候，可以多用一些反问句来增加气势，让对方觉得你准备充足，如经常用到Don't you think that。
英语辩论赛的技巧：语句要尽量简短
在英语辩论赛的时候尽量要以短小、简短的句子为主，用词要简单，道理浅显，别人一听就知道你在说的话语，而不是要想半天才明白你在说什么，如可以说you are bad，就尽量不要说you are not good。
英语辩论赛的技巧：要围绕主题
有些参加英语辩论赛的朋友，很多时候不知不觉在说的过程中就偏离了主题，其实这个对于英语辩论赛来说是很分的，一定切记要围绕主题，要有好心态，不要太心急。
英语辩论赛的技巧：保持微笑
每次站起来的时候要先微笑，过两秒再进行辩论。脸上保持微笑，这样会表示自己充满自信，也可以放松自己，同时给辩论对方一种气势，造成对方一定的心理压力。
英语辩论赛的技巧：语速要慢
记得你这个是英语辩论赛，全程是用英语进行的，你的对手在你说话快的程度可能会听得到明白你在说话，但大部分听众对于你说得快的情况就会不知道你在说什么，这样就是失去辩论的意义。
辩论赛技巧：
1、打乱阵脚：组织有序进攻，打乱对方的阵脚，使之兵未败而阵先乱，岂有不败之理?
2、直击底线。有意识地对对方底线全力猛攻，使其自我动摇，无力接济，仅有招架之功，却无还手之力，处于被动境地。
3、时间把握：即从严把握本方时间，有意启导、引导对方在无意识中把规定时间及早耗尽，以造成缺席审判的情势，这对本方极为有利。
4、节奏把握：自由辩论的时间不长，但是由于争锋剧烈，对抗性强，故往往呈现出很强的快节奏。一般而言，一强到底，一胜到底的队伍不多，这就需要有韧劲和力量持久才能取胜。故有经验的辩论队往往是先弱后强，欲擒故纵。其利在于先让对方强，以观察其底气，辨别其优劣，在制伏它。
5、避锋折锐：针锋相对，往往会陷于对峙和僵持。你针尖我麦芒，你推我搡，既不利于取胜，现场效果也不好。故有经验的辩论队往往不正面迎击，而是闪避一旁，轻轻折断其锋锐。这种闪避不是回避问题，而是巧用智力，或侧击、或高压、或机智、或幽默，巧击要害，巧借场上效果来使对方退却。简言之，即以大智大巧而对，不以表面热闹、直硬相拼见高低。
大家一定要记得上面所说的几点，并且多点练习就好。
辩论赛中常用语句
1.对方辩友是没有听见，还是没有听懂啊。
2.对方辩友不要急不要急，你看我还没急您先着急了…… (用法：质询时“礼貌”地肆意打断对方)。
3.大家说我帅，其实错了，因为我是才貌双全……
4.某比赛回答质询时，我说：这个问题我方三辩已经解释得很清楚了。此时我方三辩还从未站起来发过一次言。涉及隐私，出处不表。
5.地球是圆的，世界是多元的～ 去年浙大启真杯新生辩论赛表演赛……
6.饭要一口一口吃，事要一件一件说
7.我方之所以不回答对方辩友的问题是因为对方辩友一直没有回答我方的问题，如果对方辩友回答了我方的问题，我方自当回答对方辩友的问题。
8.对方辩友风度翩翩，偏颇之处在所难免。
9.对方辩友，您别紧张啊，这不过是一场很普通的友谊第一，比赛第二的锻炼啊，别发抖么，时间还有，非常长呢，慢慢提问，没事的，我会尽量按照您的思路回答的。
10.对方辩友你脑不脑残我不知道。。。
11.对方辩友， 说到鸟我就想起， 我以前就养过一只笨鸟， 我非常讨厌它. 因为它老是叽叽喳喳， 说一些我听不懂又没有什么意义的话。对方辩友， 我们现在可以讨论一些有意义的话了吗?
