The opening statement has no layers, no attack points, and Gu Heren is not worried at all.

Because in his opinion, the reason why his opening statement could not be brilliant was because the arguments that the other side might hold on to were so scarce that if the side was given enough ammunition, there was no enemy to strike, and it could only be punched in the air.

If you speculate in vain about a few points that the other party is likely to stick to in the future, theoretically it is not impossible. But once the other party adapts to the situation and immediately discards these points, the positive side is easy to fall into the disgraceful situation of "spending the belly of a gentleman with the heart of a villain".

Especially in the last game, when the division team was dealing with the Jinling University team, Nan Xiaoyuan's opening speech took a full minute to say, "I just listened to the opening statement of the opponent's defense friend, and I thought that our side was preparing the wrong debate topic today", and all kinds of sour Jinling University teams "guessed our views indiscriminately", which really achieved good results.

Therefore, after studying the opponent, the Fudan side was obviously also a little jealous, afraid that it would be so sour by Nan Xiaoyuan again and hurt its temperament, so it simply gave up any "offensive defense".

Now, everything depends on whether Nan Xiaoyuan's argument can make people shine.

Nan Xiaoyuan stood up with a graceful figure, stroked her blonde hair like a waterfall, and started her performance in a chic and courteous manner:

"I believe that all the contestants and guests today know that the topic of tonight's debate is 'whether human beings should appropriately restrict the development of the Internet in order to protect privacy'. Therefore, the Internet is good, and I believe that there is no need to go into detail about how much development and convenience it has provided to mankind. Because tonight everyone will agree that the Internet is a good thing, and we should develop it, from technology, to business models, from social environment, to cultural atmosphere.

In the same way, the existence of privacy is also good, at least harmless to human beings. Again, this is self-explanatory. Therefore, we are not going to waste your time today to justify the existence and development of these two good things, but we are only going to discuss how to make better trade-offs when these two benefits are in conflict with each other - and our view on this is that 'human beings do not need to restrict the development of the Internet in order to protect their privacy' - even the slightest restriction is not necessary. All problems are only problems in the process of development, and development itself should be used to solve them......"

When Nan Xiaoyuan said this, Gu Heren and Bai Jingyou of the Fudan team didn't feel any sense of crisis, but were happy.

"It turns out that we are going to follow this kind of 'lesser of two evils' tactics of harmony! Maybe the next step is to argue all the way that 'all problems encountered in development can be solved through development, so there is no need to restrict development'!"

"It's a pity that this trick is useless for today's game! If 'problems that can be solved by economic development' can be left unchecked, then what else does the state need to do with macroeconomic regulation and control? At first glance, this viewpoint is based on the stance that in order to win the game, it has to occupy a 100 percent absolute liberal market economy and rely on the 'hand of the market' to naturally regulate and control and no one should interfere! How can such a stance be possible to win the game in a country that believes in macroeconomic regulation and control?

The Fudan team members thought so.

The judges in the audience, hearing this part, also began to look left and right, as if they wanted to understand each other's positions. Although no one spoke, in just a dozen seconds, the five judges knew that Yu Qiuyu, who showed humanistic care, as well as Liu Zhenyun and Chen Xue, who were either old-school or casual, must be inclined to "macro-control".

Only the two judges, Luo Fatzi and Gao Dasong, estimated that they were plainly flaunting "liberal intellectuals", and they might still have to play.

"This kind of argument is too uncreative, it is completely logical sophistry, lacks factual support, and eats jujube pills. The host Sa Beining observed the change in the audience's applause, and secretly thought that the people in the field were not optimistic about the division and brigade, but they were afraid that they had already accounted for the majority.

It's a pity that when everyone began to think about taking sides, Nan Xiaoyuan's opening statement was only more than half of it.

In the last minute of the opening of the opposing side, Nan Xiaoyuan's words changed, from the beginning of seeking stability and bottoming, and suddenly turned into a high-profile Qifeng abrupt and sudden attack.

“…… In addition, in his argument just now, the opponent said that privacy is the product of mankind's consistent pursuit of freedom, and it is a manifestation of mankind's struggle for freedom. The other side only gives this judgment, but does not give the basis for such a judgment, and seems to think that it is self-evident.

In this regard, we have to say that human beings do have the freedom to pursue privacy, but the pursuit of privacy is not a manifestation of human pursuit of freedom, and this description cannot be mutually causal. In other words, in the long course of human history, human beings have never thought about pursuing privacy? Privacy is only a pursuit that began to emerge when human society developed from acquaintance society to large-scale stranger cooperation in the industrial age.

Prior to this, human beings may be able to pursue privacy, but no one cares about this problem, so privacy is one of the values that human beings eternally pursue.

