There is a debate competition between discipline and freedom in the class, and I am debating discipl

1. Tight discipline is not conducive to the physical and mental health of students, because after all, it is not a disciplined force, and there is no need for too suppressed high-pressure discipline, which is harmful to students' mental health for a long time.

2. Tight discipline is not conducive to the absorption of learning knowledge. Traditional teaching methods are learning under high pressure, but the results are often not good, while Western humorous teaching tends to learn better, which is available on the Internet.

3. Discipline is tight, which is not conducive to getting along with people. Students, teachers, and student cadres are originally about pessimistic relationships, but in the long run, this will form a rebellious style, so the discipline classroom that is too strictly forbidden is not conducive to the relationship between teachers and classmates.

At present, this can be thought about by these 3 big aspects, because there is no possibility of victory for others, there are no rules, so you are looking for more information colleagues to refer to, I wish you success.

The first step in a debate is to make an argument. A good argument must be fair and impartial to both sides, and how you convince the crowd (you can't convince your opponent in a debate) depends on how you interpret the argument and support the argument. For example, in this debate, you can learn to make people understand their real interests, so you need to study first to find and cultivate interests.

Then there is the step-by-step argument, and in this process it is necessary to pay attention to the tightness of the logic. Arguments are important, but it is also important to interpret arguments so that they can be truly used by oneself and not be attacked by the other side with the spear of the son. In the same way, you can use the opponent's argument to support your own point of view on the field (but don't force it).

Words like "interest is the best teacher" should not be mentioned, if you want to decipher it, let it become a point of view that supports you, after all, this proverb is everyone's first association with "interest" and "learning".

Argument 1: Lu Xun gave up medicine and followed literature. I studied medicine first to know that my interest was in literature (in fact, it was a bit reluctant to say that it was interest...).

Argument 2: Counter-example: Ask the other person, is every lesson your interest?

If you should be interested in studying again, why are you still studying this course without interest? Or is it that the school is not successful in cultivating your interest? (If he replied that it was all interest, it would be very unconvincing, and it would be impossible to ignore his answer if he summarized it casually.)

Well, it's too late, write about this first.

I don't know if you're talking about self-restraint or self-restraint among members, or if members restrain each other from others?

First, not only class unity, the unity of any collective unit requires each member to restrain himself in accordance with the principle of seeking common ground while reserving differences, ignoring the inconsistency with the demands of the majority of members, and trying to be consistent with the majority of members, which is the most basic requirement of collective unity.

Second, any collective must use unified action to show its own existence, so each member needs to restrain himself according to the deployment and requirements of the collective, so as to ensure the completion of individual tasks, achieve the success of collective action, and show the image of the collective.

3. Question: Members do not restrain themselves, but only rely on their personal preferences, and act in their own way in collective action, acting arbitrarily and recklessly, and even going against everyone. Is the collective image thus presented to the public solidarity?

Fourth, ask again: If everyone only emphasizes themselves, does not restrain themselves, and does not accept the supervision and restraint of the collective or other members, can it still become a collective? I'm afraid it can only be a plate of loose sand under the same name.

You didn't give the full question.

To tell you the truth, I'm not very good at debating, and I hope it will help you to give me some humble opinions based on my personal thinking.

Advance consumption refers to the advance of future purchasing power beyond the current affordability, which is obviously borrowing money to spend. Typical advanced consumption is credit card consumption, loans to buy a house and a car, "whether to make people's lives happier" should start from the standard of happiness, "happiness is a feeling, material satisfaction can definitely bring happiness, but if it is accompanied by huge pressure, it will definitely not be happy" You can ask the other party do you have a credit card? How many are there?

Do you often use your card to make purchases? Do you feel that swiping a credit card is like shopping in a supermarket, when you take it as if everything is your own, like not wanting money, you feel that you take too much when you pay at the cashier, of course, if you pay in the supermarket, you will not have this feeling for the time being, but the repayment period may not only be pressure, but it is painful to control it poorly. The current house slaves, car slaves, and kanoos...

Fundamentally, they are all advanced consumption slaves, and they have all been reduced to "slaves", do you think there is still happiness at all? Moderate advance consumption can bring happiness, but the problem is that 99% of people will not be able to control their desires and lose their minds when faced with the opportunity to consume ahead. The argument of the other side may lie in "moderate advance consumption".