What are the entry points for the debate that you shouldn t be friends with local tyrants?

Local tyrants spend money like running water, but we are different, when we go out with them, they are high-end consumption, we can't afford to consume, but for the sake of face, we have to follow the consumption. It's tiring to be friends with local tyrants.

I always feel that there is no family, there is money, and I have low self-esteem.

The current tyrants are different from the local tyrants of the past, I think that Hao is a kind of domineering and self-confidence. Although it is earthy, it does not lose its worship and admiration for the material, and this worship and admiration for the material can arouse people's spirit of struggle and the direction of unremitting efforts. To be friends with local tyrants should be clear about their own values and world view, foreign for Chinese use, ancient for modern use, and pride for self-use, which is a strategy and means for each of us who pursue development, and can fully understand the main direction of the other party through communication and getting along with local tyrants, and meet the needs of self and society by absorbing its positive business means and methods, take its essence, abandon dross, and constantly adapt and influence yourself to society, and constantly revise and influence those words and deeds that violate social morality. And lead it to develop in the direction of a more harmonious social process, so that the harmony between people can develop healthily along with development.

For a debater like me, answering such a question simply brings me a lot of joy to myself. First of all, we see that this debate should not be friends with local tyrants, so what are local tyrants like? First of all, you must define it in a book when you debate, although I believe that there should be no definition of this word in the Xinhua dictionary now, but its definition of Guangxi can be found to grasp, and then through the definition, we will see why we can't be friends with local tyrants.

First of all, there is a very important reason because if you are friends with a local tyrant, you will be in front of him, and you may not be as good as him in terms of material, and you may enjoy unequal treatment when you both enjoy material life at the same time, even if you are enjoying a high level of consumption at the same time, it may be a very ordinary thing for him, but for you it may increase your expenses in vain.

The above point is seen through expenses, and the next point is that local tyrants are divided into two kinds from a psychological level, one is the rich second generation, and the other is a person who works hard to get wealth, but since I can be friends with you, I think it should belong to the rich second generation and the richest second generation, and the attitude towards material things is different from ordinary people, so if you are friends with him, it will be more or less infected by his behavior and style, so it will become a squander of money in material expenses. was originally on his own small amount of money, which only increased the pressure on himself.

Therefore, through the material and spiritual aspects, I think it is a good two entry points for this debate.

In today's society, most of the so-called local tyrants are nouveau riche or rich second generations, and most of these people are of low quality, so they stay away from them and do not stay with them spiritually.

In fact, the difference between local tyrants and others is only the difference between values and materials, and local tyrants have the ability to do according to their own concepts, as the so-called things gather like like, people and groups, even if you have a material gap with the local tyrants, but your concepts are the same, it is nothing to be friends, and there is nothing wrong with local tyrants.

The values are just different.

There's actually nothing wrong with local tyrants. In reality, there are too many local tyrants, it is impossible not to be friends, and it is always good to have one more friend when you are away from home.

The word local tyrant was used in turbulent times, in that era, fighting local tyrants and dividing the land. And now, the local tyrant is no longer the kind of person who is rejected by others, but a kind of ridicule of the rich who have a different atmosphere from their own life. Multiple friends have many roads, and local tyrants are also a road, enriching your life, they may be a little difficult to communicate, but it must be a big help when you are in trouble.

Local tyrants are not equal to nouveau riche, they are just groups that spend money lavishly, which shows their boldness, shouldn't they make friends with such bold and selfless people?

Should! Friendship needs to win over oneself, like I am better than nothing.

I don't know if he is willing to be friends with us, but I like to be friends with local tyrants, which can show his "high-end, atmospheric, high-grade, and at the same time, it can also bring out his own, low-key, luxurious, and connotative".

Now the question is whether the local tyrants are willing to be friends with us.

Managers should be friends with their subordinates:

1) It is conducive to mutual understanding and communication between managers and subordinates, through communication, managers can understand the problems of grassroots employees, and employees can also understand the overall business strategy of the enterprise.

2) It is conducive to the harmonious and stable development of the company. When managers and subordinates become friends, they are beyond the ordinary relationship of interests, and both parties will take a more long-term view of the problem. There will be no estrangement between the two parties because of small interest disputes.

The most important thing is that both sides can work together in the face of difficulties.

I'll give you a speech and ideas for the debate, for your reference, since it's a debate, the topic of the debate is generally both positive and negative, that is to say, the actual situation is that good things can be shared or not...

But you, as the counterpart, of course, have to emphasize the non-shareable part ... The thing should be said like this: the first thing to consider is what it is, some things are not suitable for sharing, such as your own salary, housing, insurance, etc., are these things good?

Okay, but can you share it? No, it's not a question of whether it should or shouldn't, it's a question of not being able to do it itself.

Second, if it is something that can be shared, then just like the third floor said, see if you can meet your own needs first, and if you don't meet yourself, how can you share with others? Liu Yong said: "I am also an ordinary person, and I also have the feelings of ordinary people, I have no way to give the only steamed bun to others when my daughter is hungry and crying."

That's it.

