For Zhengfang, what we insist on are the rules. As the saying goes, there is no rule without rules. Acting according to the rules is a kind of respect for the rules. Even if there are loopholes in the rules, as long as the rules can still become rules, that is, they are still recognized, they are still valid. The existence of loopholes does not affect the validity of the rules. The execution of rules, including the reasonable use of loopholes in the rules, are all manifestations of nobles' compliance with the rules. And since the behavior complies with the rules, others have no reason to criticize. As for whether there are loopholes in the rules themselves, that is not what this debate is about. To take a step back, it is impossible to say that any kind of rules is absolutely perfect, there are loopholes, and they are constantly developed and improved during the specific operation process. In this process, as long as it complies with the provisions of the rules at that time, it is reasonable. Legal.
In addition, it can also be said: Shenhua is a team, and the purpose of participating in the league is to win the championship. When the rules allow it, it is understandable to make reasonable use of the rules to create better conditions for yourself to win the championship. You can give the example of Simeone in 1998. At that time, Beckham's kick to Simeone was not hard at all and was not strong enough to knock him down, but Simeone fell to the ground immediately, causing Beckham to get a red card for deliberately retaliating. This is also a manifestation of reasonable use of rules. Such examples can also be extended to other levels of society. I think one could even give the example of Maradona’s “Hand of God”. According to the rules, Maradona actually committed a foul and just took advantage of a special situation that the referee did not notice. According to the rules of football, the referee has the right to determine whether the goal is valid. Although Maradona undoubtedly committed a foul, the referee on duty made a ruling that the goal was valid, so the goal was valid. In fact, this goal has always been hailed as Maradona's classic, and Maradona himself is even regarded as the "King of Balls". Maradona was treated so politely when he committed a foul, and Shenhua's behavior was still within the rules. Why did Shenhua get scolded so badly?
On the negative side, I think we should raise the issue of "negative enforcement" of the rules. The opposing side should admit that Shenhua's behavior complied with and took advantage of the rules. This must be acknowledged. However, it must also be pointed out that there are loopholes in this rule itself, and these must be constantly made up for and improved in practice. Regarding the competition system of the Chinese Super League, the Chinese Football Association and the clubs are both parties involved and have the obligation to improve it through their own efforts. However, Shenhua's behavior obviously does not fall into this situation. In addition, the issue of social responsibility of the club can also be raised. The league is not just a competitive competition between teams, fans are also an important part of the league. When a team uses rules, it should not only consider whether it is in line with its own competitive interests, but also whether it is worthy of the fans and whether it is in line with social trends (you can carefully consider similar sentences and write a parallel, which is very powerful and convincing). This is the social responsibility that the club should have. However, Shenhua failed to shoulder this social responsibility and did not fulfill, at least, its obligation to improve the league system from a positive aspect. Instead, it only took advantage of the loopholes in the rules and "negatively enforced" the rules based on the club's competitive results. . This is far from what a responsible and responsible club should do.
In fact, the positive side is analyzed from a purely realist perspective, while the negative side is discussed from an idealistic perspective. From different angles, both have unbreakable arguments. Never try to completely deny the other person, as that is absolutely a waste of time. You can say something like "We do not deny XXXXXXX, but we believe XXXXXXX more." This not only appears to have a comprehensive and non-narrow view of the issue, but also makes it easier to highlight one's own arguments. It is a very commonly used expression in debates.
I went back and thought about it in the evening, and I can add something more:
From Shenhua’s perspective, rational use of rules to seek profit is not only its reasonable and legal right, but also Means that must be mastered in competition. As the saying goes, strike first to gain advantage and strike later to suffer disaster. It is completely legitimate for Shenhua to make reasonable use of the rules for its own benefit. As for those who fiercely criticized Shenhua, maybe they just didn't understand the rules in time and "didn't have time to take advantage of the rules." Shenhua cannot give up its right to reasonably use the rules just because other opponents do not use the rules reasonably.
In addition, Shenhua’s actions have highlighted loopholes in the league system that may have gone unnoticed, which in itself is a way to improve the league system. If it weren't for Shenhua's actions, perhaps this loophole would have existed for a long time. Of course, in this case, such a loophole may not obviously benefit or harm a certain team, but this cannot conceal the fact that the loophole itself exists. Shenhua's actions highlighted this loophole and allowed the management to face up to it.
As for Luneng, it can be admitted that Shenhua’s move is to highlight loopholes that may have been ignored (this word may be indispensable, and it must be highlighted). To a certain extent, it is true. It played a certain role in improving the league competition system. But this is definitely not the best choice. Shenhua's move may have complied with the rules, but it violated the principle of fair play and harmed the interests of fans and other teams. Shenhua's approach of "improving the league competition system" is too costly.
In fact, Shenhua can use other better methods, such as communicating directly with the management, to respond to the problems in the league system in a relatively peaceful way, which can solve the problem without paying such a high price, let alone It will harm the interests of other clubs and fans. This is the best and most reasonable choice.
That’s all I can think of. Please add more when you have some inspiration.