驳论文的一般格式：①引论(提出问题)——②本论(分析问题)——③结论(解决问题)。
写作思路：1、列现象；2、示弊端；3、探根源；4、指出路。
1、列现象
对现实中不合道德、有碍社会健康发展的现象进行列举。事例选取的典型性，以求警醒人们；罗列的丰富性，以求引起读者共鸣；修辞的多样性，以求彰显行文文采，增强气势。
2、示弊端
每一种（类）丑陋的现象都会或多或少造成社会的损失。有些损失是明显的，人们不齿、唾弃；但一些损失在较长的时间段后才会出现，许多人看不到这种想象的危害，那就要揭示，这要求写作者既具有深邃的目光，透过现象看本质，又具有先知先觉的本领。
3、探根源
运用哲学的观点去看问题，从理论的高度看问题，显示思维的深度和思维的广度。
4、指出路
高瞻远瞩，高屋建瓴，为读者指出一条解决问题的思路。多从教育、政府规范和引导、法律严惩几个角度谈起。
扩展资料：
驳论文驳斥错误的、反动的论点有三种形式：
①直接驳斥对方的论点。先举出对方的荒谬论点，然后用正确的道理和确凿的事实直接加以驳斥，揭示出谎言同事实、谬论与真理之间的矛盾。有的文章，首先证明与论敌的论点相对立的论点是正确的，以此来证明论敌的论点是错误的。
②通过批驳对方的论据来驳倒对方的论点。论据是论点的根据，是证明论点的。错误和反动的论点，往往是建立在虚假的论据之上的，论据驳倒了，论点也就站不住脚了。
③通过批驳对方的论证过程的谬误（驳其论证）来驳倒对方的论点。驳倒了它的论证中关键问题，也就把谬论驳倒了。
三辩驳论时的万能句有以下：
1、面对这样的真知灼见，对方辩友至今未能幡然醒悟，正好比雨过天晴却仍静坐茅庐听雨，不愿接受真理的光芒。
2、对方辩友不要回避问题，您所说的……与我们所讨论的题目离了不止万里。
3、对方辩友以偏概全，用……例子来论证……实在是一叶障目，盲人摸象，没有意识到还有。
4、我对对方边摇头所提出的观点表示无法接受……这样荒谬的逻辑我们能接受吗？
5、为什么对方辩友一直不敢正面回答我们的问题，闪闪烁烁是在犹豫么？还是你们的乱点根本无法面，如此之多的现实。
6、总是拿着A情况下的B结果来跟我们C情况下的B结果来衔接，对方辩友不是牛头不对马嘴吗？
驳论文是议论文常见的论证文体。
1、列现象；
2、示弊端；
3、探根源；
4、指出路。本文试以高中课文，鲁迅先生的名篇《拿来主义》为例，对驳论文的这一特征予以探析。
论文查重还应注意以下几点：
①、要对准把子。写驳论性的文章，首先要摆出对方的谬论或反动观点，树起靶子。通常有两种方式。一是概述。即用概括的语言，将所批驳的敌论复述一下。概述时，可适当引用一些原词句，但要有重点，倾向性要鲜明。二是摘引。即把反面材料的关键部分或有关部分，摘录下来，然后对准靶子，进行驳斥。
②、要抓住要害。鲁迅说：“正对‘论敌’之要害，仅以一击给予致命的重伤。”对谬论，一定要抓住其反动本质，深入地进行揭露和批判。
③、要注意分寸。对于敌人的反革命谬论和人民内部存在的错误思想，必须加以区别。对敌人，要无情揭露，痛加批驳，给以致命打击；对于人民内部的错误思想，就要本着“团结——批评——团结”的原则，决不可相提并论。
扩展资料：
议论文从论证方式看，一般分为立论和驳论两种。
1、立论
立论是对一定的事件或问题从正面阐述作者的见解和主张的论证方法。写立论性的文章，必须做到：
①、论点要正确、鲜明。正确就是论点本身要符合马列主义、毛泽东思想和邓小平理论，符合客观实际，并经得起实践的检验。鲜明就是说作者必须旗帜鲜明地表示肯定什么，否定什么，赞成什么，反对什么，决不可含含糊糊，模棱两可。
②、论据要真实、充分。就是说，必须举出足够的事实或公认正确的道理，证明论点的正确性。作为论据的事实，包括有代表性的确凿的事例或史实，以及统计数字等。用事实作论据，有很强的说服力。
用科学道理作为论据，也具有极大的说服力。如用自然科学的原理、定律和公式等作为论据，也能有力的起到证明论点的作用。
③、论证必须符合正确的推理形式。写立论性的文章，要言之成理，合乎逻辑。论点统帅论据，论据证明论点。论据必须足以证明论点，论点必须是从论据中推断出来的必然结论。
2、驳论
驳论是就一定的事件和问题发表议论，揭露和驳斥错误的、反动的见解或主张。
驳斥错误的、反动的论点有三种形式：
①、直接驳斥对方的论点。先举出对方的荒谬论点，然后用正确的道理和确凿的事实直接加以驳斥，揭示出谎言同事实、谬论与真理之间的矛盾。有的文章，首先证明与论敌的论点相对立的论点是正确的，以此来证明论敌的论点是错误的。
②、通过批驳对方的论据来驳倒对方的论点。论据是论点的根据，是证明论点的。错误和反动的论点，往往是建立在虚假的论据之上的，论据驳倒了，论点也就站不住脚了。
③、通过批驳对方的论证过程的谬误（驳其论证）来驳倒对方的论点。驳倒了它的论证中关键问题，也就把谬论驳倒了。
In any academic area or professional field, it is just as important to recognize the limits of our knowledge and understanding as it is to acquire new facts and information.“
Personally, I hold that knowledge knows no bounds, therefore, on realizing this awkwardness, the only thing man should do is to absorb as much new knowledge as he can for the sake of not lagging behind the pacing steps of our world.
