w88 casino News Network (Reporter Li Linyang)11month22日19：30, the rematch between the positive side, the w88 casino, and the negative side, the Beijing Institute of Technology, was held in Ningyuan, w88 casino828The classroom expands. The topic of the debate was "What should people living with AIDS/You shouldn’t have children.” In the end, the opposition Beijing Institute of Technology won, and Wang Yongyan of the w88 casino team won the title of the best debater in the third debate.

The w88 casino team (left) versus the Beijing Institute of Technology team (right)

“Because of Love, Pay Attention to AI” Beijing College Debate Invitational Competition is sponsored by Sohu Charity,GBC8230_8291

Best debater Wang Yongyan

The debate competition is divided into four main parts: opening speech, four rounds of defense, free debate and concluding speech. After a minute of self-introduction by both parties, the affirmative side, the w88 casino team, made an opening statement, explained the topic of the debate, and put forward the core point of view that economic and technical guarantees make the reproduction of HIV-infected people reasonable, while the Beijing Institute of Technology team’s first debate pointed out from the perspective of family and children that the two prerequisites for the reproduction of HIV-infected people cannot be met.

Following this were four exciting rounds of attack and defense, with the second and third defenses of the pros versus the second and third defenses of the negative side respectively. In this link, one of the parties is the attacker, and the attacker can only ask questions, explain problems, find breakthroughs, and strive to make every word perfect. The other side is the defender, responsible for answering questions, calmly responding to the attacker's tough questions, defeating them one by one, and turning danger into safety. After four rounds of fierce verbal battles, both sides made a summary of their defense. In just one minute and thirty seconds, they concisely summarized the basic positions and main arguments of their own views, while sharply pointing out the loopholes in the other side's views.

The attack and defense session can be said to be the climax of the entire debate, but the most intense and exciting part is still the free debate session. At the beginning of this session, the four affirmative debaters aggressively asked the opposition debaters: "Why are mentally ill patients restricted from having children, but those with HIV are not?" The tense atmosphere instantly filled the audience, but the opposition debaters were not dazzled by the affirmative's aggressive questions. They still maintained rational and clear thinking, calmly analyzed the situation, and explained their views. However, the opposition debaters failed to allocate their time reasonably, which left ample time for the affirmative debaters to explain their views. The four affirmative debaters continued to question each other with overwhelming momentum, but the opposition was unable to fight back because time ran out. The competition also entered a fierce stage due to the organized speeches of the affirmative debaters.

The style of the affirmative debater

The heroic appearance of the opposing debater

Both sides have their own arguments, and when it is difficult to determine the winner, the important task falls on the shoulders of both sides. In the summary section, the fourth debate team of Beijing Institute of Technology, on the opposing side, affectionately explained the opposition’s point of view from the perspective of children and family responsibilities. Their defense was humorous but also rigorously logical and powerfully appealing. The fourth debate team of the w88 casino, on the positive side, refuted the gaps in the opponent’s arguments. His passionate and literate summary won him rounds of applause.

Judges’ comments

After the judges left the discussion and the audience asked questions, the judges briefly commented on the performance of both sides. The three judges pointed out the shining points of both debaters in the debate, and also pointed out the shortcomings of both sides in the debate.