大家前几场比赛怎么样呢？手拿把掐？还是焦头烂额？不管怎样都别担心，补给来了！快来充电吧！
当你觉得论点满天飞，不知如何下手的时候，今天这期干货一定很有帮助——我们会教你快速识别辩论中的核心冲突点，吸收了本期内容遇到此类问题就可以轻松应对啦！
How to identify clash points in a round?
如何快速识别辩论中的核心冲突点?
#1、Framework Clash
核心价值观的冲突
One of the most obvious and fundamental clash in any round is the Framework Clash. This is the basis of each side's argument and is often the driving force behind their reasoning. Being able to quickly identify and address the difference in frameworks can help you focus on the main points of the debate and take control of the discussion.
第一个也是最直观的核心冲突点就是核心价值观的冲突。这是辩论中双方最根本的观点，也是双方论点的出发点。如果能迅速抓住并解决双方在价值观的冲突，就可以抓住辩论的核心。
How to Spot and Handle Value Conflicts:
• Take Notes:
Typically, your opponent's framework will be presented at the beginning of their constructive speech. Make sure to listen carefully and jot them down.
•Ask Questions:
During cross-examination, you can ask your opponent direct questionsabout their framework. For example, you could ask,“Do you think safety is more importantthan technological progress in this case?” This forces them to clarify their stance.
•Leverage Their Values:
Once you've identified the frame work conflict, you can structureyour argument around it. If your opponent focuses on social stability, for instance, you couldargue that technological progress supports long-term social stability or demonstrate howyour stance aligns with maintaining societal harmony.
那么我们如何识别并解决价值观的冲突呢?
· 做笔记：
⼀般来说对⽅的价值观会在陈词的开头，记得仔细聆听并记下来。
· 提出价值观问题：
在交叉质询中，可以直接询问对⽅的⽴场。⽐如你可以问“你认为在这个问题上，安全是否⽐技术进步更重要？”，迫使对⽅明确他们的价值观。
· 利用对方的价值观：
⼀旦你清楚地知道了双⽅的核⼼价值观冲突，就可以围绕这些来展开你的论证了。例如，如果对⽅更加关注社会稳定，你可以从多个⾓度论证如何确保技术发展不会破坏社会稳定，甚⾄可以论述技术进步有助于提⾼社会的长期稳定性。
#2 、Impact on the Same Area but in Opposite Directions
论点在同一方面的影响
Another common clash point in debates is when both sides focus on the same area but reach opposing conclusions.
在⽐赛中, 正反双⽅可能会在同⼀个⽅⾯都强调影响，但论据的⽅向却完全相反。这种同一方面不同影响的冲突点⾮常常见。
How to Identify It:
•If both sides mention the same area (e.g. safety, economic growth, or social well-being) butcome to different conclusions, this is a clear example of an impact clash. You can quicklytarget these contradictions and attack your opponent's argument more directly.
•In the fall season, the Pro side may argue that such technology will significantly reduceaccidents by eliminating human error, thus making roads safer. Meanwhile, the Con sidemight argue that technical failures or poor performance in extreme weather conditions couldcreate new safety risks, making the technology unreliable. Although both sides are talkingabout safety, their impact conclusions are completely different, creating a clash point.
如何识别?
• 如果双⽅都提到同⼀个领域的影响（如安全、经济效益或社会福祉），但结论却完全不同，这就是影响冲突的表现。通过找到这些相同领域但相反结论的论点，你可以迅速抓住辩论的焦点，并集中⽕⼒进⾏反驳.
• 如秋季赛中正⽅可以说⾃动驾驶技术带来的⾃动化交通控制能够⼤幅减少交通事故率，作为其“安全”的正向影响。⽽反⽅则可以提出，如果系统出现技术故障或者在极端天⽓下的发挥失常，⾃动驾驶反⽽会带来严重的安全隐患，这就是相同⽅⾯但⽅向相反的影响冲突点。
#3 、Magnitude of the Impact
影响大小
The final key clash point to quickly identify in a debate is the magnitude of the impact. Even when both teams agree that a policy will have some effect, they often differ on how significant that effect will be.
除了影响的⽅向存在冲突，双⽅对影响⼤⼩的判断往往也存在显著差异。正⽅可能认为某⼀项政策或技术带来的好处是巨⼤的、长远的，⽽反⽅则可能认为即使有积极影响，但规模很⼩、微不⾜道，不⾜以⽀撑政策的全⾯推⾏。
How to Identify It:
• The Pro might argue that the benefits are substantial and long-lasting, while the negative will likely claim that even if there are benefits, they are too small or too slow to justify the policy.
• For the fall season topic, the Pro might argue that even a small reduction in accidents is significant enough to justify wide-scale implementation. The Con side, on the other hand, could argue that the benefits are overstated and that the technology's contribution to road safety is negligible.
如何识别？
• 当双⽅都承认某个领域可能产⽣影响时，注意他们对影响范围或重要性的描述。
• 如正⽅可能会认为⾃动驾驶技术的普及将⼤⼤减少交通事故，尤其是在减少酒驾和疲劳驾驶导致的事故⽅⾯，因此其社会影响是⾮常⼴泛且积极的。然⽽，反⽅可能会认为，尽管技术有助于减少部分事故，但这些减少的⽐例相对较⼩，并不能解决整体交通安全的主要问题。
How to Handle It:
• Pro: You should provide concrete data and projections to show that even a modest improvement in road safety is worth pursuing. For instance, if autonomous vehicles could reduce accidents by even 1%, that would save thousands of lives each year.
• Con: You can argue that the reduction is minimal compared to other policy measures that could be taken, such as improving road infrastructure or enforcing traffic laws more strictly. This would put the benefits of autonomous vehicles into perspective and downplay their significance.
如何应对？
• 如果你是正方，你可以通过具体的数据来放⼤影响，证明⾃动驾驶的技术效益确实能够覆盖到⼴泛的⼈群和长期的社会福祉。例如，你可以指出，虽然⽬前事故减少的⽐例不⼤，但随着技术的成熟和普及，这种影响会持续放⼤。进⼀步，你可以强调，哪怕减少1%的事故，也能挽救成千上万的⽣命，这种影响在道德上是不可忽视的。
•如果你是反方，你可以通过将影响相对化来淡化正⽅论点的重要性。例如，尽管⾃动驾驶技术可能在减少交通事故⽅⾯有⼀定效果，但相⽐于完善现有的交通系统或推⾏更严格的交通法规，这种技术的影响显得微不⾜道。
Now that you know these tips, it's time toput them to use in your upcoming debates. Make sure to sign up for your next competition andpractice what you've learned!
【竞赛报名/项目咨询请加微信：mollywei007】
