The debate between open books and open books that is not necessarily beneficial

Personally, I think the opening of the book is very beneficial!

Reading is definitely beneficial, but the key is how do you read it? This one is very particular.

And what books you read is also important.

If you want to say that opening the book must be beneficial, it is not necessarily.

It depends on what books you read and what you do on your computer.

It is certainly beneficial for you to open the book and read good books, and it is very beneficial; You turn on your computer to surf the Internet, collect information, and write, of course, it is beneficial. If you read some books with bad content or play computer games, it is certainly not helpful1

Young people, you can't say that.

We need to use our brains when we read books, and it is right to read books with a critical eye. You can't believe all the books, because there are fallacies in the books, and it is better to believe in the books than to have no books at all. Most of the history books are correct, and books with lies exist, but they won't be all lies.

You say, "Read as little history books as possible!" Because it's all a lie!

is unfounded.

Liu Xiang of the Han Dynasty once said: "Books are like medicine, and good reading can cure foolishness." "Since books are medicines, they have two functions:

One is good medicine, medicine to get rid of the disease; One is poison, which kills people. Isn't it? In Germany in the 20s, many people were considered Hitler's martyrs because they watched Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and were badly influenced by it.

A bad book is like a bad friend, it can kill you." It's not false at all, now some students are obsessed with martial arts or romance**, reading those grotesque books all day long, and "throwing" their homework aside, resulting in a decline in academic performance, and finally creating a bamboo basket to draw water. Think about it, can it be said that "opening" such a book "volume" is "beneficial"?

A good book is better than a treasure, and a bad book is worse than a robber. Therefore, whether it is beneficial to open the book depends on what kind of book is opened.

Personally, I think it is not beneficial to open the book.

The origin of the benefit of opening the book is that Song Taizu said: "As long as you read, there will always be benefits."".Since then, it has become an idiom that the opening of the book is beneficial.

You may be wondering, why do you talk about this? It's simple, it's key"Total"Word. This is saying that there will always be good, not only good.

Therefore, to say that the book is beneficial, it needs to be argued that reading is beneficial rather than harmful. (Don't get caught up in the opposite side.) Otherwise, you will definitely lose.

The reason will be understood after reading the following)

As far as the benefits of reading are concerned, the power is so great that it makes people realize their mistakes, change their past mistakes, go to the bright road, and achieve success; Xiao can learn a few writing methods, a few words, and even recognize a few words. These are the benefits of reading, and there is no denying it. Therefore, a few points can be made to argue that bad books also have some benefits:

First, as long as it is called a bad book, it will certainly affect people's character and lead them to the wrong path. But think about it, if those bad books can't resonate with readers and make people go deep into them, then what will happen like this? If the structure and layout of the book, the way of expression, the idea and description, the language and the wording, etc., are mediocre, or even average"Journal"It's not as good as a similar composition, so how can it resonate with readers? Therefore, no matter how bad it is, at least some writing methods can be learned in the so-called bad books, and no matter how bad it is, you can learn a few words. Can this be said to be unhelpful?

Second, whether it is a bad book or a good book, it is judged by whether the good of the book outweighs the harm or the harm outweighs the good. In other words, bad books are also beneficial.

Third, Lao Tzu in ancient China had a point of view: everything has its own two sides, and since bad books are harmful, then they must have their benefits.

But have you ever thought that even if such a book exists, can anyone read it? Will you go to see it? Since I won't go to see it, then even"Uncoiled"With this premise gone, how to talk about whether opening the book is beneficial or harmful?

Fifth, although you can cite a bunch of examples of depravity, madness, and breaking the law because of reading. So what does this mean? It can only show that the person who reads the book himself is not in the right state of mind.

That's a matter of mentality, and can't be blamed on books. Can someone take a knife to cut and kill someone, can they blame the knife for being bad?

Therefore, as long as you read, it will be beneficial, whether it is big or small. So it can be pushed"Uncoiling is beneficial"It must be true.

As for"Unbook is not necessarily beneficial", is a neutral word, half of it is (beneficial) is true, but the other half - unhelpful - unhelpful is problematic: unhelpful, not harmful. Just like a car driving on the road, it doesn't fly into the blue sky like an airplane, can it be said that it is burrowing into the ground?

Suppose the argument is"Open book is harmful", then according to some of the arguments just now, it is natural that it can also be established, but to say"Unhelpful"That's wrong. So, on this issue, the argument of the opposing side is only half right. (And this half is still a positive argument)

Since the pro-side argument is certain to be valid, and the argument of the opposing side is only half valid, what is the reason for arguing? It is obviously invincible!

Positive: List the benefits of reading. Such as: read more than 10,000 volumes, write like a god, and so on. Opposite: The knowledge in the enumeration book must be put into practice. Otherwise, you will become a nerd and useless to learn.