Debating Tournament Is there any material that college students should not focus on open education?

Send it to your mailbox and see for yourself.

Rebuttals can be made from these aspects.

1. The opposing debater may make a deficiency comparison, that is, there is no theory without them, practice cannot be carried out, and so on. You should tell them that today is a comparative debate, and that it should be both present and important on the basis of discussing which is more important and more in line with our needs, and that we cannot look at one side and only look at the other.

2. If the opponent says that theory guides practice, you can refute it like this: Theory guides practice, but do you know that theory is fundamentally derived from practice, and theory must also play a role through practice, otherwise it is not just talk on paper?

3. The other party may play such a point: practice is very diverse, difficult to teach, and theory is common, the current classroom teaching mode determines that most of the interaction between teachers and students is the teaching of theoretical knowledge, and the practical content cannot be carried out in the classroom at this stage, so the objective conditions determine that the theory must be the mainstay.

You can refute: it is precisely because of the lack of practice in classroom teaching that we should focus on practice and increase the intensity of practical teaching to fill the current shortcomings.

The conclusion and sublimation part is also important. It is recommended that you focus on the lack of practical ability of current college students. At present, China's job market is difficult to find employment on the one hand, and it is difficult to recruit workers on the other hand, because college students lack practical ability and it is difficult to adapt to the needs of real jobs, so in order to realize the three major tasks of "talent training, scientific research, and service to society" in universities, it is necessary to strengthen practical teaching.

It would be good to get data based on examples.

Your practice has a natural advantage, that is, the Marxist concept of practice holds that practice is material and higher than theory, and that practice produces theory, and in the process of theory guiding practice, we still have to settle down on practice, and at the same time, the correctness of theory still needs to be tested by practice. But I don't recommend that you use Marxism too much to suppress people, it will give the judges a bad feeling. On the field, we must pay attention to the current situation of university education, which will appear to have a high vision and perspective, and have practical significance.

A little idea, I hope it can help you.

1. We recognize the importance of theoretical justifications in university education.

2. It has been proposed that practice is the only criterion for verifying the truth.

3. The opponent's defense friend exaggerates the importance of theory (this mistake is bound to be made by the other side) 4. The "essentialism" and "metaphysics" put forward by Marxism prove the error of attaching importance only to theory and not to practice (this is very important, because China is following the Marxist road).

Fifth, China has repeatedly put forward the concept of "coming from practice and going to practice", and it should be no problem to step on these points.

This is an interesting topic for your debate.

First of all, starting from a young age is a very colloquial saying, how small is "small"? Grabbing is also a very vague concept, is instilling a certain amount of sexual knowledge to "grab"? Or is it a systematic and comprehensive sex education to "grasp".

In so many vague oral debates, there should not be a disadvantage.

Here we should make a few points clear when arguing and arguing, how small is "small" and what is the concept of "grasping sex education". These two points must be clear.

In the case of the general lack of sex education and the lack of professional education methods and contents, the national conditions of each country are different, and the social ideologies are also very different, and it is unscientific to copy the sex education models and contents of other countries. In the reality of the lack of overall sex education, the original sex education should be carried out at a relatively high stage, such as college students' sex education, after doing a good job in the older stage, slowly penetrate into the younger stage, and finally we must achieve the goal of scientific and systematic sex education for children from an early age, but at present, we cannot start from an early age. Because we are all missing as a whole, blindly starting from a small age is not necessarily a good thing.

Because a complete education system involves the cognitive and psychological levels of different ages, it is a very complex and sophisticated work, and the inculcation of sexual knowledge in children may have the greatest impact on individuals. Slowly infiltrating from older to younger age is the most scientific method. (Here are many cases of failed or unscientific attempts at sex education in kindergartens or primary schools).

The main idea is that injections can cure diseases, but some injections must be tested for skin and wait for the allergy results before injections.

It's the same with sex education, if the whole education takes the liberty of "starting from a young age", it is unscientific and unsafe. There should be a slow transition from higher to lower education.

This is my way of thinking, I am not against sex education from an early age, but we must start after sex education develops to a certain level, and now our sex education is not systematic and professional or even lacking. Therefore, we should start from the "big", first do a good job in university, middle school, and sex education, and then slowly expand to a younger age. Hopefully, this line of thinking will open your eyes to the debate.

There should be university education - that is, higher education.

Solution: University education should, not must"One-size-fits-all"The marketization of the land does not mean that the standards and rules of the market economy should be implemented in all fields and links of university education.

Focusing on the market is a method, means and mainstream trend to ensure the sustainable development of university education, but it is not the absolute direction, the ultimate goal and the only means and method.

University Education&;The meaning of the market is: the university is; Senior Talent Products; The production unit, which has always had an inherent need to face the market. At the same time, universities are the consuming units of public goods such as higher education (families and students as consumers), and they have always been a market. Focusing on the market is its own development, which is the norm and standard of university education, and the internal needs and external needs determine that it should be market-oriented.

Being market-oriented is not the same; complete industrialization, free competition, and privatization; , because education itself is both an industry and a public utility.

The so-called market-oriented approach refers to the process and trend of reconstructing the management system, operation mechanism and control system and other teaching management systems of university education in accordance with the mechanism and laws of market operation under the conditions of market economy, adjusting and revising the relationship between universities and other social organizations, and gradually transforming universities into market operators.

Main attention. 1.It should be market-oriented, not must-have.

2.After graduating from university, it is inevitable to enter the market, and focusing on the market is conducive to employment.

3.It is conducive to the rational allocation of university resources.

4.Note that it is possible to associate the market with money, the market is not the same as money, money is part of the economy, the economy is part of the market, and the point cannot be generalized.

Question 1What do you think about the unpopular majors and popular majors in universities? Isn't it because the market needs it?

2.Rise to the moral height, grasp the market is not the mainstay, students can not be employed, can not realize value, the country's resources are wasted. Your parents have raised you for decades!

Bonus points! That's how I argued at the time in our school! Win! Bonus points! Bonus points! Bonus points! Bonus points! Bonus points!

The idea can be roughly said, and the material has to be found by yourself (note that the first debate will require a summary of the general views of the party, and it can be said that the debate that is only enough is almost all around the theme of the two sides and the first debate, because if you change the direction in the middle, it is easy to cause inconsistent coherence and cannot justify the consequences, so the argument of the first debate must be comprehensive, and point out a feasible direction for the debate of the other side.) ）

Positive: From the purpose of university education (the purpose is an argument that can be used for both sides, the positive side can distinguish between the purpose of university education and vocational technical schools, and can also focus on the positioning of university education), the disadvantages caused by the market (such as many college students but not sophisticated, no one concentrates on academics, etc.), the significance of university education for cultural development. In fact, there are a lot of arguments, and there are a bunch of them on the Internet.

Against: The purpose can be changed to send talents to the society, so it needs the benefits of social orientation and market orientation for economic development.

As a debate, it is necessary to understand clearly what the pros and cons of market-oriented are, as well as the causes of its development and the appropriate occasions, and there must be positive and negative examples for each argument, as well as solutions and measures that conform to one's own arguments for the other party's arguments.