Debate: Should we use more ethics, legal constraints, or science and technology to govern the enviro

It is necessary to use more moral and legal constraints, because to cure the root cause, the culprit is human beings, human beings need moral and legal constraints, and human beings must self-reflect

The law is to restrain those who violate discipline. Quality is consciously cultivated.

Most of a person's quality depends on himself to restrain himself, and the law only restricts part of it.

No, the law is coercive and morality is condemned.

Wrong, morality has a wider scope.

Morality is about society, and debate is mainly about social issues, so it is important to focus on moral constraints!

Morality is the theoretical basis, value basis, and value scale of law, the social basis for the operation of law, the supplement to law, and the role of making up for law.

The formation of morality is spontaneous, arises before the law, and is an intrinsic coercive binding force.

The scope of moral adjustment is much greater than that of law, which mainly regulates people's external behaviors and major social relations, and morality involves almost all areas of people's lives, all activities, all interpersonal relationships, and involves people's external behaviors and internal ideological motives.

The essence of the ecological crisis is the crisis of human nature, which is the fact that modern man has lost himself in the face of nature, leading to the contradictory relationship between man and nature. If human beings want to solve the problem of contradiction, they will solve the contradiction themselves. In the final analysis, the contradictory relationship between man and nature is the contradictory relationship between man, and human beings can transform themselves through practical activities, especially through the standards of environmental morality, in order to ensure that they transform the natural world as a whole, harmonious and beautiful nature.

This topic is very beneficial to your side.

Note the emphasis on the main two words in the thesis.

To regulate human behavior, we mainly rely on law, not morality.

If the other party says that the law is the bottom line of morality, it happens to support your point of view. Because after all, there are a few people with high morals, while the majority must obey the law. If there is no bottom line of law, morality will inevitably be lost.

I don't know what format you have. This debate is actually biased in favor of your team, so there may be friendship points on the other side. Take care to impress the judges.

Everything else is puffy clouds. Morality is the first line of defense, and law is the last line of defense. The other side is likely to say that it is precisely because morality is more important that it acts as the first line of defense.

Think of counter-attack routines. It's really hard to argue.