1.

The first argument of the affirmative: Thank you, Chairman. Hello fellow debaters, teachers, judges, and classmates! Our view is that good times are conducive to the development of talents. Of course, we do not deny that adversity can also produce talents, but we believe that good times are more conducive to the development of talents than adversity. Talent refers to people who are outstanding and possess both ability and political integrity. What we call good times is to provide good conditions for the development of such talents. Our chief architect, Comrade Deng Xiaoping, proposed the policy of reform and opening up, which provided smoother and superior conditions for the development of talents. In this great situation, talents emerged in large numbers in our country. This shows that good times give talents more opportunities for performance and development, and good times are more conducive to the development of talents.

My fellow debater, can you deny that we are in an unprecedentedly favorable situation now compared with before liberation? Can you deny that there are much more talents now than before liberation? If this cannot be denied, then how can one deny our point of view?

Opposition debate: First of all, thank you to the opponent’s fellow debater for recognizing our point of view: Talent can emerge from adversity. What is it? We believe that adversity is the external resistance that people encounter in the process of becoming successful, and it also includes difficult and miserable situations. What you talk about before liberation mainly refers to the miserable situation, but you have not yet touched upon the difficult situation. If a person wants to become a talent, he must constantly overcome difficulties, which inevitably puts himself in a difficult situation. Therefore, it is impossible to produce talents in good times, only in adversity. Specifically, first, human history begins with apes overcoming adversity and walking out of the forest. They are the earliest talents; second, adversity exists everywhere, and there will inevitably be resistance to progress. It is precisely in overcoming adversity that talents It arises from various resistances; thirdly, human nature is to take refuge in the easy way. In good times, people are easy to be proud and complacent. Mencius said, "Be born in sorrow and die in happiness." Only in adversity can people turn pressure into motivation and promote career success.

Second debate for the affirmative: First of all, let me ask my opponent’s debate partner, is difficulty equal to adversity? You say that difficulties are also adversities, but you must know that not having enough food to eat and not having enough clothes to cover your body are the most typical adversities! Listening to the broad arguments of the opposing debaters, it seems that you really prefer adversity, but you also say that human nature is to seek refuge in the easy way. How can this be justified? Our first defense has repeatedly stated that adversity can produce talents, but good times are more conducive to producing talents. Therefore, the relationship between good times and adversity is the relationship between the mainstream and the tributary. Statistics from various aspects show that the probability of talent being produced in adversity is much lower than that in good times. Today, Comrade Deng Xiaoping has created such a good situation for us, which has resulted in the emergence of talents in large numbers. Doesn’t it mean that it is easier to produce talents in good times?

The second argument of the opposing side: First of all, we must point out a blind spot of the other side. You have always ignored the subjective factors of people. Our understanding of adversity includes both subjective and objective aspects. We believe that adversity is the collision of internal and external factors. Collision creates resistance. For those who want to become successful, the higher they climb, the greater the difficulty. Since difficulties are inevitable in the process of becoming useful, adversity must exist. The process of a person's maturation is the process of experiencing adversity, and the process of a person's success is also the process of overcoming adversity. As it is said in "Cai Gen Tan": "In adversity, you are surrounded by needles and herbs. If you work hard, you will never succeed." When you feel that you are in a favorable territory, you can see all the swords and halberds in front of you, and you don’t know how to use them to grind bones.”

The third argument of Zhengfang: I would like to remind the other party that you still haven’t solved the problem of “difficulties equal adversity”. question. Our second defense side just pointed out that only survival problems, such as being hungry, are typical adversities. How do you answer? You say that success is a collision between subjectivity and objectivity, but Marxist philosophy tells us that only matter determines consciousness, and there is no so-called collision between subjective consciousness and matter. How does the other debater explain it? We still insist that more talents come out of good times than bad times. According to statistics from relevant newspapers, 60% of the world’s talents come out of good times, while only 40% come out of bad times. How can the other side explain this? Also, I want to ask my fellow debater: Are ancient apes also considered talents? (Laughter, applause)

