Party 1: the army is United and does not approve of developing individuality! Therefore, the army should use strict discipline to restrict the development of human nature! Discipline will imprison people's thoughts, affect people's thinking space and imagination, and make people's personality not develop best! Then I want to ask the other party, where is the subject you said will promote the development of personality?
Hello, everyone, I'm the opposing four arguments. First of all, I want to point out that in the debate just now, the other side made several mistakes.
On the second level, the other party's point of view only emphasizes the importance of discipline, but does not explain that discipline will promote the development of personality.
When defining personality, it is a relatively fixed feature, so can discipline still affect personality? Moreover, what the other party is arguing about is not "advocating" at all, but "norms" and "advocating individuality in the mainstream ideology of society".
The other party said on the fourth floor: self-discipline, more accurately, self-discipline. According to the meaning of the other party, the concepts of self-discipline and discipline are the same, so what explanation does the other party have for the definition of discipline?
Also, in the free debate stage in the first half, the other party never mentioned "how discipline promotes personality development".
China culture skillfully divides "I" into "ego" and "I" appearing in a role. Praise the role of "I" and stifle people's own "self". Attaching importance to role education and neglecting the education of people themselves will inevitably lead to the discipline of attaching importance to personality, obligations and rights, obedience and autonomy, and external discipline and neglecting internal initiative. By analogy, the education of imbalance between yin and yang is also unhealthy.
People whose personality is suppressed, so that their personality can not be fully and healthily developed, dare not be "the best in the world", and will only do what others have done, but will not do what others have not done. Without individuality, there is no uniqueness. Without uniqueness, how can there be another way of creativity? ! How terrible it is for a nation to suppress its own personality and form habits. How does this nation innovate? And discipline will greatly limit the development of personality.
Is discipline really that important? In my opinion, schools need to have a certain degree of discipline, and students also need to have a certain degree of discipline, but too much emphasis on discipline will inevitably stifle students' vivid personality and lively nature, and will inevitably bind students' thinking space and imagination. Can teachers be generous and open-minded in class? Can you give students a more free space? Can you give students a little flexibility and autonomy in words and deeds? Are children allowed not to sit up straight? Another example is: can students who have mastered it learn extracurricular content?
The 1990s was an era that lacked innovation and individuality. If placed in the long river of history, perhaps this decade is the least characteristic decade in the second half of this century, and it is also the least memorable decade. The cultural spirit of the 1990s was crushed by a superficial slogan and measures to stabilize everything, and became a shallow and short-lived commercial culture and political culture. In this era, there is no innovation, no individuality, no flowers of thought and no cultural competition.
This can't help but remind people of the recent 1980s. Spiritually, that era was pure and culturally diverse. The culture of that era was full of rebellion, creativity and flexibility. On the one hand, it wants to completely destroy all the remnants of the Holocaust era, and on the other hand, it wants to create a cultural framework that can restore diversity. People in the 1980s were full of indomitable enthusiasm for participating in society, and at the same time, they were full of introspection for the country and mankind. Under this premise, this era is full of scientific, economic and cultural revival and prosperity.
Microsoft put forward the "Friday" working method, that is, employees can wear clothes that suit their personality instead of suits, because psychologists have found through research that wearing uniforms at work will affect work efficiency! So everyone's personality can be well developed.
After discovering the feasibility of drawing regular 17 polygons, Gauss gave up his ambition of focusing on linguistics. After comparing his intuitive abilities, Einstein judged that his physical intuition was stronger and devoted himself to physics. Hua discovered his interest in mathematics; Husserl felt that although he got a doctorate in mathematics, he felt it necessary to engage in philosophy ... What would happen if he was disturbed by the outside world (others and objects) without their free experience and free judgment on his own development?
Therefore, we believe that discipline will limit the development of personality!
The explanation of discipline in Ci Hai is that discipline refers to the rules of conduct that require people to abide by the established order, execute orders and perform their duties.
What is discipline? Interpretation of Ci Hai: "Discipline refers to the rules of conduct that require people to abide by the established order, execute orders and perform their duties." For an organization, discipline, like rules and regulations, is a binding behavior.
Discipline is a code of conduct, and its formulation process is the result of the same needs of a social member. Violation of discipline is the violation of individual personality differences on the sexual requirements of groups.
Of course, discipline, as a group's sexual rule, does not necessarily conflict with the development of personality. Strictly speaking, discipline restricts the development of conflict with * * * sexual rules in personality, while discipline does not restrict the development of conflict with * * * sexual rules in personality.
Therefore, the reason why this proposition is debated is precisely because there is no contradiction to personality in the proposition. As a positive party, thinking that there is no restriction actually means that the personality that does not contradict * * * cannot be restricted; As opponents believe, restriction actually means that personality that contradicts sex will be restricted.
Therefore, what the other party should do is:
First, prove that there must be some conflicts between personality and * * * *;
Note: Don't totally deny it. The biggest fear of debate is total negation. A probable bottom line is easy to prove, and an inevitable bottom line can never be proved, because the topic of debate cannot be absolute. How else can the other party argue?
For example, the opposing side claims that all personalities will inevitably conflict with * * *, and as long as the positive side denies it with examples, the opposing side's argument will fail completely. On the other hand, the opposing party claims that, for example, a part of personality will conflict with * * *, and the other party can't refute such a probabilistic view with examples. The opposing party can prove the establishment of the concept of probability by giving special cases.
Therefore, the logical reasoning process is as follows:
First of all, there are obvious similarities and differences between personality and sex, which are completely different concepts.
Secondly, since there are similarities and differences or inconsistencies, the discipline formulated by the group according to * * *, that is, the code of conduct, is obviously the * * * standard. When the standards of * * * are inconsistent with personality, conflicts may arise (note: I use the term "possible" as a possibility, not like conflicts, because the rules and regulations of discipline may not involve the similarities and differences between * * * and personality at all).
Finally, when there is a contradiction between the two, discipline will inevitably limit the development of personality.
So the previous derivation is as follows (logical syllogism):
First, * * and personality may be different;
B, discipline is a possible contradiction between sexual standards and personality;
C. Conclusion: In the case of contradiction (possible), discipline will inevitably limit personality development.
The opposing party only needs to prove that discipline will inevitably limit the development of personality under the possibility of contradiction. You can be invincible.
Although I am obliged to write a reply for netizens, I won't do it now, because I think it is better to teach people to fish than to teach them to fish. My derivation is not necessarily the best, but I can give you a reference.
My blog has arguments for netizens, which have nothing to do with this topic. You can have a look if you are interested. /% B7% A8% d 1% A7% D4% Ba% B7% A8% C0% CF% D6% DC% BD% DD/blog/item/38648244f964104d510ffe90. 246 f 56437 a 080 1 1292 13c 6365438
##############
In addition, there are some references related to this proposition on the Internet, which you can refer to:
How to demonstrate that "discipline will restrict personality development" (I am in the affirmative)
/question/ 1384924.html
Will discipline restrict personality development?
/% E3 % E5 % D7 % CF % C6 % AE % E6 % CC/blog/item/6 1605 f 8 15424 18 dabd 3 e 1e 74 . html