An affirmative debate: Thank you, Madam President, and hello!

In ancient times, Huashan talked about swords, and Jianghu heroes fought. There is social competition today, and generalists compete with each other. Today, our view is that generalists are more suitable for social competition.

First of all, let's clarify several concepts: a generalist refers to a person who is familiar with the knowledge and ability in various disciplines and makes creative talents within its scope. A professional refers to a person who has profound attainments in a certain subject and has made considerable achievements. Here, we need to distinguish between experts and generalists. For example, a physicist will use mathematical knowledge to support his physical calculus. If mathematics is only the basis of his physical research, such a person can only be called an expert. If a physicist's mathematical achievements far exceed the basic level of physics research and he has made some achievements in mathematics, then we call him a generalist.

Let's look at this debate again. Although all generalists are talents, we can't compare a high-level specialist with a low-level generalist. Moreover, since today's discussion is about social competition, the comparison between generalists and professionals can not be confined to a professional field, but should be carried out in the social environment. For example, we can't compare an ordinary person with a person who specializes in medicine who is more suitable for the job of doctor. This comparison will not be discussed today.

Real life clearly tells us that there is such a general trend in today's society. On the one hand, there are more and more new occupations generated by the intersection of various disciplines. These occupations occupy most social resources, such as econometrics and logistics practitioners. These occupations are beyond the ability of professionals. These occupations require people to have knowledge in various fields, reach a certain level, and can only reach a new level when they are integrated. This is not only a simple accumulation of several professional knowledge, so it is not a few professionals who can replace this generalist to complete this work. On the other hand, most jobs that are dying in society are single jobs. Then, it is obvious what kind of talents society needs more. What society needs more is a generalist! Today we will compare who is more suitable for social competition and who is more competitive. Compared with professionals, generalists have three advantages: first, they are more open-minded. Faced with a difficult problem, professionals mainly rely on a professional knowledge to solve it, while generalists have a much wider choice, and it is easy to turn a bright future into another village. Second, the ability to adapt to unexpected situations is stronger than that of professionals. In today's society, the unemployment rate is rising. When a person is laid off and unemployed, is it easier for generalists or professionals to split the world? Obviously, it's a generalist! His perfect knowledge structure determines that he is suitable for more positions. Third, the ability to integrate is stronger than that of professionals. Today's efficient society advocates doing the most with the least number of people, and generalists are more capable of integrating knowledge in various fields to play an innovative role.

To sum up, in today's social environment, our view is that generalists are more suitable for social competition. thank you

The opposing party argued: Dear Chairman, judges and classmates, hello!

Our view is that experts can better adapt to social competition. The so-called generalists and experts are annotated in Modern Chinese Dictionary and Cihai. A generalist is a person with extensive knowledge and many talents. A professional refers to a person who has profound professional knowledge and skilled professional skills in a certain professional field on a platform based on broader knowledge. According to both definitions, he is knowledgeable and specialized.

First, materialist dialectics holds that the material world is eternal, society is developing in constant competition, and so is science and technology. Therefore, in order to win in the competition, the demand for talents is getting higher and higher, and it is professionals rather than generalists who play a key role in this point. From rickshaws to cars, to trains, to airplanes, to spaceships; From stone carving to letterpress printing, to movable type printing, to computer input, to paperless office and so on. Throughout the development of human history, countless facts have proved that all this can only be done by specialized scientific and technological professionals. From this point of view, professionals play a greater role in promoting social development and have stronger adaptability to social competition.

Second, the so-called social competition includes not only the employment of talents, the selection and selection of important positions, but also the economic benefits created by talents and the social value of talents. On the whole, professionals are more adaptable to social competition than generalists.

Third, with the development of society and science and technology, the social division of labor is becoming more and more detailed, and the knowledge structure corresponding to the division of labor is also becoming more and more detailed, so the requirements for talents tend to be professional. Generalist is a horizontal development and change process, and specialty refers to vertical development, that is, on the basis of a broad knowledge, it develops into a talent who can create greater value. From the point of view of competition, junior college is more suitable for social competition than generalist.

To sum up, we think professionals are more suitable for social competition. thank you

Attack and defense stage

Counterparty view: Thank you, Chairman, and hello! When the other party argues, they say that they want to create talents. Then I want to ask the other party, don't create talents?

There are two ways of saying: talent, we define talent today, of course, to contribute to society. If a person has no contribution to society today, how can he prove that he is a talented person?

