Debate on whether heroes are desirable by success or failure! Wu Tian (6th International Debate Competition): There are heroes in ancient times. Li Bai said in a poem: "The king of Qin swept the six rivers, and the tiger was powerful." Zhan He, the Warring States of the Eastern Zhou Dynasty, said, "A brave man is a real man, and don't judge a hero by success or failure." It can be seen that since ancient times, heroes have been talked about success or failure, and benevolent people have different opinions. However, the topic of the times should have the significance of the times. Today, regarding heroes as success or failure is no longer a method or standard, but as a statement and a kind of value exists in our times. First, the idea of success or failure as a hero has its own merits. Although the ancients argued endlessly about this, the reason why they argued endlessly for thousands of years is not to explain its merits from one side. We look at this sentence today, not from such a simple angle, but with a pragmatic attitude, taking its essence and discarding its dross, so as to adapt it to the needs of the times. Second, the value of success or failure As a hero, its desirability lies in linking success with heroes. Heroes are not simple people, nor heroic badges, nor cold tombstones. It represents a symbol of spirit, a national flag and an example for the people. Thirdly, the desirability of a hero based on success or failure lies in its wide practical significance. Because as a value, it encourages the whole society to learn from heroes and pursue success. Jiangge (opposing debate): The ancients also said that "the name is irregular and the words are not smooth". Only by clearly defining the concept can we have a meaningful debate. According to the authoritative Modern Chinese Dictionary, success or failure is relative to specific goals. A hero refers to a person who can arouse the lofty feelings of others with his outstanding talents and qualities. The so-called success or failure hero means that success is a hero and failure is not a hero. We think this view is not desirable for two reasons. First, we can't talk about a plump and vivid hero with a comprehensive and rigid theory of success or failure, so this view is wrong in theory. Whether a gifted hero can achieve external success depends on objective factors such as weather, geographical location and human harmony. Second, from the perspective of success or failure, one-sided exaggeration of utilitarian significance. In this way, what will this utilitarian world look like? It's really hard to imagine Zheng Zihao (positive debate): Let me first point out two mistakes made by other students. First, logically, the "desirable" on our side is desirable, but it is not the same as plagiarism. The "undesirable" on the other side is simply not desirable. The other party must demonstrate this sentence, no matter from which angle or level, it is not worth learning and accepting. Second, the other party takes success or failure as a concrete method and applies it to the practice of real life, but please don't forget that what we are going to do today is value judgment, not fact judgment. The reason why we advocate the hero of success or failure is based on this kind of value, which has its desirability at three levels: individual, country and even society. First, at the personal level, the desirability of this value lies in his advocacy of success and encouragement for people to pursue success. Second, the desirability of this value is also reflected in its role in promoting the development of the country. From individuals to countries, they all pursue the same truth of advocating success. The desirability of this value at the social level lies in its ability to shape and create social values that encourage the pursuit of success and become the value orientation of social trends and the guiding direction of social behavior. Ding Yuan (against the two debates): From the first debate to the second debate, the other side told us that their views today are only to prove that it is advisable to judge heroes by success or failure. In fact, the biggest shortcoming of heroes in terms of success or failure is that they can't distinguish heroes. First, from the perspective of success, if success is a hero, we can draw the conclusion that Hitler was a hero at the beginning of World War II. He established the Third Reich and swept Europe with his iron hoof. But do you agree that he is a hero? Secondly, in terms of failure, if failure is not a hero, then neither Jing Ke nor Bruno are heroes, but are they really not heroes? Thirdly, success or failure, as a relative concept, always exists in certain competition, and the success of one competitor means the failure of another. So we can draw the third conclusion that the result of any game is heroes and bears. According to other students' views, judging heroes by success or failure, the result can only be that fake heroes are popular and real heroes are declining. Fu Xin (positive three debates): I explain the value desirability of heroes based on success or failure from three aspects. First, from the perspective of values, the meaning of success has been expanded. Because at this time, success also includes