但是作者完全是从另外一个角度去论证，且看下文。
Does recognizing the limits of our knowledge and understanding serve us equally well as acquiring new facts and information, as the speaker asserts?注意这一句经典的反问式开头了，这是最引人注目的。While our everyday experience might lend credence to this assertion, further reflection reveals its fundamental inconsistency with our Western view of how we acquire knowledge. Nevertheless,虽然是原则上不尽同意但还是提出妥协的办法，从而显出作者是critical thinking的，这一点很重要，也是拿分的重头戏也。a careful and thoughtful definition of knowledge can serve to reconcile the two.
让我们记一记一些好词好句：lend credence to this assertion (有足够的证据)证明这一观点的正确性;further reflection reveals its fundamental inconsistency with…;Nevertheless, a careful and thoughtful definition of knowledge can serve to reconcile the two.
On the one hand, the speaker"s assertion accords with the everyday experience of working professionals. For example, the sort of "book”knowledge that medical, law, and business students acquire, no matter how extensive, is of little use unless these students also learn to accept the uncertainties and risks inherent in professional practice and in the business world.
Any successful doctor, lawyer, or entrepreneur would undoubtedly agree that new precedents and challenges in their fields compel them to acknowledge the limitations of their knowledge, and that learning to accommodate these limitations is just as important in their professional success as knowledge itself.
在驳论的第一段，作者就举例子说明知识的有限性并不一定意味着各行各业的人就必须汲取其他方面的知识，恰恰相反，对于医生、律师或企业家来说意识到了自我知识的有限，并且寻求方法去适应调和这一有限性反而是必要的。
Moreover, the additional knowledge we gain by collecting more information often diminishes-sometimes to the point where marginal gains turn to marginal losses. Consider, for instance, the collection of financial- investment information. No amount of knowledge can eliminate the uncertainty and risk inherent in financial investing. Also, information overload can result in confusion, which in turn can diminish one"s ability to assimilate information and apply it usefully. Thus, by recognizing the limits of their knowledge, and by accounting for those limits when making decisions, investment advisors can more effectively serve their clients.
作者进一步通过金融投资业信息的赘余的危害性来驳斥原文的观点。
On the other hand, the speaker"s assertion seems self-contradictory, for how can we know the limits of our knowledge until we"ve thoroughly tested those limits through exhaustive empirical observation--that is, by acquiring facts and information. For example, it would be tempting to concede that we can never understand the basic forces that govern all matter in the universe. Yet due to increasingly precise and extensive fact- finding efforts of scientists, we might now be within striking distance of understanding the key laws by which all physical matter behaves. Put another way, the speaker"s assertion flies in the face of悍然不顾，公然违抗the scientific method, whose fundamental tenet is that we humans can truly know only that which we observe. Thus Francis Bacon, who first formulated the method, might assert that the speaker is fundamentally incorrect.
说实话，我觉得这一段里，作者玩了一个诡辩的小伎俩：先是指出原文观点的自相矛盾性，然后引出自己的看法——认识论远重要于获取新的事实和信息，也就是要“先认识知识和理解力的局限然后才是摄取新知。”
How can we reconcile our experience in everyday endeavors with the basic assumption underlying the scientific method? Perhaps the answer lies in a distinction between two types of knowledge--one which amounts to a mere collection of observations (i.e., facts and information), the other which is deeper and includes a realization of principles and truths underlying those observations. At this deeper level "knowledge" equals "under- standing": how we interpret, make sense of, and find meaning in the information we collect by way of observation.
作者就上一段提出的问题推出自己的解决方法，即认识到“知识”分成两种：纯观察行为所得的信息;萃取之后的经过自己消化后的“理解”。但我觉得这里还有待发挥，估计是时间不够了，仓促间收笔吧。没有很好的说明白。
In the final analysis, evaluating the speaker"s assertion requires that we define "knowledge,"which in turn requires that we address complex epistemological issues best left to philosophers and theologians. Yet perhaps this is the speaker"s point: that we can never truly know either ourselves or the world, and that by recognizing this limitation we set ourselves free to accomplish what no amount of mere information could ever permit.
最后一句玩了复杂句的构句技巧，想搏ets一笑。但我觉得还是总结的不够好，没有说到点子上。其实，我们平实的写作大可不必如此玩弄文字，因为如果当别人都不知道你在说什么的话，一味专心于难句，无异于“喧宾夺主”了。个人认为，作者写得有点不知所云了。