Three arguments from the opposing side: I really admire what the opponent’s fellow debater said about the percentage of talent, but what is the “relevant” method for “relevant newspapers”? Are you sure about the reliability of the data? Secondly, without ancient apes, where would humans be? It’s not that we prefer adversity, but that adversity exists objectively. We should understand that there is no “utopia” without contradictions and difficulties in the world. The so-called utopia and “peach blossom garden” only exist in the books of thinkers and writers. Therefore, a true talent will never be afraid of adversity. American writer Emerson said: "A good wise man will not give up this opportunity to learn"; British pathology professor Beveridge said: "People's best work is often done under adverse circumstances. "Ideological pressure and even physical pain may become mental stimulants."

Chairman: Let’s start the free debate.

Zhengfang: Still the same question: Does difficulty equal adversity? It has always been unclear whether the adversity mentioned by the opponent's fellow debater is a difficulty or something else.

Opponent: We have already explained this issue, why did the opponent’s fellow debaters ignore it? We say that adversity produces talents but good times do not. Talents 100% come from adversity. This is because the growth history of all talents is indeed the process of getting out of adversity and overcoming adversity. Ostrovsky was blind and paralyzed, but he wrote "How is Steel Made?" ", Edison finally invented the electric light after thousands of failures, Cervantes was poor and wrote "Don Quixote", Cao Xueqin experienced the adversity of his family being copied and wrote "Dream of Red Mansions"... These examples all illustrate Talent emerges from adversity.

Zhengfang: We have just listed the data, 60% and 40%. Good times are more conducive to the development of talents. This is an indisputable fact.

Opponent: The opponent’s debate partner only uses data to make an article. Why not give a few examples to illustrate the problem?

Professor: Since the opponent’s fellow debater is so particular about examples, let me give you an example. For example, someone gives up on themselves when they encounter setbacks. According to the other party, setbacks are adversities. Then what kind of talent can there be? ?

Opponent: Many countries are now promoting setback education, isn’t it just to better cultivate talents?

…………

Chairman: Now we invite both parties to make concluding remarks.

Opposer: I first want to point out the other party’s mistakes. First, the other party made a logical error by using results to deduce conditions; second, the other party only has abstract conclusions, but cannot even cite a specific example. ; Third, the other party misunderstood our meaning and misunderstood that talents 100% come from adversity as adversity 100% produces talents. Let’s summarize our views below. First, saying that adversity produces talents is not just a cognitive issue, but an objective reality. In ancient and modern times, which outstanding talents at home and abroad did not overcome all obstacles and stand out from all kinds of resistance and finally achieved success? When heaven is about to entrust a person with a great responsibility, he must first harden his mind, strain his muscles and bones, starve his body and skin, deplete his body, mess up his actions, and improve what he cannot do. Mencius pointed out two thousand years ago that success is a talent. The only way to go. Second, if you realize that adversity produces talents, you will be able to remain calm in the face of any difficulties and resistance and overcome them. Third, only by understanding that adversity produces talents can we focus on tempering our will and quality, and avoid the situation that occurred at the China-Japan Summer Camp in 1997. Let us remember the advice of the Persian foreigner Sa'di in the 13th century: "If you are in trouble, don't panic, because the fountain of life often flows from the dark!"

Fang Fang: I want to start with Point out the other party's omissions: the other party has never answered our question, that is, whether difficulties are adversity, and that ancient apes are not human beings, so we use this as evidence that they have insufficient talents. We have long made our point of view: good times are more conducive to the development of talents. For example, the current investment environment in our country is much better than before, so investors are flocking here. This is a good situation created by the chief designer for us! Just imagine if it's adversity, how can investors favor it? The frustration with education mentioned by the other party is indeed true, but countries are still striving to run better schools and provide students with a favorable environment for development. Otherwise, why would they run so many universities? This shows that setbacks are only secondary, and good times are fundamental

2.