Counterargument: Counterargument My friend, if college graduates are talents?

Two arguments: another debater, a college graduate. Of course, we are all college students at this time. We can't say that. We will definitely become talents. Do we have to experience it in society? We have many college students, with poor experience, who have embarked on the road of crime. Can you say that such college students are talents?

Defense of the opposing side: Then the opposing side will defend, that is to say, the university has not trained talents, and has not trained talents!

Argument: I have made it very clear that some people who come out of college can become talents, and some go astray, so we will say that they cannot become talents.

Counterargument: The other side argues that high-level professionals cannot be compared with low-level generalists, so high-level professionals are not professionals and low-level generalists are not generalists.

Pro-and-con: The debater, a high-level expert is of course an expert, and a low-level generalist is of course a generalist! By comparing the objects, you will find that today, of course, we have to watch. The advanced should be compared with the advanced, and the low should be compared with the low. Only in this way can we see that it is more suitable for social competition!

Counterargument: Then I want to ask a more realistic question. How many undergraduate majors does Hunan University have?

Two statements: Sorry, I don't know how many undergraduate majors Hunan University has, but I know that Hunan University has 2 1 department.

Objection: Why doesn't Hunan University set up a liberal arts major?

Argument: Can the opposing debater use only one major to distinguish experts from generalists? The opposing debater may be too one-sided.

Counter argument: This is a detour of the counter argument. Why don't you answer my question?

Pros and cons: I have made it very clear to the debater that the majors in universities are set up for interdisciplinary integration, not necessarily professionals from this major. I hope the other debater is clear from beginning to end, including the whole debate! thank you

Pro and con: Excuse me, your opponent, do you know what the chairman is?

Opposing view: Madam President, she is not a language expert. Although she loves languages, she is not a language expert.

Argument: You don't have to be so poor. My problem is not that deep. My next question: Do you know what kind of ability she needs to be an excellent chairman of the debate venue?

Argument of the opposing side: the opposing side has a certain knowledge base, and the chairman must have this knowledge base before she can become the chairman. But as I have said, she is not a language expert. She became the chairman today, and maybe he will be the chairman in the next game, but she is not a language expert!

Argument: What was my question just now?

Counterargument: Your question?

Argument 2: Yes, my question just now is what kind of knowledge she needs. I hope the other debater can give a positive answer!

Counterargument: Counterargument Do friends only have their own professional knowledge? Other knowledge, even eating, she won't know?

Two arguments: the other debater spoke very well. She can't only have her own professional knowledge, but also have a lot of knowledge to be a good chairman. Then she is a generalist, not a specialist!

Objection: Opponents, do you know which two subjects to take in the civil service exam?

Two positive arguments: the debater of the opposing side, I am just ignorant, knowing means knowing, and not knowing means not knowing, I don't know.

Counterparty: Well, I will tell you that this is a sum. Are these two courses junior college or pass?

Two arguments: Why did the other debater only take one major, but he only took one civil servant, and didn't take the mayor, governor or chairman? It seems that the time for the other debater to ask questions has passed too early. Moreover, my voice is gone forever. At this time, silence is better than sound.

PRESIDENT: Thank you for watching me. After the first round of attacks and debates, it seems that both sides have entered the second round below, or should start from the opposite side.

Objection: What is the content of Article 5 of China Education Law?

Argument: I don't know, my opponent. Because I don't study law, I study communication engineering, but I have prepared a lot of materials for this debate, so my knowledge structure is also very extensive, which has laid a good foundation for becoming a generalist!

Counterargument: Mr. Lu Xun said that reading is better than miscellaneous, not specialized. What is your explanation?

Two arguments: don't embarrass us with a famous saying! We also have many famous sayings, and I will tell you one by one later. Mr. Lu Xun first worked as a doctor in Sendai. After becoming a doctor, he found that China people need to save their own souls more. Therefore, when he returned to China, people like him who gave up medicine and devoted themselves to literature were all generalists, all of which were beneficial to the social development of China.

Counterparty argument: thank the other party for their argument. You also said that Lu Xun knew a little medicine, so why is medicine not famous?

Argument: Does the opponent debater Lu Xun only know a little medicine?

Counterargument: since he knows so much medicine, he has not maintained it. Doesn't that just show the importance of a professional?

Argument: The other debater, do we say that literature is the only profession in society? If I am a generalist who can't find a job in literature, I can switch to medicine. If I can't find a job in communication engineering, I can answer any arguments in the future. In this way, our vision will be broader and more conducive to the competition at the meeting.