Finally, I would like to stress once again that the topic of today's debate is that human beings do not need to restrict the development of the Internet in order to protect privacy. This cannot be equated with 'human beings want to actively destroy privacy', and laissez-faire is not the same as taking the initiative to do it. Therefore, not restricting the development of the Internet cannot be stigmatized as 'destroying privacy', it just feels that privacy, an increasingly marginalized right, is not worth investing more social resources and costs. Thank you. ”

She ...... What did she mean?" Liang Chunri complained in his heart, speechless for a while.

Gu Heren's level is higher than that of his teammates, and he can't help but think: "Not restricting the development of the Internet is not the same as destroying privacy...... This point is easy to refute. But what is the point of what she just said......, 'Human beings have never always valued privacy'?

Guided by this thinking, the two sides cautiously began a cross-debate.

……

A few minutes later, the hand-to-hand battle of words and swords fell.

Gu Heren had already held back his anger, and immediately asked: "May I ask the other party's defense friend, you keep saying that human beings' pursuit of privacy cannot be regarded as a manifestation of human beings' pursuit of freedom, and that privacy is not what human beings have always wanted to pursue? In our opinion, the more human beings progress, the more they pay attention to privacy, and the more they pay attention to personal freedom, isn't it obvious! Your viewpoint is too ridiculous!"

When he asked, he didn't name who the opposite side would answer, but Feng Jianxiong immediately stood up.

"Of course there is a basis for this—in the feudal era, did the law define the right to 'privacy'? Of course not, there was no such concept at that time. The emergence of the right to privacy is not even an early product of capital attention legislation, but a product of the development of capital attention to a fairly mature stage. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Law, this concept did not appear until 1890 - more than 20 years after the Second Industrial Revolution and electrification, which shows that there was no concept of privacy in ancient times......

When Feng Jianxiong said this, it was actually not over yet, and he didn't sit back. But Gu Heren couldn't wait to interrupt him and interjected:

As we all know, Cang Liao knows etiquette, knows honor and disgrace when he has enough food and clothing, and is full of warm thoughts. In ancient times, there was no right to privacy, because at that time, human beings did not even meet the basic needs of material and spiritual civilization, so they did not have time to think about privacy. Once satisfied, the pursuit of privacy becomes even more prominent. The material and spiritual supply of the future society will naturally be more abundant than it is today, so shouldn't human beings pursue privacy even more!"

"Well said!" The Fudan students, who accounted for most of the audience, cheered in low voices, applauding Gu Heren's Guangweizheng remarks.

"The reason is good, but the interruption is a bit out of grace. And in case the opponent's point of attack is not as expected by the positive side, this kind of interjection is very bad. Luo Fatzi and Gao Dasong thought so.

The rest of the judges were noncommittal.

Everyone is waiting to see what happens, looking forward to whether Feng Jianxiong can give a strong rebuttal.

Feng Jianxiong was very generous, and he couldn't see the shame and anger when he was interrupted from his speech. It wasn't until Gu Heren stopped talking and the host cut the table that he spoke: "Is it over?"

"What...... What evidence?" Gu Heren was a little puzzled, but fortunately he reacted quickly, "What I said is common knowledge and universal truth, just as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, what evidence do you want? If you throw a piece of meat on the ground, will the dog rush over and take it away, or will it turn a corner and take it away? 'The shortest straight line between two points' is a truth, even dogs know it, do you still need evidence?"

"Hehe, is it common sense, not self-appointed. Feng Jianxiong was not angry at all, "Just now the opponent's defense friend asked me to prove that 'privacy is not a consistent pursuit of human beings', and I took out the "Oxford Law Dictionary" as evidence.

Now that you have refuted me, I want you to prove that you say that 'the richer the material and spiritual, the more you will pursue privacy', but you refuse to provide evidence. Even from the principle of 'whoever asserts, who proves', can't justify, right? But it doesn't matter, I can't prove it to you—"

When Feng Jianxiong said this, he turned his body and no longer looked at Gu Heren, but turned to the stands and talked eloquently.

Gu Heren wanted to interrupt again, but he didn't know what to say for a while, so he missed another opportunity to be rude.

"Dear judges, hosts, audiences. I have just proved that the concept of 'privacy' was not noticed for the first time until the second industrial revolution lasted for more than 20 years, which shows that the right to privacy did not exist in ancient times, nor has it been needed since ancient times.

In the agrarian society where the people are simple and simple, and even in the early days when capital paid attention to industrialization, why did human beings not need the right to privacy? In fact, this is because the production relations of human society have not yet entered the era in which the socialized division of labor is the mainstream.

Therefore, in the traditional acquaintance society of 'looking down and not looking up', there is no question of privacy. Everyone knows that Zhang's family is short, everyone is very familiar with the people around them, and no one thinks that 'what food I ate today, what luxury goods I used, and how much money I have at home' These information revealing personal wealth, status, and social ability are unspeakable.

And only in the era of socialization and division of labor, the traditional acquaintance society was completely broken. Because I don't know the people around me and I don't know the private lives of my colleagues/customers/suppliers, I shouldn't let them know my private life, so as not to make the information asymmetry unfair,' and the legal basis for privacy is based on this......"