"Thank you, host. Nan Xiao thanked him briefly, and then went straight to the point,

These three words have been a classic rule for thousands of years, and of course we will not express different views on philosophical principles. But today's debate topic is 'thinking about change if you are poor', and this judgment involves the subjective initiative of human beings.

So, does 'poverty/desperation' most likely lead to change? Our view is not necessarily, i.e., poverty does not necessarily make people change.

Below, we will state the specific reasons in detail: First, the word in the debate should be interpreted as 'just' grammatically, that is, the position of the opponent's defense friend should be 'poverty, which will lead to changes in people's thinking', and this 'rule' represents a sufficient condition. Therefore, as long as we find a counterexample to prove that some people do not think about change when they are poor, they naturally belong to 'being poor and not necessarily thinking about change'.

Second, the opponent may say that 'thinking' represents a person's subjective inner activity, rather than an objective behavior that can be followed externally. Therefore, even if you 'think', you don't necessarily express it in action. If this is explained, then 'poverty' may only be a 'necessary condition' for the action of 'change' in the eyes of the opponent's defense friend - but what we want to say is that even if 'poverty' is identified as a 'necessary condition' for 'change', it is also untenable. We will prove them one by one in the future.

Therefore, our view can be summarized as follows: poverty does not necessarily lead to change, nor is it a necessary prerequisite for change. There is also no clear general relationship between poverty and change, and in many cases where it is thought that poverty is change, the real cause of change is not poverty ......"

"In India, there are hundreds of millions of poor people who live far below the subsistence line and do not meet the daily caloric threshold set by the International Health Organization, but these people have never wanted to change for thousands of years. This is strong evidence that poverty does not change......"

"In China, or in all the countries of the world with a strong atmosphere of progress, progress, and opportunism. Countless great men who have achieved fame have gone one step further, and they have been constantly changing in order to realize their personal self-worth. Nor are they poor and want......"

Subsequently, Nan Xiaoyuan also gave some specific examples in his speech, which do not need to be repeated. In general, because the opponent has not yet launched an attack, the opponent should not be too detailed, so as not to give the judges the impression that "I guess how the other party will attack".

The writing is naturally full of flowers, and the expression, demeanor, and speed of speech are also very good. In three minutes, just after the 30-second reminder, Kankan finished the illustration part, and then stepped on the 15-second reminder, and two short leopard tails closed.

"The off-the-field work is good, and this cliché is not left behind. Hu Biao, the main force of the positive side, secretly thought, but he didn't expect the strength of the vases to be as unbearable as he expected.

Although Nan Xiaoyuan's talent is not good, this opening statement really did not lose to Yan Ruonan. It's a big deal that Nan Xiaoyuan always plays soy sauce in the free debate session later, and it is worth the ticket price.

Hu Biao had an irrepressible eagerness to try, just waiting for the moderator to announce that he had entered the free debate session.

"The following is the free debate session, please speak first!"

Hu Biao was the first to stand up.

"First of all, according to the argument of the other side, I would like to remind the opponent that what we are discussing today is 'thinking about change when you are poor', and thinking is, of course, a subjective mental activity, and it does not necessarily have to be an objective behavior. We are not a criminal law class here, and we do not pay attention to the 'unity of subjectivity and objectivity'.

Therefore, we believe that as long as poverty has a greater degree of probability, it is enough to prove that 'poverty leads to change', and as for those who have not put into action, it is just that they are not capable, or they are limited by knowledge, and they can't think of how to change after thinking about it. ”

As soon as Hu Biao's words came out, the judges and the host couldn't help but silently praise it in their hearts.

This argument is indeed very ingenious, because it is very difficult for a person's heart to prove it.

According to Hu Biao's logic, people who are poor but have not changed, of course, are very likely to be incapable, unable to do it, and unable to change.

I think about it, but I can't figure out how to do it.

At the same time, these words also lightly erased the first assumption in Nan Xiaoyuan's theory, and the chariot and horse set up the battlefield and told the opponent: Fight within the scope of the second point!

Of course, the division team couldn't let Hu Biao build a system so comfortably, so he first relied on Tian Haimo to ask for directions:

"But please pay attention to the opponent's defense friend: Thinking about change has nothing to do with being poor or not, and poverty is not the main reason for thinking about change -- otherwise, according to the other party's defense friend's point of view, you should agree with the saying 'poor people are treacherous and rich in conscience'? Do you think that the poorer people are, the easier it is to do whatever they want?"

Naturally, the Malayan side should immediately deny this, after all, this kind of rhetoric has a strong discrimination against the poor, political incorrectness, and needs to be clarified.

Hu Biao was conceiving it, so Ma Jiaxin stepped up: "Of course, we do not support the statement that 'the poor are treacherous and have a rich conscience,' which is typical discrimination! But we should also admit that poverty can stimulate people's potential, and people can come up with workarounds more than when they are rich with the same ability, intelligence, and knowledge, and use more means to achieve the goal of 'change'......"

Seven or eight consecutive hand-to-hand encounters, with both sides arguing case by case whether poverty can stimulate the potential of thinking about change more than being rich. Or whether the main reason for the extraordinary development of potential is really poverty.

Such examples are somewhat plausible, and the war situation was stalemate for a while.

"How can we all get caught up in the controversy about the subjective state of mind in people's hearts? This kind of thing cannot be proven, and the same example can be used by both positive and negative sides, how can this distinguish the winner from the loser. Even if the last side wins, it's not dignified. One of the judges, CCTV producer Luo Fatzi, thought so.

He is also one of the guests who has been a judge in two domestic competitions and is still a judge in international competitions today.

Feng Jianxiong also said a few words of-for-tat, and his performance was decent, but he couldn't see that he was stronger than Hu Biao.

Until he felt that the heat was almost over.

"May I ask the other side of the debate, how do you explain the poor Indians and the rich Chinese with the same level of education, obviously those poor Indians are so poor that they are dying of hunger, but their motivation to think about change is far inferior to that of the Chinese people who are much better off than them and do not face the slightest urgency?" Feng Jianxiong bit this point and began to attack.

Hu Biao didn't even think about it: "Why do you say that they don't want to change? Education level does not represent the level of knowledge. They may simply lack knowledge. ”

"Don't 'maybe', I can give you a reasonable explanation - the reason why we think that 'thinking about change when we are poor' is a norm and common sense is only because we live in the Han cultural circle. We all speak Chinese, and we are influenced by the cultural atmosphere of 'Chao Wei Tian Shelang, and Dusk Tian Zi Tang'. So we're used to a society with a social-ladder, an upward channel.

But if we are born in a Shudra, we are born as a Shudra, and no matter how hard we try in our life, we can only be a Shudra. Kshatriya was born as a Kshatriya, and no matter how degenerate he is, he can be in Kshatriya's civilization? Is it useful to think about change? Therefore, it is not poverty that makes people think about change, in the final analysis, there is an upward channel, and when it is useful, people think about change. In a civilization with an upward channel, even if it is not poor, it will be more thoughtful than the poor people in a civilization without an upward channel. ”