Someone who knows how to debate comes in and helps, it s urgent

I'm not a master, just exchange my personal understanding.

I think that here, Zhuangzi does not directly prove that he knows the joy of fish, but refutes Keizi's argument against him. Keizi said that "Zi is not a fish, and Anzhi is the joy of fish", that is to say, A is not equal to B, A cannot understand B, and his benefit has already lost here, his argument is problematic, because Keizi is not equal to Zhuangzi, but when Zhuangzi speaks, Huizi can understand Zhuangzi's thoughts, otherwise the two would not have been able to talk at all. Zhuangzi said, "Please follow the original", that is, the moment he grabbed Keizi's words, it has been proved that A is not equal to B, but B can be understood.

Of course, in the process of dialogue, the two constantly make analogies, secretly change concepts, and change extensions, but I personally think that simplifying it is the explanation of the previous paragraph.

Finally, I think that looking at the words of "Zhuangzi", Zhuangzi has proved that he knows the joy of fish, and Huizi's flaw lies in the fact that the moment he accosted him, he denied his own argument, but some people will say that Huizi and Zhuangzi are all human beings, and of course they can understand if they can speak, but how to understand Zhuangzi if they can't speak. In fact, in Zhuangzi's view, all things in heaven and earth are in the middle of the great road, and they all have a common language - the sound of nature, and the "image" of "the fish swims calmly" can be regarded as the language of the fish itself, and it can be understood with reference to a sentence of Confucius, the so-called "what is the word of heaven?!" At four o'clock, all things are born, what can the sky say!

Therefore, from a big point of view, Confucius and Zhuangzi are all talking about a kind of harmony between heaven and man.

First, the realm of things and I are the same.

Therefore, Zhuangzi's joy of knowing the fish is not the result of objective observation or scientific measurement, but a state of mind, realm, in fact, each of us has this realm, when we walk leisurely on the shore of the autumn water, see "the fish swim calmly", if we can forget all the worldly disputes and arguments, how can we not capture the natural pleasure of the swimming fish......

Knowledge is more important than networking?

In fact, this is a question with completely different answers in different scenarios.

Knowledge is important, knowledge is the foundation, without knowledge, it is impossible to grasp the network;

The importance of networking lies in the fact that when the accumulation of knowledge is similar, when there is no opportunity, networking can bring unexpected opportunities;

Look at the meaning, you need to say that knowledge is more important, so grasp 2 points:

1.Knowledge is the foundation, without knowledge, the network is like a lot of 0s, but there is a lack of 1;

But when you have a lot of knowledge, even if you don't have connections, you can still succeed through formal channels. (e.g. success stories in the scientific community).

2.Networking is important, but it's not required. It's good to have a network, but it's not as successful as a network;

For example, many people who have connections and no knowledge will be beaten back to their original form even if they are packaged;

Again, the rebate is the best connection, that is, corruption and fraud, which is a good point of criticism, and I believe it can resonate with the audience.

Listen to me, you've won.

Let's give you a few points, the specific text still has to be expanded by yourself to be the most natural and convincing. One of the techniques of this debate is to first admit that "there is some benefit to opening the book", and at the same time, there are many cases that it is "not beneficial", so the conclusion is "not necessarily beneficial". Don't overturn it completely, give yourself leeway to turn at any time.

In addition, remember to find the points of debate that the main side may use in advance, and try to use those points to counter-examples to overturn the opponent's point of view as much as possible. It is difficult for the opposing side of such a debate to put forward a point of view, but it is not difficult to overturn the positive side of the argument. Key points of the defense:

It is better to travel thousands of miles than to read 10,000 books", and opening the book is easy to cause talk on paper, lacking practicality and feasibility. (Note that I say "easy to cause", not necessarily caused, because the other side may use the "theoretical basis" point).

There are many kinds of books, so it can be said that there are too many books, so it often takes a lot of time when looking through these books, and it may even take a long time to still not find what you are looking for, wasting time and energy.

There are all kinds of books on the market, and only healthy and uplifting "volumes" are "beneficial", while those that are unhealthy are not harmful. If you indulge in it, it is not beneficial to people's body and mind.

"volume" refers to books (I'm not sure about this explanation, you should look up the specific meaning of these words yourself), but in fact, online resources are more beneficial than books, not only are resources abundant but also easy to find, you can find what you need more accurately in the least amount of time, save trouble, effort and place, and are more environmentally friendly. (Note that if you want to use this point, you must be very clear about the meaning of these four words, and give the exact definition first).

For the time being, all I can think of is this, and I have typed it out of my own mind.

Finally, it is recommended to start with your positive point of view, which is very helpful to think of your own point of view.

Good luck!

It is kind to say to a mentally handicapped child that you are smart, but = chronic poison he will not try, it is useless.

It's nice and kind to say to bad boys, but = quick poison thinks it's right, it's useless.

"Brave" red light, man wins the car: With the mentality that the car does not dare to hit people, the cyclist bravely runs the red light at the risk of being hit by the vehicle.

For a long time, we have been complaining that the ** department does not control the growth rate of vehicles, and the traffic department does not send more forces to maintain the smooth flow of traffic, but in our hearts, no matter how wide the road is built, the police force will increase, and if we do not reflect on our own bad behavior, then the situation of the road is bound to become more and more congested day by day. In the era of traffic, we are all lamenting that there are too many cars, the road is difficult, and many cars may be one of the reasons for traffic congestion, but the root cause of this may be caused by our own irregular behavior.

Squeezing the "sidewalks, free stalls: The street T-junction is densely packed with vendors gathering on the sidewalks to do business, seriously blocking the traffic here, and it looks like a free hypermarket.

Crossing the "blind road, entrance: Changfeng Street, Shanxi Changfeng Street Sports Road intersection a parking lot is established on the edge of the blind road, the vehicles entering the field from time to time to press over the blind road, I really don't know how to ensure safety when the blind pass.

Morality is the bottom line of order, morality is the wings of order, morality enables us to know good and evil, and morality can purify our hearts.

I suggest you go to the Harvard Open Class --- Justice first... NetEase has it. Harvard's most popular course on moral philosophy.

It is unrealistic for the social order to be driven primarily by moral ---. It mainly depends on laws and institutions.