the value orientation of pursuing success, not simply the realization of personal goals, but also the positive significance to society. Second, advocating heroic values based on success or failure can break the old and establish the new, and evaluate people with a more fair and objective concept. On the hero of success or failure, this kind of values advocates a more objective and fair idea. We say that heroes are not afraid of humble origins. What do you look at without looking at your origins? Look at success and pursue the value orientation of success. From the traditional point of view, some people will never be heroes, but as long as they pursue success, they are the heroes that our times need. Thirdly, the desirability of success or failure value as a hero is also reflected in its special significance to losers. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said: "Our society should give losers a chance to succeed again." I want to ask everyone here who hasn't tasted failure. But because of this, do we give up the pursuit of success? The value of pursuing success makes us not spit on the loser, but encourage him to continue pursuing success. Lei Yu (three opposing arguments): First, let's look at another student's logic. Another student said that if they listed a little advantages today, they would be desirable. However, if we list more shortcomings, it is not undesirable. Is this called "only state officials can set fires, but people can't light lamps"? If another student must ask us today, is there any merit? I said yes, where is it? This can make everyone realize how harmful heroes are in terms of success or failure. Let's see how other students demonstrate. Other students have two arguments. First of all, if you don't succeed, you don't succeed, so you should judge a hero by success or failure. Let's think about it. If the hero doesn't eat, the hero will become a ghost hero. Then can we judge heroes by their appetite and see who eats more? Another classmate also told everyone to pursue success and encourage success. But does encouraging and pursuing success mean judging heroes by success or failure? In fact, the problem of other students today is that they are not clear about the examination questions. What is a success or failure hero? In other words, a person is a hero if he succeeds, but not a hero if he fails. Then let's think about it, many heroes have the shadow of success, and we don't object, but which ordinary person hasn't had a little success? If heroes and ordinary people are successful, how can we judge a hero only by success? Confrontation: the opponent only regards the hero who succeeds or fails as the standard to measure the hero, but does not see that he represents a kind of value. Counterparty: We have made it very clear that we encourage success, but it also depends on how people pursue success. It is success or failure that leads to unscrupulous pursuit of success. Zheng Zihao: May I ask another debater, does a hero encourage success by judging success or failure? Zhou Xuanyi: Opponents, we should encourage success today, but we can't encourage success by any means. So we can't encourage heroes to be judged by success or failure. I want to ask you a logical question. Is success a sufficient or necessary condition for a hero? Fu Xin: Why do other debaters only see unscrupulous success? Can't we take the essence and discard the dross when we advocate it? Lei Yu: This is not to say that we want to see success by hook or by crook. The question is, how many people will succeed by hook or by crook under the guise of success or failure heroes? Ask other students to answer our four questions. Wu Tian: Do opponents think that economic development is not desirable because today's economic development may bring environmental damage? Don't we have other values to restrain today? Ding Yuan: Another student's analogy is inappropriate. How do you know that success or failure is the hero's economic development rather than environmental damage? Another student hasn't answered our four questions yet. Let me ask you another specific question. "Kuafu Chasing the Sun" and "Jingwei Reclaiming the Sea" both failed. Are Kuafu and Jingwei Heroes? Chen Xiaohuan: Actually, the wrong answer today is from other debaters. They only regard the hero who succeeds or fails as the standard to measure the hero, but they don't see that he represents a kind of value. Excuse me, what's wrong with encouraging success? Jiangge: We have made it very clear that we encourage success, but it also depends on how people pursue success. It is success or failure that leads to unscrupulous pursuit of success. You didn't answer just now. Is success a sufficient or necessary condition to be a hero? Let me ask you another negative question. Is failure a sufficient or necessary condition to be a non-hero? Zheng Zihao: Our society not only has a single value, but also can restrict each other in the values of pluralistic coexistence. Our society also advocates morality, and we also pursue truth, goodness and beauty. Lei Yu: It turns out that another classmate said that it is part of the correct values to talk about heroes by success or failure. Heroes are desirable, but let's think about it. Tires are still