Third, if the first two conditions are met, then you have to consider what type of friend you are... Is it a friend of life and death or a friend of wine and meat? If it's a friend of life and death, it doesn't matter whether you share it or not, what he values is your performance when he's in trouble, if it's a friend who drinks and meat, he only cares about your things, and it's not worth it for you to share with him...

The purpose of this example is to illustrate that some friends are not suitable for sharing, and that sharing may cause unhappiness to both parties (e.g., they feel that the distribution is uneven, or their own desires are difficult to fill, etc.) should not be shared.

To sum up, whether good things are suitable for sharing should be considered comprehensively from the attributes of things, the satisfaction of one's own needs and the personality type of friends, if it is unilaterally emphasized that good things should be shared with things, it is one-sided and unreasonable.

I'm stingy, I don't think good things have to be shared with good friends, one, because what if I share something with my good friend and he or she accidentally breaks it? Ask him (her) to accompany him, he (she) said that you are not enough friends, if you don't accompany you, I won't feel heartache for you. You are embarrassed that he (she) accompanies you, after all, we are good friends.

ps: I've had it).

Second, if you originally wanted to share it with him (her), and he (she) liked it, and asked him (her) to buy it at home, it will invisibly form a contrast - he (she) bought the same or better than you, you may not be convinced, and if he (she) did not buy it, he (her) felt inferior to you. The result is still affecting friendship.

Third, even if the first two situations do not occur, and you share it with him (her), does he (she) have something to share with you? If you shared this good thing with him or her, will you share it in the future? If not, what would he think?

There are more times of sharing, can you guarantee that the first two situations will not occur?

Hehe! The above is just my stingy excuse, don't take it seriously

Good things can also be said to be the things you care about the most, and if you talk about it in the category of character empathy, I want to ask the rhetorical question that the man is willing to share his wife with others, and even more so with money. The French thinker Jean-Paul Sartre once said that others are hell. Everything must be carefully considered, some people are upright, some people are righteous and awe-inspiring, some people forget their righteousness, some people are telling right and wrong, what kind of people are I willing to share good things with!

It's too wrong to say more, and it's not good not to do it!!

The scope of the word stuff is too broad to be clear here. In fact, this is something to share with friends, first of all, you have to know whether you are willing or not, or consider whether your friends are happy or not.

...It depends on what it is. If it's not a big deal. It's right to share it with your friends.

This is a debate, and it seems that the landlord should not discuss "whether good things should be shared with friends", but "good things should not be shared with friends".

Shouldn't... Because sometimes something. Friends don't necessarily need it. And it is very important for yourself. So there is no need to share.

Of course you have to share, what does it matter if you're a good friend, hehe! But don't be so generous to share your favorites with your best friends, and you'll be gone.

It depends.

But I think I'm going to share it with my best friends, and if I share one happiness with my friends, I'll get two happiness; Sharing 1 regret with a friend will reduce the regret ...... by half

If it's your bosom friend, then you have to share half of it, but if it's an ordinary person, forget it, because it's not easy for parents to make money, and they buy us food because they want us to eat well!

If you find the answer to a question, you should share it with a good friend. However, if you do something bad, you should not share the benefits with your good friends.

Happiness can be shared! Good things don't have to be shared with friends.

In my heart, I don't want to share, but I still share it because of my feelings.

Indeed, if people do not know how to share, the world will be very cold. But when sharing, you should also take into account your own interests, and good things should of course be shared best. But when sharing, the first thing to consider is whether you can get a certain amount of satisfaction, that is, whether you can guarantee a certain amount of satisfaction psychologically and materially after sharing, when it cannot constitute satisfaction, blind sharing, will only hurt your own interests, unless you are a person who likes to dedicate yourself, otherwise only when you reach a certain level of psychological or material satisfaction should you consider whether to share with friends.

This psychology and substance refers not only to good things, but also to the reactions or legacies that come from sharing.

It depends on what it is. The concept of good stuff is also broad.

I think money or something, depending on your situation, you can watch it, you can't let a poor person give his own to a rich person. On the other hand, if something that means a lot to you has to share with others, I think it's a painful thing, so why make yourself miserable?

Between friends, there are things that can be shared and things that cannot be shared.

For example, love, can it be shared?

Happy, of course, can be shared!

The pain can be endured together!/

It doesn't matter what kind of material good it is, it can be understood in this way, if a friend is there, share it with a friend.

If your friend isn't there, you don't have to go to him, you have to share with him.

Maybe people don't want to share it with you, right?

Kindness. The first thing to define is what is good.

There are some things that cannot be shared, such as friendship, love, family affection, etc.

Good things should be defined first.

Don't, because I'm stingy.

It depends on something!!

It's a win, there's something wrong with this debate.

The word is good here, and it is not good for others to say that it is not good

Of course, if it doesn't matter, you have to share your friends together!

Be cautious about interests, after all, whether you will be friends in the future is still to be determined.

Strong refutation of him: girlfriend is a good thing, should also be shared among friends?

1. It is inevitable to have a good relationship with all subordinates, you can make friends but not deep friendships, and you must have a degree in your heart. Needless to say, the benefits of a good relationship are to talk about the relationship with your subordinates and friends. First of all, your subordinates will not make friends with you unless they are willing to tell you how they are not used to your management.