w88 casino News Network (Special Correspondent Yu Hehuan)11month8日夜7Points, the debate match between the w88 casino of Law and the w88 casino of Information was held in Ningyuan826Hold.
This competition is sponsored by the Chinese DepartmentCai ShaoweiTeacher, Business w88 casinoLi ZijieTeachers and Students OfficeZhang LiThe teacher serves as the judge. The debate topic of the righteous w88 casino of Law is "We should take advantage of the victory on the road of life", while the debate topic of the opposition w88 casino of Information is "We should accept the good things on the road of life". Since the w88 casino of Law and the w88 casino of Information had previously tied in the first round of the debate, both sides attached great importance to this extra round and both sent very capable debaters. The w88 casino of Law sent four debaters, Wang Dian, Qin Jiameng, Fan Yin, and Lu Mengze, while the team from the w88 casino of Letters consisted of Wang Jue, Zhang Xiaoxi, Wang Fang, and Jin Hui.
In the argument stage, the affirmative side stated its views with clear ideas and distinct viewpoints. The opposing side also showed no weakness in its first argument. After making appropriate counterattacks, it completed the opposing side's argument with four arguments including "giving up when things go well is a peaceful mentality and a rigorous attitude."
The affirmative side gained a considerable advantage in the attack and defense. The opposition's second defense raised very aggressive questions, using Germany's first victory and then defeat on the Soviet battlefield during World War II as a cross-examination to the affirmative. However, the affirmative's second defense cleverly avoided the sharp edges and clarified that history cannot be assumed, the future is unknowable, and war cannot be regarded as a view of life, etc., which suppressed the opposition's momentum. The three arguments for the affirmative also used unexpected progressive questions in the questioning, which led the three arguments for the negative into a logical trap and could not justify themselves.
The free debate heated up the atmosphere, and both debaters performed very well. They have clear views, sufficient arguments, and active thinking. They quote a large number of historical facts and famous quotes to demonstrate their views. However, the four debaters from the Law w88 casino seemed to be more cooperative. They made full use of the opportunity when the opposition's debate time was up and the affirmative had time left to launch a new round of offensive, taking the initiative in their own hands.
In the final concluding remarks, the four opposing sides seized on the rational flaws in the affirmative's thesis to counterattack. The affirmative gave a reasonable explanation for this and focused on the opponent's blind spot attack on the vague standard definition of "good" in "taking it as soon as it is good". Both sides gave very exciting closing speeches, which kept the debate intense until the end.
Experienced the audience question sessionWith the judgesAfter the teacher’s to-the-point comments, the judges announced the Law w88 casino as the final winner of this debate, and named Qin Jiameng, the second debater of the affirmative, as the best debater.