part of the car, and it is acceptable to sit in the car. Is it advisable to sit on a tire? Fu Xin: The other debater said it well. You did see the negative effects. But we are talking about the values of a society. Why can't we take the essence and discard the dross when advocating social values? Will our society advocate utilitarianism? Ding Yuan: According to another student, today's debate should be changed to "It is appropriate to talk about heroes by success or failure". Please don't confuse the topic. Another student didn't answer the complete and necessary items once. Please tell me whether it is a sufficient condition or a necessary condition. Does it matter? Wu Tian: We don't need to see whether this is a sufficient condition or a necessary condition. Because what we see today is a hero based on success or failure, a value orientation of pursuing success, why can't this value orientation go? Ask the other debater to answer directly. Jiang Ge: I think we have answered this question clearly in the second, third and fourth debates, including me. You don't explain the logical question, but ask a specific question. Yue Fei's ideal is to go straight to Huanglong and have a drink with the gentlemen. This ideal finally failed. Why is he still a great hero in history? Summary ■ Positive: It is advisable to discuss the value of heroes by success or failure, because first of all, it conforms to human nature, and human beings are animals that pursue meaning, and success is one of the best interpretations of this meaning. ■ The opposing side: Heroes are also people. He has both Excellence and fatal weakness, and success or failure is only the result of an instant. Zhou Xuanyi (four opposing arguments): Today we are going to start with logic. How can the opponent debater say that it is only a logical question to talk about heroes by success or failure? We talked about fact judgment, and another classmate said, how can we judge a hero by success or failure? Then I really don't know what we should talk about today. Indeed, we know very well that what the other debater wants to tell you today is that we should see the true colors of heroes in success, which we never deny. But when we really theorize about heroes, what do we see? Please think about it. Why do we say that Guan Yu is a hero when we succeed and that Guan Yu is a hero when we fail? This just shows that the true nature of a hero exists beyond success or failure. Today, our debate has made this very clear. Heroes are also flesh and blood. He has both Excellence and fatal weakness, and success or failure is only the result of an instant. There are many factors that determine the result of success or failure, including the subjective efforts of the protagonist himself, as well as objective factors such as weather, geography, people and so on, which are independent of human will. How can the East China Sea Dragon fit in an inch, and how can we judge the earth-shattering heroism by the scale of success or failure? However, when success or failure becomes the yardstick for judging heroes, the lofty spiritual quality of heroes will be forgotten by us. When success becomes the standard to measure heroes, the means become irrelevant. Therefore, meanness becomes the passport of the despicable, while nobility can only be used as the epitaph of the noble. It is not clear at a glance whether to purify our morality or annihilate our conscience in today's realistic society where utilitarian rationality is expanding and humanistic spirit is declining. Chen Xiaohuan (four arguments for the positive side): As the saying goes, "A hero has been a teenager since ancient times" and "a newborn calf is not afraid of tigers". Why? Because everyone embodies a value orientation of pursuing success, but today, we look at heroes, only at facts, not at value. What they want to demonstrate is an inadvisability, that is, it is not advisable to judge the success or failure of heroes from the perspective of facts or values. However, up to now, the other debater has not only failed to demonstrate the inadvisability, but also once fell into the quagmire of factual judgment. Is it advisable to judge whether the hero is correct by success or failure as a fact and whether it is desirable by value? This is totally different. Even from the perspective of factual judgment, it is not undesirable to judge heroes by success or failure. Today, we think it is advisable to talk about the value of heroes by success or failure, because first of all, it conforms to human nature. Man is an animal that pursues meaning, and success is one of the best interpretations of this meaning. No one doesn't want to break through, and no one doesn't want to succeed, because this is a heartfelt yearning. Secondly, heroes can promote social progress based on success or failure. The lessons of failure are valuable, but progress must be achieved through success. A society has never been established by a group of losers, and social progress is accumulated by the success of countless people. Thirdly, judging heroes by success or failure is conducive to the unity of personal value and social value. Personal value is divorced from social value and may become selfish, while social value without personal value