Is it advisable to judge heroes by success or failure? Is it advisable to judge heroes by success or

It is not advisable, but since ancient times, heroes have been judged by success or failure, because later people only saw the results but did not see the process, and there is the self-momentum of the successful, whether they are heroes or not, only people in that era have the most right to speak. There are also counterexamples, although Xiang Yu, the overlord of Western Chu, failed in the end, Wujiang killed himself.

But the tenderness of Farewell My Concubine still has people's psychological resonance, and they all think that Liu Bang.

It's just a villain.

To judge the hero by success or failure", whether it is work, study, or life, for a goal, for some dreams, we have made some efforts, success or failure is an inevitable result of the whole struggle, when enjoying the whole process, we of course also take whether it is successful or not, as a criterion. But this is definitely not the only criterion, the so-called "don't judge heroes by success or failure", this famous saying has been praised by many literati and sages. Throughout the ages, how many heroes have failed, but their fame will forever go down in history.

So, as long as we have the right goals in life, no matter what the outcome is, as long as we have fought and fought for it, we are the winners of this game.

Rationally speaking, it is not advisable, but in modern society, others only recognize those who seem to be glamorous and successful, and few people pay attention to their path to success, no matter how disgraceful. So the best way to do it is to adapt to it and go along with it!

I'm a sophomore, and I've just joined the school's debate team, so I wanted to analyze and reason about some debate questions, so I came up with this topic.

In my personal opinion, I don't think it's advisable to judge heroes by success or failure.

First of all, let's define a hero, who is considered a hero? Everyone's definition is different, but my definition is: a person who can make the masses feel respectful can be called a hero. Our heroes must be people who can make us awe-inspiring.

Clarifying the definition of a hero, we look at the definition of success or failure in my opinion. Success or failure refers to success and failure, then we can define whether the outcome of the character's events is positive, if the result is positive, it is success, and vice versa.

The two definitions have been clear, so let's see what is the inevitable connection between the two? In the simplest case, one person dominates the course of the matter, and the result is positive. Of course, this kind of person can be called a hero, isn't this routine in superhero movies?

But if the result is not positive, surely he will not meet the definition of a hero? The answer is no. Because the previous definition also said, it can be called a hero if it makes the masses feel awe.

There are countless examples: although Jing Ke assassinated the King of Qin in the end, he was weak and cold, and the good story of the strong man who never returned will remain in history, and Jing Ke is a hero. Although Chen Sheng and Wu Guang's uprising ended in failure, as China's first wanton peasant uprising, it had a far-reaching impact, and they were also heroes.

A series of changes such as the Westernization Movement and the Book on the Bus all ended in failure, and who dares to say that those pioneers were not national heroes? If you simply use success or failure as a comment, then you are not talking about heroes, but heroes.

To sum up, this is my general point of view and thinking context, everyone can talk about any opinions and ideas, the essence of the debate is divergent logic, let the thinking evolve!

Expand the definition of the word "theory" and not limit it to the one-sided perspective that only success is a hero. Don't limit yourself to only success or failure to "discuss" heroes, success or failure is a necessary condition for evaluation criteria.

Because this debate topic is clear, if you say that success is a hero, the other side will cite the example of a failed hero, you will say that failure is a hero, and the other side will give the example of a successful hero, and you will say that you are a hero regardless of success or failure, which proves the other party's point of view.

First of all, you can only argue that the reason why heroes are heroes is because they have the experience of success and failure.

Whether it is success or failure, it is the result of "hard work", and empty talk will not give birth to success or failure.

Secondly, since it is derived from hard work, then why hard work? Because the debate style in our school is relatively retro, you asked me to find materials that are either the old three articles or "How Steel is Made, I won't go into details."

Finally, remember that success or failure is not the only criterion for "discussing" heroes, nor is it a sufficient condition.

It's a necessity.

Debate skills: 1. Leverage the strength of Qi to fight with your hands: There is a trick in martial arts, called "borrowing strength", which means that people with deep internal strength can use the power of the opponent to attack and fight back This method can also be applied to debate.

2. Grafting: Eliminate the flawed part of the opponent's argument and replace it with a favorable point of view or material on our side.

The miraculous effect of this technique is called "grafting".

3. Push the boat with the current: on the surface, agree with the other party's point of view, follow the logic of the other party to deduce, and in the derivation, according to our needs, set up some obstacles that are in line with the high bend of the situation, so that the other party's point of view cannot be established under the additional conditions, or draw a conclusion diametrically opposed to the other party's point of view.

Whether it is advisable to judge heroes by success or failure is introduced as follows:

Positive argument: Heroes are desirable to judge by success or failure.

First, the idea of judging heroes by success or failure has merit in itself, and although the ancients debated it, the reason why it has been debated for thousands of years shows that it has merit from one side? When we look at this sentence today, we do not look at it from such a simple angle, but we should adopt a pragmatic attitude of taking the essence and removing the dross, so that it can conform to the needs of the times.

Second, the desirability of the value of judging heroes by success or failure lies in associating success with heroes. A hero is not a simple person, nor is it a heroic medallion, nor is it a cold tombstone, it represents a spiritual symbol, a national flag and a national example.

Third, the desirability of judging heroes by success or failure is also manifested in the fact that it has a wide range of practical significance, because as a value, it encourages the whole society to learn from heroes and pursue success.

Counter-argument: It is not advisable to judge heroes by success or failure.

1.It is pointed out as a de facto success or failure, and it shows that the hero's true character exists beyond success or failure.

2.A large number of examples are thrown out to show that Wen Tianxiang and Yue Fei have all proved that "heroes cannot be judged by success or failure", but instead tied the shackles to the concept of heroes. Success may not be a hero, failure is not necessarily not a hero, a hero has a lofty ideal and spirit that transcends success or failure, and we pursue a hero by no means because of his success or not.