12.某学长(在攻辩结把对方立论拆的差不多了之后)：总的来说，对方辩友前提错误，总的来说，对方辩友标准错误，总的来说—— 对方同学立论错误!
篇3：英语辩论赛的技巧
1、打乱阵脚：组织有序进攻，打乱对方的阵脚，使之兵未败而阵先乱，岂有不败之理?
2、直击底线。有意识地对对方底线全力猛攻，使其自我动摇，无力接济，仅有招架之功，却无还手之力，处于被动境地。
3、时间把握：即从严把握本方时间，有意启导、引导对方在无意识中把规定时间及早耗尽，以造成缺席审判的情势，这对本方极为有利。
4、节奏把握：自由辩论的时间不长，但是由于争锋剧烈，对抗性强，故往往呈现出很强的快节奏。一般而言，一强到底，一胜到底的队伍不多，这就需要有韧劲和力量持久才能取胜。故有经验的辩论队往往是先弱后强，欲擒故纵。其利在于先让对方强，以观察其底气，辨别其优劣，在制伏它。
5、避锋折锐：针锋相对，往往会陷于对峙和僵持。你针尖我麦芒，你推我搡，既不利于取胜，现场效果也不好。故有经验的辩论队往往不正面迎击，而是闪避一旁，轻轻折断其锋锐。这种闪避不是回避问题，而是巧用智力，或侧击、或高压、或机智、或幽默，巧击要害，巧借场上效果来使对方退却。简言之，即以大智大巧而对，不以表面热闹、直硬相拼见高低。
大家一定要记得上面所说的几点，并且多点练习就好。
篇4：大学生英语辩论赛技巧
A引入自己的新观点或看法的用语 Another point is that … 另一点是……
Another way of looking at it is … 看这个问题的另一个看法是…… I forgot to say / tell you that… 我忘记要讲…...
B征求他人观点或意见的用语
I would be glad to hear your opinion of … 我很乐意听听你对……的意见，
Are you of the same opinion as I? 你与我的看法一致吗?
I was wondering where you stood on the question of … 我想知道你对……问题怎么看。
C就自己阐述的观点进行总结时的用语
That’s all I want to say. 我想说的就这些了。
Do you agree? I’m sure you agree. 你赞同吗?我相信你是赞同的。
D就对方阐述的观点进行总结时的用语 As you said… 像你所说的那样……
But didn’t you say that…? 但是，难道你没说过……吗?、
If I understood you correctly， you said that… 要是我理解正确的话，你说过…….
E如何礼貌地反对对方某一观点 I’m not sure really. Do you think so? Well， it depends.
I’m not so certain.
Well， I’m not so sure about that. I’m inclined to disagree with that. No， I don’t think so really. F如何强烈反对对方某一观点 I disagree.
I disagree with you entirely. I’m afraid I don’t agree. I’m afraid you are wrong there. I wouldn’t accept that for one minute. You can't really mean that. You can’t be serious.
篇5：英语辩论赛的技巧
。更多资讯请继续关注辩论赛栏目!
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.
4. Is this evidence that the drug increased the IQ?
Not necessarily! Suppose we want to show that smoking marijuana lowers the IQ. Well， we take the 30 highest scoring kids in our sample and give them THC and test them again. We find a lower average IQ.
Is this evidence that marijuana lowers the IQ?
Not necessarily! Any statistician knows that if you make some kind of a measurement of some attribute of a large sample of people and then select the highest and lowest scoring individuals and make the same measurement again， the high scoring group will have a lower average score and the low scoring group will have a higher average score than they did the first time. This is called “regression to the mean” and it is a perfectly universal statistical principle.
There are undoubtedly more points to be made here. Suggestions will be gratefully 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.
★ 英语辩论赛主席词
★ 辩论赛开场白
★ 辩论赛策划书模板
英语辩论赛的技巧（通用5篇）