will exist in name only. The new era has given new meaning to success or failure, and the new century has given new mission. Only the hero who pursues success is the strong man of an era, and only the hero who despises failure is the backbone of a nation. (The defense was abridged) The judges focused on Xu Tingfang (the representative of the judges): Zheng Fang's strategic main axis is that the value orientation of pursuing success after success or failure is desirable. This kind of prologue gave Zheng Fang a very broad space. Opponents are not to be outdone. Their argument is that achievement is success and lofty spirit is hero. This definition narrows the loose definition of positive aspects. Today's debate is success or failure. Positive emphasis on the spiritual value orientation behind success or failure, with emphasis on success or failure. Negative takes lofty bearing as the definition standard of hero, with emphasis on hero. If the proponents dare to face up to a key contradiction, that is, the winner is king and the loser is the enemy, the debate may be wonderful to a higher level. Just when both sides made their own achievements, the opposite suddenly appeared, because the positive side used an argument, and the negative side had to prove that it was completely undesirable, and the positive side only had to prove that it was desirable. The opponent said that this argument is actually that "only state officials can set fires, and no hundred people can light them." This kind of counterattack not only hit the nail on the head, but almost came close to sealing the throat with blood. The referee ruled that the opponent won. (2) The ancients said "the theory of success or failure of heroes since ancient times". For many years, it has been deeply imprinted in people's hearts like truth, but today, people prefer "not to judge heroes by success or failure" because they have seen too many such things in their eyes: some people do whatever it takes to succeed; Some people's efforts for ten years are the result of failure; Some people succeed many times and are blamed for a failure; Some people fail many times and are called so-called heroes because of one success. They look in their eyes and think in their hearts: it is better not to talk about heroes by success or failure! Based on the above psychology, more and more people in today's society think that "heroes are not judged by success or failure". However, I really beg to differ. If you are bored, you might as well listen to me carefully, which will definitely make you suddenly enlightened, which will also increase the interest of the other party. Why are you unhappy? Xiao Sheng believed that "heroes should be judged by success or failure". First of all, I want to correct a conceptual mistake. Usually people think that "success is a hero", that is, "success is a hero, failure is not a hero", but it is not. This explanation is a one-sided understanding of the meaning of "success or failure as a hero". In the big circle of "success is a hero, failure is not a hero", it is only one member of the circle, and there should be other members in the circle. Such as "success is also a hero, failure is also a hero", "success is not a hero, failure is also a hero" and "success or failure is not a hero". In this way, it is a comprehensive "success or failure hero." When we look back at those heroes who failed to come out because "success is a hero, failure is not a hero", we can justly give them a heroic aura. Yes, Napoleon was defeated in the Battle of Waterloo, but we still say that he is a hero, because we have "defeat is also a hero". In this way, the perfection of everything, the perfection of feathers, has also become a hero because of "judging heroes by success or failure." Now I want to talk about how the other three viewpoints talk about heroes. Success is a hero, failure is not a hero. It only talks about some successful heroes, but it can't talk about failed heroes, but we must admit that it talks about heroes (the heroes it can't talk about are given to the other three). "Success is not a hero, failure is a hero" can also be a hero? Yes, it's just that it's about very few heroes. This view may be hard for everyone to accept, but it doesn't matter, you will understand if you can't see the content. Some people have made many small successes in life, but we can't say that they are heroes, because once those successes are put far away, they are nothing, so "success is not a hero." However, some people have repeatedly lost and fought in major battles. In order to defend the territory of the motherland, their spirit is really good, so there is a saying that "defeat is a hero"; "Success or failure is not a hero", for this view, if success or failure is regarded as a small gain or loss in life, we will easily accept it. How can we get the great hero in people's mind from the suffering and loss in life? I admit that "success or failure hero", "success or failure hero", "failure hero" and "failure hero" are all one-sided. But they all talk about heroes and heroes from their own one-sided aspects. When heroes in all aspects are combined, they become heroes in people's lives. Such heroes include all heroes, which means a lot. Marshal Chen Yi said