The positive side: the Zhejiang Provincial Business Cadre School Team, and the negative side: the Hangzhou Law School Team.

Time: 7 pm on June 9, 1998

Venue: Auditorium of Hangzhou Law School

Chairman: Good evening, distinguished guests! Welcome to the "Friendship Cup" debate competition. Compared with the gray sky outside, our place is brightly lit and extremely lively. Today, we are very honored to invite teachers and students from Zhejiang Commercial Cadre School to participate in this debate. We welcome them with warm applause! (Applause) The two teams competing today are elite debaters selected by their respective schools. I believe they will be a feast for the eyes of everyone. Now on the stage are the Shangqian school team and the Hangfa school team. Who can finally win the favor of the judges? Then let them duke it out in words.

Tonight’s debate topic is: Pro: Good times produce talents; Con: Adversity produces talents. The positions of both sides were determined by drawing lots, with Shanggan School winning the favor and Hangfa School drawing the negative side. Now I announce: The debate will now begin, and the affirmative will speak first. First, please ask the affirmative students to express their views.

The first argument from the affirmative: Thank you, Chairman. Hello fellow debaters, teachers, judges, and classmates! Our view is that good times are conducive to the development of talents. Of course, we do not deny that adversity can also produce talents, but we believe that good times are more conducive to the development of talents than adversity. Talent refers to people who are outstanding and possess both ability and political integrity. What we call good times is to provide good conditions for the development of such talents. Our chief architect, Comrade Deng Xiaoping, proposed the policy of reform and opening up, which provided smoother and superior conditions for the development of talents. In this favorable situation, our country has seen the emergence of talents in large numbers. This shows that good times give talents more opportunities for performance and development, and good times are more conducive to the development of talents.

My fellow debater, can you deny that we are in an unprecedentedly favorable situation now compared with before liberation? Can you deny that there are much more talents now than before liberation? If this cannot be denied, then how can one deny our point of view?

Anti-party debate: First of all, thank you to the opponent’s fellow debaters for recognizing our point of view: Talents can emerge from adversity.

What is adversity? We believe that adversity is the external resistance that people encounter in the process of becoming successful, and it also includes difficult and miserable situations. What you talk about before liberation mainly refers to the miserable situation, but you have not yet touched upon the difficult situation. If a person wants to become a talent, he must constantly overcome difficulties, which inevitably puts himself in a difficult situation. Therefore, it is impossible to produce talents in good times, only in adversity. Specifically, first, human history begins with apes overcoming adversity and walking out of the forest. They are the earliest talents; second, adversity exists everywhere, and there will inevitably be resistance to progress. It is precisely in overcoming adversity that talents It arises from various resistances; thirdly, human nature is to take refuge in the easy way. In good times, people are easy to be proud and complacent. Mencius said, "Be born in sorrow and die in happiness." Only in adversity can people turn pressure into motivation and promote career success.

Second debate for the affirmative: First of all, let me ask my opponent’s debate partner, is difficulty equal to adversity? You say that difficulties are also adversities, but you must know that not having enough food to eat and not having enough clothes to cover your body are the most typical adversities! Listening to the other party’s debate friends’ grand arguments, it seems that you really prefer adversity, but you also say that human nature is to seek refuge in the easy way. How can this be justified? Our first defense has repeatedly stated that adversity can produce talents, but good times are more conducive to producing talents. Therefore, the relationship between good times and adversity is the relationship between the mainstream and the tributary. Statistics from various aspects show that the probability of talent being produced in adversity is much lower than that in good times. Today, Comrade Deng Xiaoping has created such a good situation for us, which has resulted in the emergence of talents in large numbers. Doesn’t it mean that it is easier to produce talents in good times?

