We have a debate tournament on week 2 and we need help urgently, and we hope you can help. Thank you

What do you want to know??? Give it clear.

In the 70s of the last century, the prime minister said "friendship first, competition second", and turned the big ball with a small ball. At that time, in the context of a specific era, it did do some handicap against some weak opponents. Sport has a political effect and demonstrates the foresight of a diplomat.

Today, I have never heard an athlete say before a pre-competition interview: "I actually came here to increase the friendship of the teammates." "I didn't hear any student say before the college entrance examination

Is a pre-match handshake friendship? No! It was a prelude to war.

Is a post-race hug friendship? No! It is the tolerance that the winner is expressing, and the loser is sorting out the mood.

Doesn't friendship exist? Exist! In order to create harmony, the promotion of communication must have a nominal existence, but it can only be secondary.

The Olympic spirit is "Higher, Faster, Stronger." "Never change to" more intimate, friendlier, more congenial. "That's a World Peace Organization thing.

Over the years, we have shouted the slogan of "friendship first" in our mouths, but we have held high the banner of "competition first" in our hearts. You have to score in every game, and you have to win the championship in every competition. Hehe, being an athlete, what's the picture?

In fact, the goal of elite athletes is to compete against evenly matched opponents on the field, to prove their strength, to show their strength, and to experience the sense of accomplishment of standing on the podium. If it's just to increase friendship, you don't have to sweat every day, you just need to drink tea and chat. Suppose one day, there is a strange person who will win all the gold medals in all the events, what do you think ** will say?

1.Apply to him all the words of praise in the world. 2.

**Beat and scolded him: This kid is really not enough buddy. Which one would you believe?

What do you want to ask? Race first, friendship second! Since it's a competition, you should put the competition first and take it seriously. This is not only respect for oneself but also respect for one's opponents, and only a fair competition can have true friendship!

Since it's a debate, you have to quibble.

For example, from the perspective of the development of human society, the development of society depends on science and technology, and science and technology must have good intellectual education.

There is also good intellectual education is to promote good moral education, and some examples of foolishness can be given.

It can also be seen that scientific truth does not change with the times, but morality will change accurately, and one of the reasons for this is that the progress of science and technology has led to the development of society, which has changed people's moral concepts.

It is also possible to compare feudal society with our modern society, many of the moral standards of feudal society have now been overthrown, and only scientific truth will live forever.

It can also be said that intellectual education helps good moral education, without good intellectual education, you may lose correct judgment, such as some social gangsters who do not do their jobs, and they all think that the righteousness between them is right, which is the lack of basic judgment caused by the failure of intellectual education.

Therefore, moral education must be taken under the premise of intellectual education, otherwise no matter how good moral education is, it may be worthless.

Some are a bit far-fetched, but to debate is to quibble in far-fetchedness.

Quite simply, it depends on whether you want to be an ordinary person or a superhuman pull.

Time has passed, oh oh, did you win?

I think everything has its pros and cons.

First of all, you are not biased, everyone is discussing an issue and you can always be the one to reduce the issue to neutrality, which is a good debating quality in itself.

Since you are a second debater, there will definitely be a process of being attacked by the other party and asking one-on-one questions. In fact, in this process, as long as you give full play to your strengths and attribute all his interrogation and arguments to neutrality, it is already a kind of success. Don't expect to be able to answer someone else's cross-examination and refute it at the same time, as long as you can eliminate his offensive and make him do useless work, you are already a successful party.

You are afraid that the other party will speak quickly, which means that your thinking is not clear and agile enough, and your sense of logic and abstract thinking ability are not very strong, which is a weakness. The essence of the debate is to play to the strengths and avoid the weaknesses, if you are cross-examining the other party, use more thought in the questions you ask beforehand, do not ask the kind of questions that do not have a definite answer, try to let all your questions be answered with "yes, no" such answers, which limits the space for the other party to play, and is also conducive to you to organize your own thinking.

I don't have much to say about the debate, I think you've thought enough about it yourself.

I suggest you check out the Lion City Debate Tournament in '93, it's very exciting. It is indeed difficult to debate well, and it requires thought and eloquence, as well as a calm mind. Train more, emphasize in your mind that you are emphasizing your own opinions, and as for the key points, you really have to listen carefully by yourself.

It is an unexpected thing that natural disasters do not happen, and once they happen, the consequences are unimaginable.

There's something wrong with this debate, but now that you've drawn the square, congratulations.

First of all, this needs to be understood. You don't have to put this into the argument. Becoming a talent is a process and a result. It is the process by which people internalize external knowledge, experience, and other factors into themselves, so as to achieve a state of having the ability to complete a certain task.

Therefore, fundamentally speaking, external opportunities cannot be the key to success, because in the process of becoming talents, it cannot play an internalizing role but can only play a boosting role.

Then, you can start preparing your arguments. Basic steps: 1. What is a teenager, 2

What is success, 3, what is the key, and why is the key. 4. The relationship between success and one's own ability. 5. Don't deny that external opportunities have a role, but it's not the key (it can be reproved).

Attacking and debating a problem can start with an argument. You can follow the points I gave to check the information, enrich the theory, and then ask the other party the following questions: 1. If external opportunities are the key to success, then why can some people seize the opportunity and some people can't seize the opportunity?

2. Whether a person is a talent or whether he can become a talent, what standard is used to measure it. Opportunity? If not, then why can't this crucial thing determine a person's success? 3. What is the role of ability in making people successful, and can the other party do it?

OK, if it's a Beijing style debate tournament, and then a sensational summary, you'll be complete, if you want to be perfect. There's still a lot to be done.

On the one hand, first determine your arguments, first introduce the specific meaning of young talents, and then talk about the benefits of your own ability over external opportunities, do not deny the importance of external opportunities but emphasize that your own ability is more important than external opportunities, and then divide the labor of two people to find the right problem, two people to find the opposite problem, after finding it, discuss it together for a few days, and finally prepare a speculative summary speech, pay attention to the theme of sublimation, and explain clearly the important role of one's own ability in the success of young people, and even social development and national prosperity.

First of all, define the scope of young people, and then how to call it a talent, there must be a standard to be more critical, the external opportunity of the other party must be to fight the objective environment The main defense point is actually the objective environment needs people to seize This depends on ability, and there are many attack points, which can be horizontal Success in various fields; It can also be longitudinal from the success of small things to the success of being a person and so on.