that it is easier to be a successful hero than a failed hero. It seems that it would be better to change it to "it is difficult to be a successful hero, and it is even harder to be a failed hero". But it just shows that "success is also a hero, and failure is also a hero." Isn't this the view of "success or failure hero" in "success or failure hero"? Based on the above explanation, I want to say that "heroes should judge heroes by their success or failure". As long as you are a real hero, "hero success or failure" can definitely tell you (if you can't, it's probably because you are not a real hero). Please remember that the so-called "hero is not judged by success or failure" is only the encouragement of leaders and the comfort of friends, and it has nothing to do with real heroes, while "defeating yourself" is always a slogan that is meaningful only to yourself and meaningless to others. My friend, now you should feel that "success or failure is a hero"!

Answer person added? 2009- 1 1-08 15:23

The landlord can read other people's content like this: any meaningful debate must have a scientific definition. But we can't agree with each other's definition just now. What is a hero? A hero is a person who struggles for a just cause and can arouse the lofty feelings of others. In short, heroes are the embodiment of justice. What is success or failure? "Success" is the achievement of the expected purpose, which includes two contents: one is the success of the material category, and the other is the benevolence of the spiritual category. What is a "success or failure hero"? Is to judge heroes by failure and success. We believe that there are four reasons for "judging heroes by success or failure": First, all heroes have success factors, and this factor is success. Qi Jiguang, an anti-Japanese hero, Zheng Chenggong, a national hero, Yang Liwei, a space hero, and Liu Xiang, a hurdler, all successfully interpreted the meaning of hero. Second, every hero has a "success" factor, and this factor is "benevolence". Confucius said, "A benevolent person is a benevolent person, but if he has nothing, he will harm benevolence, but if he is killed, he will become a benevolent person." Benevolence here is the highest standard of Confucian morality. Later, it generally refers to giving up one's life in order to safeguard a just cause. From ancient times to the present, there are countless heroes who give their lives for righteousness and die. Wen Tianxiang, Tan Sitong, Li Dazhao and Qiu Jin, they are "wealth can't be lewd, poverty can't be moved, and bending can't be bent." They would rather die than surrender, and their lofty personality of competing with the sun and the moon inspires China people from generation to generation! Third, every hero has a "success" factor, that is, "both success and perseverance." Xiang Yu "was born a strange man and died a ghost hero"; Liu Hulan's "great life, glorious death" is famous for their heroic feat of "making the gods cry"! Fourth, there is no hero who is not successful or heroic. Heroes have their own place to be called heroes. If a person has never succeeded, and his life is full of failures, he can still be regarded as a hero. I am afraid that no one can be found in the books that have traveled all over the world. Therefore, we believe that a strong man takes pride and a hero takes success or failure! (Counter argument questions) 1, Counter argument, hello! Your point of view just now is not to talk about heroes by success or failure, that is, not to talk about heroes by success or failure. Now, can you tell us a hero who neither succeeds nor fails? Please give an example. 2. The other party is speechless, which means that there are no heroes who fail or fail, so our view is correct. Ask the other party to debate the question: can we talk about heroes without talking about "success or failure" Just now, the other side said six words "success" and six words "failure" in the second debate, and still did not leave the hero of success or failure. Ask the other side to argue three times, and don't make the same mistake. Please listen to the question: you said not to judge heroes by success or failure, so what do you judge heroes by? Do you think heroes are old, young, noble, black, white, fat and thin? Please answer in concise language what is your criterion for judging heroes? 4. The opponent's three arguments did not directly answer our questions, misinterpreting (lowering) the criteria for judging heroes. Ask the other party to answer in four arguments: what we are debating here today is a hero. In fact, the most classic in history is Cao Cao's On Childhood Heroes. Cao Cao talks about heroes, Yuan Shu, Yuan Shao, Liu Biao, Liu Zhang, Sun Ce, Zhang Xiu, Zhang Lu and Han Sui. Which one is not a hero based on success or failure? (Summary of three opposing arguments) Thank you, Chairman, Judges, and friends who oppose arguments, hello! Throughout the questioning stage, it has begun to show who wins and who loses. We can (basically) effectively refute the four questions raised by the other party, but it seems illogical and far-fetched for the other party to answer our four questions in turn. The other side can't give an example of a hero who is neither successful nor failed, nor