The second argument of the opposing side: First of all, we must point out a blind spot of the other side. You have always ignored the subjective factors of people. Our understanding of adversity includes both subjective and objective aspects. We believe that adversity is the collision of internal and external factors. Collision creates resistance. For those who want to become successful, the higher they climb, the greater the difficulty. Since difficulties are inevitable in the process of becoming useful, adversity must exist. The process of a person's maturity is the process of experiencing adversity, and the process of a person's success is also the process of overcoming adversity. As it is said in "Cai Gen Tan": "In adversity, you are surrounded by needles and herbs. If you work hard, you will never succeed." When you feel that you are in a favorable territory, you can see all the swords and halberds in front of you, and you don’t know how to use them to grind bones.”

The third argument of Zhengfang: I would like to remind the other party that you still haven’t solved the problem of “difficulties equal adversity”. question. Our second defense side just pointed out that only survival problems, such as being hungry, are typical adversities. How do you answer that? You say that success is a collision between subjectivity and objectivity, but Marxist philosophy tells us that only matter determines consciousness, and there is no so-called collision between subjective consciousness and matter. How does the other debater explain it? We still insist that more talents come out of good times than bad times. According to statistics from relevant newspapers, 60% of the world’s talents come out of good times, while only 40% come out of bad times. How can the other side explain this? Also, I want to ask my fellow debater: Are ancient apes also considered talents? (Laughter, applause)

Three arguments from the opposing side: I really admire what the opponent’s fellow debater said about the percentage of talent, but what is the “relevant” method for “relevant newspapers”? Are you sure about the reliability of the data? Secondly, without ancient apes, where would humans be? It’s not that we prefer adversity, but that adversity exists objectively. We should understand that there is no “utopia” without contradictions and difficulties in the world. The so-called utopia and “peach blossom garden” only exist in the books of thinkers and writers. Therefore, a true talent will never be afraid of adversity. American writer Emerson said: "A good wise man will not give up this opportunity to learn"; British pathology professor Beveridge said: "People's best work is often done under adverse circumstances. "Ideological pressure and even physical pain may become mental stimulants."

Chairman: Let’s start the free debate.

Zhengfang: Still the same question: Does difficulty equal adversity? It has always been unclear whether the adversity mentioned by the opponent's fellow debater is a difficulty or something else.

Opponent: We have already explained this issue, why did the opponent’s fellow debaters ignore it? We say that adversity produces talents but good times do not. Talents 100% come from adversity. This is because the growth history of all talents is indeed the process of getting out of adversity and overcoming adversity. Ostrovsky was blind and paralyzed, but he wrote "How is Steel Made?" ", Edison finally invented the electric light after thousands of failures, Cervantes was poor and wrote "Don Quixote", Cao Xueqin experienced the adversity of his family being copied and wrote "Dream of Red Mansions"... These examples all illustrate Talent emerges from adversity.

Zhengfang: We have just listed the data, 60% and 40%. Good times are more conducive to the development of talents. This is an indisputable fact.

Opponent: The opponent’s debate partner only uses data to make an article. Why not give a few examples to illustrate the problem?

Professor: Since the opponent’s fellow debater is so particular about examples, let me give you an example. For example, someone gives up on themselves when they encounter setbacks. According to the other party, setbacks are adversity. Then what kind of talent can there be? ?

Opponent: Many countries are now promoting setback education, isn’t it just to better cultivate talents?

…………

Chairman: Now we invite both parties to make concluding remarks.

Opposer: I first want to point out the other party’s mistakes. First, the other party made a logical error by using results to deduce conditions; second, the other party only has abstract conclusions, but cannot even cite a specific example. ; Third, the other party misunderstood our meaning and misunderstood that talents 100% come from adversity as adversity 100% produces talents. Let’s summarize our views below. First, saying that adversity produces talents is not just a cognitive issue, but an objective reality. In ancient and modern times, at home and abroad, which outstanding talent has not overcome all obstacles and stood out from all kinds of resistance and finally achieved success? When heaven is about to entrust a person with a great responsibility, he must first harden his mind, strain his muscles and bones, starve his body and skin, deplete his body, mess up his actions, and improve what he cannot do. Mencius pointed out two thousand years ago that success is a talent. The only way to go. Second, if you realize that adversity produces talents, you will be able to remain calm in the face of any difficulties and resistance and overcome them. Third, only by understanding that adversity produces talents can we focus on tempering our will and quality, and avoid the situation that occurred at the China-Japan Summer Camp in 1997. Let us remember the advice of the Persian foreigner Sa'di in the 13th century: "If you are in trouble, don't panic, because the fountain of life often flows from the dark!"

