Is the key to young people s success their own ability or external opportunities?

First of all, you need to understand that the goal of the debate is to weaken the opponent's issue and emphasize your own argument, rather than arguing about one right and wrong, and on this basis, your vision will be very broad. From this point of view, it can be seen that no matter how good a person's own ability is, its excellence depends on whether it is more outstanding than its competitors, just like many poor people are also kind and witty, and even have the same education, but they are always the majority, and some people have a strong failure buffer force in a large proportion because of the maturity and superiority of their congenital conditions. And those who lack external conditions, once they fail, may fall into a situation similar to bankruptcy and debt. To be precise, one's own ability is the youth of the individual, while external opportunities are the growth of the group.

That's about what it means.

Because I don't know whether it is a positive or negative side, whether the competition system is an offensive defense system or a mutual defense system, plus considering the argument, logic, materials used and tactical arrangements. Therefore, I can't do a specific analysis, I can only say something abstract, because the debate is a very tactical competition, and the best way to make the game feel holistic is to discuss more with teammates, share more, and know the rhythm of the game before the game, such a team is invincible.

The third argument, like the second argument, is theoretically two separate guns, one responsible for one argument. Generally speaking, the concluding argument is a matter of debate, that is, the link of "attacking and deliberating the summary". (Depending on the format, if there is no such link, then it will be included in the summary of the four debates).

A free debate is generally in which both sides alternate to speak, with each side having 4 minutes each, and if one side runs out of time, the other side is free to speak continuously until time runs out; You can also choose to give up the extra time and move on to the next step. The scene of free debate is very easy to be chaotic, requiring the second and third debates to be more active, while the first and fourth debates are more responsible for observing the battle situation; once there is a deviation from the topic or a meaningless repetition of arguments on a certain issue, or the time is almost up and the arguments are not taken care of, the first or fourth debate can stand up and move the battlefield and guide the situation to a more favorable place.

As for the problem, it is based on your logical chain, and you must first have an argument and a logical system before you know from which angle to ask and what goal your question is trying to achieve. Sometimes asking questions can pave the way for your arguments throughout the game; Sometimes you can use sharp questions to catch the other person's loopholes; Sometimes it's just a matter of asking questions to throw the other person into a momentary mess. And most importantly, as I said earlier, asking questions is in a sense defensive, it's offensive.

That is, you have to scrutinize your logic over and over again, no matter how you are attacked, you must make your logic smooth, and your attack will be invulnerable because of it.