Debating is easier said than done, how to ask the other party questions

To answer this debate, we must first define the meanings of "knowledge", "difficulty", "advance" and "retreat". We can interpret "difficult" as difficulties, frustrations, obstacles; "Progress" is defined as a spiritual quality of not giving up, perseverance and perseverance; "Retreat" is interpreted as giving up, being cowardly (to put it simply, you can define it in more depth yourself).

Then from the argument, there are many options for this, here I choose one to do a simple analysis: from a small aspect, advancing in the face of difficulties is a kind of life attitude, a spiritual quality, a... Yes), there are so many examples, scientists, celebrities, great people growing up, etc., and you can even give our own examples.

Personally, I think that this aspect of the small one is mainly based on factual arguments. (For example, if you confess to the girl you like, she rejected you for the first time out of reserve, will you choose to advance in the face of difficulties or retreat in the face of difficulties?)

The crux of the question is how we define "difficult", because the other person may argue that it is not difficult. No matter how the other party argues, in the end, we must be elegant and witty without losing a sharp point out that the other party may lose a beautiful fate because of this. ）

In the big picture, we want to encompass a country, a nation, and even all mankind. Theoretical arguments should be the main thing here, and the main thing is to be impassioned, stand on the moral high ground, and judge the other side. I don't need to write a paragraph about this.

And then there is a problem, here is an example: May I ask the opponent's defense friend, do you think the Chinese nation's 100-year War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression is advancing in the face of difficulties, or retreating in the face of difficulties? No matter how the other side resists, we have to stick to our point of view, and our argument is easier to fight than the other side.

The opponent's retreat is actually quite easy to say, most of the examples they cite are beyond our reach, so we can only choose to retreat in the face of difficulties, but these arguments are relatively few, and it is not easy to say, so the other party insists on their reef as much as they can, and we have to continue to impact them with monstrous waves.

I hope that in the end, you will not be dragged down by each other, and you will be anxious about the confrontation between interest and ability.

It's a bit messy, but if you have a thorough understanding of the debate, it's not difficult to win. Personal wisdom is limited, so I'll stop here for now.

"Advance in the face of difficulties": If there is no progress in the face of difficulties, then it is impossible for so many scientists to complete the experiment. For example:

Nobel's experiment with explosives, he personally experimented, countless experiments, and there were many difficulties in the process, but he did not give up, but persevered. If it weren't for him, then now, one can imagine how backward the world would be.

Can you do it?

1 All First of all, I would like to ask which school you are from, are you a freshman at Harbin Institute of Technology?

Then I'll help you solve the debate, this is purely my personal research on the debate:

This debate topic belongs to a comparative debate topic, and it cannot be discussed separately whether it is difficult to know or do, but it should be shown that it is more difficult and easier in comparison. In fact, no matter which is more important, which comes first, or who has the more guiding role, it cannot explain who is more difficult and who is easier.

The bottom line of this debate lies in the division of the concepts of "knowledge" and "action" on both sides, what "knowledge" includes and what "action" includes. There is no doubt that both sides will try their best to expand the scope of a certain idea in "knowledge" and "action", so as to achieve the goal of making it more difficult to discuss. From your point of view, you should turn "seeking knowledge" into an intersection of knowledge and seeking, and the judges cannot accept it if you just try to "do"; Just say yes"Know"It is also not good for us to discuss, so we must make our own plans and be fully prepared.

In addition, the space of the debate also has a great impact on the outcome of the argument. The object of our "knowledge" must not only have scientific experience, but also have social morality, so for the party that is easy to know and difficult to do, there is no doubt that we have an absolute advantage in ethics and morality, such as knowing the law and breaking the law repeatedly prohibited, smoking is harmful to health, and since ancient times, we have preached "benevolence, righteousness, courtesy, wisdom and faith", but there are a few people who have done ?..

There are countless powerful examples and ideas for our side, so we must shift the battlefield of confrontation to the direction of social morality on the basis of being able to clearly demonstrate what is easy to know and difficult to do in scientific experience.

It's been a long time since I've participated in a debate tournament, and my brain is a little dull.

Theories are always higher than facts, so it's hard to try. You can analyze it from a philosophical point of view, that is the question of practice.