can it deny that Cao Cao's theory of heroism is based on success or failure, let alone on success or failure. This is because talking about heroes without success or failure is tantamount to building castles in the air. As we all know, no matter what we talk about, we must have a foundation and premise, and the premise of talking about the heroic foundation is the word success or failure. Look at the other side's point of view: "don't talk about heroes by success or failure". What is after removing "success or failure"? Is it "no heroes"? In that case, why did the other party come to us to talk about heroes? In fact, don't judge heroes by success or failure, just like: don't judge heroes by strength, don't judge feelings by love and hate, and don't judge life by life and death. Wouldn't the other debater become "don't judge gender by men and women"? Isn't this ridiculous? Therefore, the correctness of our point of view is beyond doubt! (Summary of four opposing arguments) Thank you, Mr. Chairman, judges and friends who oppose arguments, hello! "Drums don't knock, don't ring, and don't argue." Throughout the whole debate, in the opening statement, we first expounded the correctness and scientificity of our views from four aspects. Then we questioned each other from four angles in the second debate, and then we objectively summarized the absurdity of each other's views and the unquestionable nature of our views in the third debate. In the stage of free debate, we are more step by step, seize each other's loopholes and give a strong counterattack. However, in this process, the other debater seems to be powerless and full of loopholes: first, the other debater splits the relationship between the whole and the part. When they see a person fail, they say that he has failed, but they have not seen his numerous previous successes and his great personality and spiritual quality. No need to look at the problem from the perspective of connection, no wonder we can't draw a scientific conclusion. Second, the scope of the concept of success has been deliberately narrowed. Success is not only the success of the cause, but also the realization of the goal; It is also a spiritual and personality success. The other party only regards the hero as an action, not knowing whether the hero is still a character. This is a one-sided view! Third, the other debater denied that he was a hero by success or failure, but he couldn't come up with a standard of his own. How can he be convincing if he breaks and does not stand? Let me further summarize the correctness of our views. The reason why heroes are definitely judged by success or failure is because we can judge and evaluate heroes from a historical perspective and a materialistic and dialectical point of view. Whether it is an iron horse or a dream back to the company camp; Whether it is catching the moon in nine days or catching turtles in five oceans; All these heroes have inspired generations of Chinese sons and daughters with their amazing achievements and great personalities! Recalling the past, dajiangdong went to the waves and scoured out heroes of the ages; Look now, the sun is rising, and all China people are heroes. Heroes don't ask the source, what kind of hero would you rather have? Times need heroes, times need success! Let's all become successful heroes in the new era! Thank you! Second, the material that proves the hero's success or failure is 1. Heroes have been regarded as the backbone of a nation since ancient times, but in today's materialistic world, the emergence of heroes gives people a direction and hope. 2. The value of a hero is not to gain, but to pay; Not ability, but action; It's not what individuals get, but what contributions they make to society. 3. Natural selection for survival of the fittest. The rule of the market is that only the strong have the right to live, and whoever wins is a hero. (For example, Pang Donglai of Xuchang has become the boss of Xuchang's commodity retail industry. With what? Their successful business philosophy. . . . . . I) 4。 A hero is known in the time of misfortune. Modern people need heroes and soldiers. Not only mentally, but physically. A nation without heroes is sad and there is no such thing. Every era needs the guidance of a hero, even if the hero doesn't succeed in the end. Heroes are the lights of national enlightenment. Even if we don't lead people to out of the dark, it's not far from dawn. The concept of success or failure is a relatively objective and fair concept. We say that heroes are not afraid of humble origins. What do you look at without looking at your origins? Look at success and pursue the value orientation of success. From the traditional point of view, some people will never be heroes, but as long as they pursue success, they are the heroes that our times need. 7. I want to ask everyone here if they have ever tasted failure. But because of this, do we give up the pursuit of success? The value of pursuing success makes us not spit on the loser, but encourage him to continue pursuing success. 8. The opponent only regards the hero of success or failure as the standard to measure the hero, but does not see that he represents a kind of value. What's wrong with encouraging success?