Get a high score for a good answer! Information Debate! How to answer? Documentation is also OK!

Some of the theoretical points can be as follows.

1. What today's society needs is comprehensive talents, and what is advocated is all-round development, and people with sound morality, intellect and physique can make greater contributions to the society, and at the same time, it is easier to realize their own value and be more likely to succeed.

2. The barrel theory That is to say, the final capacity of a barrel is not determined by its longest plank, but precisely by its shortest plank, and it can be said that a person's great achievements often depend on the degree of correction of his shortcomings, rather than the degree of play of his strengths.

3. The harm caused by the shortcomings to a person's success is far greater than the success that can be achieved by a person's strengths.

There are many examples.

About the first argument.

We can discuss the current direction of human resource development from the perspective of the national education policy.

We can also start from the "three products" of college students and discuss that those who are partial to virtue and have no talent are called defective products, those who are partial to talent and no virtue are called drugs, and those who are not virtuous and talentless are called waste products.

All in all, it's not right to focus on any of them, and it's hard to succeed.

The second argument.

The most realistic example of the college entrance examination The average of each subject in the college entrance examination is the king students who are partial to the subjects are generally difficult to successfully enter the school of their dreams.

In addition, according to the authoritative IDC company, in the United States, by 2005, the total cost of employee training will reach 11.4 billion US dollars, and the president of GE McNeil, known as the "best manager" in the United States, declared that GE's annual employee training expenses will reach 500 million US dollars, and will increase exponentially. Hewlett-Packard has an in-house education program on management practices, and this training program alone costs millions of dollars a year in research funding. They study not only the content of education, but also which type of education is more acceptable to people.

In essence, employee training is to increase the capacity of these "buckets" and enhance the overall strength of the enterprise through training. In order to improve the overall performance of the enterprise, in addition to the training of all employees, it is necessary to pay more attention to the development of "short boards" - non-star employees.

There are a lot of companies that believe in this theory and look for it.

About the third argument.

This argument requires concrete examples.

For example, Guan Yu has no force and strategy, but he lacks the cultivation of being good and good, and finally loses Jingzhou and walks to Maicheng.

For example, Cao Cao can be said to be both civil and military, but when he was recruiting Zhang Xiu, he was killed in battle because of his lust, and General Dian Wei and Cao Ang's eldest son almost became a ghost under the sword.

And so on -- there's a lot of examples of that in history, and you can sort them out.

As for the manuscript, I don't know what number of debaters you are, but every debater's manuscript is different.

However, I suggest that you can still write the manuscript yourself, which can be regarded as a kind of exercise for yourself, not only to improve your ability, but also to be more familiar with the manuscript, and to perform better on the spot, so that you will not read the manuscript all the time.

This needs to be based on the title, which is nothing more than two parts, one is the discussion, and the other is the example. Let's talk about the topic, and everyone can help you.

Let me talk about it briefly.

I am a law student (I was a member of our debate team when I was a graduate student) and I have volunteered for the Expo, so I would like to share a little experience with you.

1 about the debate, debate is actually a game, not eloquence is good will win, only those who abide by the rules of the game can win, I have been studied by the debate judges, generally speaking, the judges first look at your logic, then look at your cooperation, and then look at your typhoon (I just wrote two or three hundred words on this, sad) The most important thing is your logic and cooperation on the field, so a debate statement to all team members to participate.

2. Regarding the actual debate, the two-sided nature of the debate determines that any logic cannot be invulnerable, try to make your logic reasonable and complete, and you must play around your own logic. When attacking, it is to catch the opponent's logical mistakes, so it is necessary to remember the opponent's theoretical arguments.

In short, you can fill in some of your logical gaps with examples, but not too much. When asking the other party again (attack and defense), it is best to start with the obvious question, make up the trap and wait for the other party to jump in.

By the way, if you haven't debated before, it's best to look at the debate on the Internet first, and you won't be able to learn it. Best wishes.

If you don't even organize the information, how do you know what to say when you debate with the other party?