Hello, I see you have a lot of experience in debate, and I'd like to ask. The topic of debate is whether rational law enforcement or perceptual law enforcement can promote the effect of law enforcement. I'm not very good at debating this, just say a few words that I understand.

Personally, I think the most important thing in the debate is to stay ahead of you, that is, to let the other party always follow your thoughts.

Secondly, don't dwell on details. When it is difficult to attack head-on, we should actively look for other breakthroughs.

Third, attack its fragility and guard against its sharpness ... In general debate, there is always an opponent who is the weakest. When attacking, he will seize this gentleman's shortcomings and be strong; The chairman said that it is better to break a finger than to hurt it. ...

Feel that the other party is most likely to use examples to pressure you, such as:

1. Urban management rudely enforces the law

2. All kinds of well-known (closed) unjust, false and wrong cases (judging cases with sensibility-making them into confessions, not rationality-taking facts as the criterion and evidence as legal means)

Your counterattack also uses examples as evidence of the attack, such as:

1. Police perceptual law enforcement rescues juvenile delinquents (Baidu searched this title: 12-year-old boy suspected of stealing police perceptual law enforcement rescue)

2. The perceptual law enforcement of urban management finally understood (Baidu searched this title: 5 Urban management was beaten and scolded by vendors, but perceptual law enforcement won the grievance award _ re-entry)

No matter what kind of law enforcement looks at, it is not the process, but the result ... You can question your opponent, that is, in their eyes, rational law enforcement is the upgrade of perceptual law enforcement and the highest realm of law enforcement (it is estimated that the other party will say so). Then why is there such a partner and disharmony in the world? This just shows that the so-called rational law enforcement is just the wishful thinking of law enforcers, and it is also in essence.

Rational law enforcement has set rules for us, but society is changeable, which is like "honest people buy shoes". If you only know to go home and get a ruler, but you don't know that the ruler is at your feet, what's the point of law enforcement, let alone "people-oriented" and "ruling for the people"? ! Then the so-called "humanized governance" and "humanized law enforcement" will not become empty talk, rhetoric, lies, lies ... If so, can the "harmonious society" we have been expecting really be "harmonious"? !

Hehe, that's probably the only way. I hope I can help you, hehe ...