In the preliminary contest of the first debate, facing the topic of "political integrity and harmony", as a positive party, our view is that political integrity can make people harmonious. The objection is that people and talents are politically connected. Our introduction is:
"Only when the political situation is stable can we live and work in peace and contentment.
(Standing up to speak)
Only when the government decrees are unblocked can it be stable and orderly.
(2) Stand up and make a statement)
Political clarity can bring equality and friendship.
(Three arguments stand up and state)
Only when the political system is complete can we live in harmony.
(Four Debates Stand Up and State)
(Four people introduce themselves in turn)
Only Zheng Tong.
(The first and second parameters are the same as the statement)
Talent and harmony "
(Three or four statements with the same argument * * *)
(Sit down together)
This arrangement is for the following reasons:
First, we think that "self-introduction" is a simple introduction to the debate team and its members, but it is best to serve our own debate, and we must clearly put forward our own views in this link. Just as political stability, smooth government orders, political clarity and complete political system are the four explanations of "political communication" in our debate; Living and working in peace and contentment, stability and order, equality and friendship, and living in harmony are the interpretations of "human harmony".
Second, the form of the sentence is exactly the same as that of the statement of the debate, producing a * * * sound. At the same time, it can also show our understanding of the debate and attach importance to the logical relationship of "talent"
Thirdly, considering that all four debaters will take part in the comparison, we adopt the above form.
We call this form "straight to the point".
In the second debate, "Should the ideal talents focus on benevolence or wisdom" became our debate topic. Our point of view is that ideal talents should be based on wisdom. Considering that the other party is likely to use "benevolence" to explain his position with emotion, in the self-introduction, we first adopted the form of using a touching story to take the lead and move the whole body, changing passivity into initiative.
"Once upon a time, my father and I were walking in the street and saw an old man in rags.
(Standing up to speak)
Compassion arose, and I took out all my pocket money.
(2) Stand up and make a statement)
Father resolutely stopped me and said
(Three arguments stand up and state)
Son, your kindness can only solve his dinner, and your wisdom can spread your kindness to every corner of the world. "
(Four Debates Stand Up and State)
(Four people introduce themselves in turn, and then sit down together)
This story highlights our theme: the kindness with wisdom and guidance is the real kindness, that is, the ideal talents should also attach importance to wisdom. Taking this form as the opening remarks is also obtained through in-depth analysis of the debate.
First, when preparing the content of the debate, we attach great importance to the combination of establishing our own views and refuting the other side's views.
Establish our own point of view: We believe that science and technology are the primary productive forces and the fundamental driving force to promote social development. And "intelligence" is the most important for the development of science and technology. So according to this logic, the ideal talent should be dominated by intelligence. At the same time, we do not deny that virtue is also an essential quality of an ideal talent, but it is by no means the main one.
Refuting the other side's point of view: we mainly point out that the wisdom of "benevolence" will not cause "women's benevolence", so that the role of "benevolence" can be maximized.
It can be seen that the above story is very natural with our whole debate idea, which plays a very good role in showing our point of view.
Secondly, this not only makes the form novel and impressive, but also convinces people with emotion and reasoning, turning our disadvantages into advantages.
We call this form "the unity of reason and emotion".
Finally, in the final debate, the topic "Is food and clothing a necessary condition for talking about morality" was put before us again. When it comes to "food and clothing", it always seems a bit heavy, so we want to explain it in a more relaxed and flexible way, and the effect may be different. So we chose to write lyrics.
When is food and clothing a problem? What do you know about morality?
(Standing up to speak)
The cabin was windy in the northwest last night, and a well-off life was still expected.
(2) Stand up and make a statement)
Moral standards should still exist, why should they be changed because of food and clothing?
(Three arguments stand up and state)
I ask how worried you are about food and clothing, precisely because you have no moral heart.
(Four Debates Standing Statement)
(Four people introduce themselves in turn and sit down together)
Needless to say, the above methods are unique in form, and more importantly, just a few words contain two views that we refute each other.
First, "moral standards should still exist, why should they be changed because of food and clothing?"
Morality, as a requirement and norm for its members in a certain society, is an ideology and value orientation, which exists in people's thinking consciousness. It won't disappear because people don't have enough to eat and wear. Therefore, food and clothing is obviously not a necessary condition for talking about morality.
Second, "I asked you how worried you are about food and clothing, just because you have no morality."
We believe that the other party's "food and clothing is a necessary condition for talking about morality" shows that people do not have the conditions to talk about morality before they have food and clothing. Therefore, this sentence points out our point of view, that is, we should stress morality even if we don't have enough food and clothing, which is conducive to guiding people out of poverty as soon as possible.
In a word, we think that we should grasp four points in self-introduction, namely, novel form, rich content, touching people with emotion and convincing people with reason. As students who have just participated in the debate, our experience and skills are far from perfect, and there is still a lot to learn. The above is just our superficial understanding of the debate. Please forgive me for the shortcomings and hope to share them with you.