Counterargument: At the job fair, all the recruitment positions said to trust professionals. How do you explain it?

Two arguments: another debater made another mistake. Does a major refer to professionals? As we know, studying engineering requires studying the history of China literature, foreign literature, China history and foreign history. What can English learners do in the future? Being a tour guide, a translator and a teacher of teaching and educating people is obviously cultivated according to the generalist model!

Debate 2: I finally understand the meaning of the other debater. They mean that learning multiple majors is a generalist, so primary school students who study Chinese and mathematics are naturally called generalists? Friends on the other side, we have clearly told you at the beginning of the second debate that a college student is not necessarily a talent after going out!

Moderator: Sorry, time is up. Please ask positive questions:

Two statements: Is the major set up in your college today to make you more adaptable to social competition?

Four arguments against it: Then I will ask you why our college is restricted by majors.

Two arguments: you can't fight back before the debate begins. Please answer whether the major of your college is to make you more suitable for social competition.

Four arguments against it: As you just said, the so-called generalist is the cross-integration of various fields. There just happens to be the intersection and integration of sociology and engineering, leaving the third discipline, bioengineering. What is the explanation? Is bioengineering a generalist?

Two arguments: Don't waste time, please answer my question.

Refute the other party's four arguments: when the other party asked about the major setting of our college, I thought, why does our college only have one major-generalist major?

Argument 2: Do you know the major setting of your college?

Counterparty: I don't know the major setting, but I know my major setting.

Argument: I understand that your college has a major called Business English. Do you know what this major studies and what kind of ability it cultivates?

Four arguments against it: there is a popular saying in society that "an expert can do many things", which means that "expert" is not equal to "ability". As the other debater said just now, for example, our chairman studies literature and literature is her major, but our chairman has many skills besides literature, such as eating, so can he be said to be all-rounder in eating?

Argument 2: I'd better say the question of the opposing defense friend myself. This major needs international economy, international trade, professional English and e-commerce. Do you think it's a professional or a generalist?

Four arguments against the other side: Why can't the other side understand? As I said, there is a proverb that an expert can do many things. He learned so much only to increase his major and ability, but in the end, it was to make his major more professional.

Pro-argument: The other side thinks that your usual argument is to tell us that major equals expertise, right?

Objection 4: Your opponent just said that the cross-setting of generalists in all subjects is equal to generalists?

Two arguments in favor: another debater replied, well, my question is over, thank you.

Four arguments against it: Just now, the other side's argument is that the current society uses the least number of people to do the most things, but is this the case now? No, now society has done the best thing with the least number of people, not more, but better. A specialist, more than a specialist, is bound to specialize in a certain field of knowledge. With the development of society, the social division of labor is getting finer and finer, and various skills are getting stronger and stronger. For such people, we say there is no end to learning ... thank you!

Exhibition stage

PRESIDENT: It was really wonderful. It seems that our microphone is not to be outdone, and has returned to normal. Let's relax a little and enter the summary stage of attack and defense. First of all, please welcome students who are against it. The time is two minutes, and the whistle will be sounded at one and a half minutes. Please welcome:

Objection: Thank you, Chairman! Hello everyone! Thank you for your wonderful answer, but it's not wonderful. Although the other debater turned a deaf ear to my question, we still have to enter this link because of the flow of time. It is not difficult to find that the other debater likes to go further and further, turning a blind eye to many majors of Hunan University. The other debater is always unwilling to answer my questions directly. Then I can only tell you that in this talent society, the trend is rolling, and only by standing at the forefront can we grasp the pulse of the times. If you want to stand out from the crowd, you must have something extraordinary.

In this era of increasingly detailed social division of labor, omnipotent and mediocre people. In front of professionals with obvious skills, they are eclipsed. Generalists often go with the flow, but professionals can become real trendsetters. Experts are the pinnacle, and their skills are specialized. If talent has no main direction, it's like losing the light in the dark, tossing and turning, trying to solve problems, but unable to solve them.