Fang Fang: I first want to Point out the other party's omissions: the other party has never answered our question, that is, whether difficulties are adversity, and that ancient apes are not human beings, so we use this as evidence that they have insufficient talents. We have long made our point of view: good times are more conducive to the development of talents. For example, the current investment environment in our country is much better than before, so investors are flocking here. This is a good situation created by the chief designer for us! Just imagine if it's adversity, how can investors favor it? The frustration with education mentioned by the other party is indeed true, but countries are still striving to run better schools and provide students with a favorable environment for development. Otherwise, why would they run so many universities? This shows that setbacks are only secondary, and good times are fundamental.

(The judging panel scores, counts, and the instructor makes a comment speech, omitted)

Chairman: Now I announce that after the majority vote of the judging panel, tonight’s "Friendship Cup Debate Competition" "The winner is the Hangzhou Law School team.

3. Find a few outstanding questions in the free debate, hoping to defeat the opponent in one fell swoop through such questions, leaving others dumb or passive all the way...

I think you have this idea to some extent, that's why you ask this question.

I think the key to the debate is the logical structure. Only a strong logical structure combined with vivid and clear expression is the key and core to winning a debate. Please believe that it is not the party with original and novel ideas that will win. Being able to express one's thoughts clearly is already very difficult. So when competing, you should still focus on how to implement and express your ideas well. It is actually unwise to prepare some traps or problems before the game. Often, the team members try every means to rely on this idea in order to perform these "stunts", ignoring the on-site situation, and the effect is very poor. Please believe that the above paragraph is not nonsense.

You must have read a lot of information on this question. I think it is unnecessary to re-analyze the question and put forward the basic ideas. If you are well prepared, then you will definitely feel the same way about the problems mentioned below or have encountered them before.

One is the issue of adversity and despair. The other party usually uses reductio ad absurdum in this question. For example, he would say, "Since my friend said that adversity is conducive to growth, why are you still studying here and getting an education? Why don't you just go to the streets and beg? What kind of adversity is that!"

This is a A typical problem, even for the highest level players, is to attack from this angle. So let’s talk about this type of problem as an example.

Such a question involves two aspects of issues, one of which is the issue of adversity and despair. You can see that he will make you seek your own death, artificially jumping into a very unfavorable environment or a desperate situation.

We cannot avoid the common practice here... Once we hear this kind of question, we should still stand up and declare resolutely: adversity does not mean despair! Is it possible for a person to achieve great achievements despite being terminally ill and dying tomorrow? Obviously impossible. There is a difference between adversity and desperate situations. Friends from the other side of the debate, please imagine that if today's question is changed to "Which is more conducive to human growth, good times or desperate times?", would it be possible to debate such a question? It's obviously ridiculous.

Here the other party will ask a definition question. This is a tangled link. I suggest skipping it directly and answering like this: Friend the other party, you asked me how to define adversity and despair? Let me tell you, in adverse circumstances, I can do the same thing through hard work; but in desperate circumstances, I can't do it no matter how hard I try. This is the difference. Don’t dwell on this unclear issue too much, and don’t try to come up with criteria for distinguishing adversity from desperate situations. It is easy for the other party to classify desperate situations as special cases of adversity, and it is far away from the topic. Therefore, we only need to let everyone know that adversity and desperate situations are two different things, without telling the other party how to distinguish them.

What is more noteworthy about this type of problem is the second aspect it involves. This kind of question from the other party describes the following scenario: when a person has the initiative to choose, he voluntarily gives up the favorable conditions and chooses the unfavorable conditions. Obviously this goes against the basic laws of human behavior. We cannot tolerate such defensive weakness.

