1, Ren, Qin Ye.

Kindness is also benevolent, and kissing is also great.

2. In the new era, it is the most important.

Confucius and Mencius have no talent, can they have "benevolence"?

1, no, no! There are many terrorists with superior intelligence, but they don't use their talents to benefit mankind with kindness, but do things that endanger human peace. Can you say that they are ideal talents?

2. "Wisdom" is the inner essence and "benevolence" is the external expression.

Internal essence determines external performance.

1, Hitler, Mussolini and Francisco can all become heads of state. Naturally, their IQ is very high. Is this the so-called internal essence of the opposition that determines their external manifestations of slaughter, aggression and plunder? Is this Ren?

Wisdom is not necessarily a virtue, but virtue is highly respected!

2. The people listed by the other debater are really wise but not virtuous, but if they don't have the superhuman wisdom of just people and only rely on righteousness, then I want to ask the other debater, will those people you listed be moved by the righteousness of just people? If we only rely on righteousness, can we still win a just war?

I want to ask another debater to think about a problem. If talents are based on benevolence, can human science and technology achieve today's achievements? Will human society progress? I think the other debater is talking about the ancient clan era! ! !

1, without virtue and talent, it is a disaster for the country and the people! So, I don't want this deviation!

2, please pay attention to, don't always digress, is crooked an ideal talent? Under this premise, the ideal talents who are really beneficial to the country and the nation are definitely those who can use their brains. To realize socialism, development is the last word, and the premise is scientific and technological innovation and intelligence.

1, I don't think the other debater will deny that universities are fertile ground for cultivating ideal talents, right? Please take a look at the school motto of these universities: Tsinghua, self-improvement, morality; Southeast university, stop at the best; Jinan University, loyal and respectful; China Ocean University is full of rivers. School motto is the goal of cultivating talents, from which we can see the importance of benevolence!

If the modern society is not dominated by wisdom, then the United States will not be so powerful. May I ask another debater, is the benevolence of the United States better than that of China? If they take "benevolence" as the criterion of enriching the country and strengthening the army, there will be no invasion of Iraq and no interference in China's RMB exchange rate. Believe it, no boss will not have excellent business skills because an employee is full of goodwill.

1, please make it clear to your opponent that the United States is doing foreign policy. If the United States does not encourage benevolence and everyone uses their talents to persecute rather than engage in economy, can the United States be strong? And if a company employee is talented, but heartless and betrays the company everywhere, will the boss take him in? ,

We don't mean to be unkind, but to say that wisdom is dominant. The so-called wisdom refers to people's various abilities. On the contrary, how can we understand benevolence without wisdom? Without wisdom, can we understand Ren's school motto? The employee mentioned by the other debater, not to mention that he is not an ideal talent, even if he is an ideal talent, is not heartless, but not smart enough to judge what is the best development for him.

1, we said that the ideal talent should be based on benevolence, but we did not deny the role of wisdom. What the other side said is "no wisdom" is beyond the scope of our debate; Only under the guidance of benevolence can we promote the development direction of society with wisdom.

2. The opponent's debater is right, but I want to give a practical example. A doctor's medical skill is not high, so his patient died. Is such a doctor also a talent?

1, another debater, which do you care more about, the poor medical skills of doctors or the poor medical ethics of doctors? I'm afraid the patient died because of poor medical skills, and the patient died because of poor medical ethics. The latter's behavior is worse! The opposing debater should not classify the worse latter as an ideal talent, right? Let him see you, I think you must be reluctant!

2, the so-called doctor is to have medical skills, or can he become a doctor? Since he can't become a doctor, how can he have medical skills?