President Hu Jintao holds a high position in politics; Mr. Wu Jinglian is second to none in business; Liu Xiang is the first in the sprint hurdles; Li Du is the best pistol shooter. There are not many arts, so long as you are proficient, you can only learn knowledge and specialize. Comrade Mao Zedong once said, it's especially true that you would rather fold your fingers, learn but not specialize, and be miscellaneous but not refined. If you dabble in science, technology and culture, it will only hurt his flesh and bones, but it is difficult to break his bones and muscles. Only by doing our best in a battle can we be invincible. Society can develop on the premise of scientific and technological progress. There is no best, only better. If you want to be better, you must innovate. Without cutting-edge knowledge, how can we innovate and compare with each other? Generalists are precious and professionals are more expensive, so professionals can better adapt to social competition.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Chen. Next, please welcome the affirmative.

Two arguments: Thank you, Madam President, and hello! You said we didn't answer. Whether this answer is fair and comfortable is not your decision, but our judges and audience have the final say. Secondly, the other debater told us that the concept was obviously stolen in this respect. That a professional has many skills just proves our point. Even if you major today, you can be a generalist. Ok, let's review the question stage. My first question is about the president of the court. In fact, just off the stage, we talked to the president. The chairman told us that it is really difficult to be a good debate chairman today, because she not only has good eloquence and good coordination ability, but also can control the audience's emotions. In order to prepare the opening remarks, she also read a lot of materials, not to mention her own major is news. Then, we can say that such people are generalists and obviously more suitable for social competition. My second question is about the business English major in your school. The other debater didn't answer my question from beginning to end. It doesn't matter. Tell me, does specialty mean expertise? If major can be equated with expertise, let's think about it. Is it because I majored in communication engineering that I can only major in communication? No matter how hard I try now, can't I be a generalist? Do you think this logic can hold? So we say that a major can also cultivate generalists.

Then we talked about social competition, and the other debater made an obvious mistake when comparing with us who is more suitable for social competition. They compare who is more expert, generalist or specialist, who can better adapt to social competition. Is this more reasonable? Of course not. The correct comparison should be to compare the "specialty" of experts with the "generalist" of generalists, so as to correctly deduce who is more suitable for social competition. The adaptability of generalists lies in their stubborn knowledge structure and mastery of knowledge, and such people are most needed in today's society. I am a senior this year. I know very well that when I went out to look for a job, all the bosses asked me not only how I mastered and understood a certain knowledge, but also how I learned a foreign language, how much I knew about marketing and how much I knew about the law. Only then did I know that what society needs is a generalist. Therefore, in this competitive society, generalists are more suitable for social development!

Debate link

PRESIDENT: I thank the two debaters, both generalists and experts. I am a talented person (laughs). Both sides must be wanting more. Let's enter the debate stage. This is a small climax of the game. At this stage, both sides are required to stand up and finish three debates independently, with a time of two minutes and a whistle of one minute and thirty seconds. It's time to whistle twice. First of all, please welcome the affirmative.

Three arguments: Hello, my opponent, I want to ask you an example: Is Bill Gates a generalist or a specialist?

The three arguments are at loggerheads: I want to tell my opponent that he is both a generalist and a specialist, but he is good at it.

Three arguments: then I don't understand. Another debater, Bill Gates, is both a generalist and an expert. I only asked him if he was a generalist or a junior college student. Obviously, the other debater didn't know about Bill Gates. Then I'll ask you something that maybe you can understand. Do you know the job of an adjuster?

Three arguments against the side: I know very well!

Three arguments: good. Do you know how many subjects an arithmetician needs to know to succeed in this field?

Three arguments against it: Then I want to tell you what mathematicians are good at. Count!

Three arguments: If the opponent's debater is only a calculator, why not call him an arithmetician? Obviously, the operator obviously knows how to calculate, knows the economy, knows how to use it, and calculates in the economy. This is another generalist. The other debater still doesn't understand the calculation industry. Please see that the other debater is a professional, so he is so embarrassed in today's debate. (Laughter)

Three arguments against it: I think it seems to blur a vague concept based on professional knowledge. The experts we are talking about are professionals with a broad knowledge base as a guarantee.

Three arguments: Oh, you have a wide range of knowledge, and then you are expert in a certain aspect. Then I want to ask, why do you want to understand our definition of generalist a little today? That's not a generalist, that's a "generalist", that's not a talent. (Laughter) Today, our all-rounder has made achievements in all aspects. Please pay attention to this. And the professionals you mentioned can only have deep attainments in a single field.

Three arguments against it: I have achieved profound accomplishments in a single field, so I can't do nothing in other fields? Did the other debater look down on our expertise?

Three arguments: If you are accomplished in other aspects and in one aspect, let everyone say that this is a "generalist" or a "specialist".