On this issue, they are essentially pointing out a "contradiction" on our side, that is: people seek advantages and avoid disadvantages, and seek better external environments and conditions, while we are demanding People actively enter unfavorable environments.

I think the confrontation on this issue basically determines the outcome of the game. On this issue, I think the performance of both parties in the college debate competition is worthy of discussion. Because the opponent mentioned that "life is not a choice", it sounds like this at first, but in fact there is a problem. For example, now that I am admitted to college, in order to seek adversity, I can choose not to go to college and go wandering on the streets (actually this is a reductio adversarial). So don’t make the argument that life is not a choice, like the other side of that game did.

Then I’m so sleepy...I’ll go to bed today and continue to discuss it tomorrow~

As for the above question, I thought about it again and again today. I think the following content is basically rigorous. of. My personal analysis is as follows:

First of all, we must admit that people pursue favorable external environments and conditions, that is, "good times."

But the most important thing is that at this time, our starting point is: "accomplishment" rather than "growth". That is to say, for everyone who pursues prosperity, his vision and reason for pursuing prosperity are only to achieve his expected goal, not his own growth.

This is understandable and consistent with the facts. Most of the time in our lives, our thinking is: What do I need to do this thing; rather than what do I need for my own growth.

A student encounters a difficult problem. In order to solve this problem, he can seek guidance from the teacher. At this time, his goal is to solve this problem; and if he wants to substantially improve his problem-solving ability, , he should choose independent thinking instead of the teacher's help. Good times can help you achieve your goals, but in the process of success achieved with the help of the external environment, your own growth is limited, or at least less than the degree of growth in adversity. Why? This proves that we can list all the ways that adversity can help people, and these are things that people in good times will never be able to appreciate.

To sum up the above paragraph, the core is: "success" does not mean "growth".

The next issue is one that the other party is likely to hit, which is homogeneous comparison.

If the other party wants to compare, they should compare the same person. All qualities of this person should be the same. Now for a person who is the same in all aspects, good times are naturally more conducive to growth. It's like two cars with exactly the same performance, but of course they run faster on the road than on the road.

This problem is easier to solve: because the other party's comparison, this so-called seemingly reasonable "homogeneous comparison" requirement is inherently inconsistent with reality and logic. Because the biggest advantage of adversity over good times is that it makes people undergo more training and become more mentally mature and determined; even the same person cannot be the same in these two situations. Having said this, I also thought that even if the other party raised this issue, their starting point was still "to get things done."

Haha, at this point I can't help but recall the positive side in the finals. You can see that they are actually playing "Success".

That’s all for now, I’ll add more when I think of it. Let me emphasize, if you, the poster, agree that success does not mean growth, then you need to start preparing how to stand on this point. But it’s still easy to handle. The student’s problem solving above is an example.

Finally, I would like to reiterate my personal opinion: Don’t pursue novelty...Both sides have studied that game thoroughly...Their points of confrontation are all core issues summarized after various considerations. You It is precisely these issues that we should be working on, why do we have to start from scratch? I know these words may not meet your requirements, but you can imagine, if we are not even fully prepared for the opponent's most likely attack point and cannot defend it well, then what is the point of pursuing novelty?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX My answer was "fairly acceptable" and I said that I "tended to copy it". Then as an assistant, you mentioned that you were on the "debating team" and felt that if my answer was not accepted, it should be because "the order of answers is relatively close." back". Okay, there are some things I didn’t say yesterday, but it turns out I should make a statement...

First of all, I regret to tell you that I am also a member of the debate team of Wuhan University.

Then, you said that I should copy this tendency. I don’t want to start a debate with you here about which “experience or creation” is more important.

I just want to explain that I personally think that both sides of the competition had already dug very deep. How much of what you said was novel and original? How many issues don’t ultimately come down to someone else arguing?

These are quoted from the side, you can click on them and there are many more

I hope they can help you...