According to your understanding, today's debate is not about generalists and experts, but about one of my first, second and third arguments. Today's debate is meaningless. (Applause)

Three arguments: today's debate is about who is more suitable for social competition, experts and generalists, while the other debater doesn't even understand the definitions of experts and generalists. How can we argue who is more suitable for social competition? Then I want to ask you another example. Zhang Xiangquan, director of Hunan Post and Telecommunications Bureau, completed his major in communication and electronics in Xiangtan University, and then completed his studies in the Department of Business Administration of Hunan University. Is he an expert or a generalist? Please don't tell me that he is a professional or a generalist.

The three arguments contradict each other: I think other debaters seem to have blurred a focus. The professionals we are talking about are professionals based on extensive knowledge, and generalists are generalists who have dabbled in various fields. So, according to what you said, I know English and I know business, so I can only be considered a generalist? I am a foreign trade expert! (Applause)

Three arguments: obviously, your opponent has made another serious mistake: major does not mean expertise.

Three objections: but I am a foreign trade major. (Applause)

Three arguments: major equals major and major equals major. Well, today, whatever I tell you, you will say that there are professionals. Well, I want to ask you about President Bush, the national leader. Don't say he is a professional in governing the country! (Laughter) Is he a generalist or an expert?

Three arguments against it: Then I want to ask you, is he famous for his good governance or an expert in language or diplomacy?

Three arguments: are you going to tell me that he is an expert in governing the country again?

Three arguments against it: I think no matter whether the other person asks the President of the United States or Bill Gates, I think whatever he dabbles in can only be regarded as a skill. Experts must be omnipotent, and omnipotence does not mean experts! Thank you (applause)

PRESIDENT: Thank you for your witty remarks, but they are still not enough. Then let's enter the next stage of the competition: the long-awaited free debate stage. The rule at this stage is that both sides can speak freely for 5 minutes, with a whistle at 4 minutes and 30 seconds, and the time is up to two whistles. Please note that both sides must speak alternately. I believe both sides are ready. First of all, welcome the positive side to speak.

Positive argument: I would like to ask my opponent, there is a saying that synthesis is innovation, crossover is innovation, and penetration is innovation. So who is more innovative, generalists or professionals? Please answer directly.

Counterargument: I want to ask you a question when I see the argument. Didn't the other debater just say that ordinary people can't compete with easy arguments? I would like to ask whether Yi Bian regards ordinary people as talents. My dad only hoes with his back to the loess, so he is your so-called expert, while my mother can cook, wash clothes and take care of the children. Is this what you call a generalist? (Applause)

Pros and cons: The opposing debater, by generalist, has a perfect knowledge structure, not a few simple skills. It doesn't matter if you don't answer our questions. I will ask you later. Professionals are often confined to their own fields. How do they cross, merge and penetrate? (Applause)

The opponent thinks that integration and infiltration reflect the problem of innovation. Innovation is not a game in which one plus two equals three. It doesn't mean that this discipline can innovate because it is closely related to that discipline, does it? Innovation means that we have profound knowledge in a certain specialty. Only by combining them can we have innovation, have a deeper understanding of a certain field and make new breakthroughs in cutting-edge technology. This is called innovation! Thank you. (Applause)

Three arguments: My opponent, you mean that only people with sound knowledge structure have the ability to innovate, right? Another debater just said that it is human instinct to eat and cook. According to what you said, all the people here today, all the people in China are talented people. (Applause)

Free debate

PRESIDENT: Thank you for your witty remarks. The two sides pushed forward step by step, and the game climaxed one after another, but did it make people feel?

Not interesting enough. Now let's move on to the next stage of the no-competition debate.

The opponent argues: when you say knowledge structure, that means he can do it, and that means competitiveness. Please note that today we are talking about competitiveness. If the other debater says that you know everything and I have learned a deeper field, how can you compare with me? thank you

Four arguments: It seems that you haven't fully understood our "perfect knowledge structure system", which is a very deep specialty. As a person who has dabbled in various professions, another debater just defined our generalist. Why? Well, I can say "Hello" in Chinese, "Hello" in English and "Ah You" in Japanese, so I can speak all three languages. Please tell everyone present!

Another argument: Since you can speak Japanese, Chinese and English, what is it? It's all language. If you are proficient in them, you are a language expert. If you can, you can!

This is only part of the defense. If necessary, please contact Daihongwuxtu @126.com.