At this point in the competition, the verbal exchange between the two sides has long exceeded the level of play on the same debate topic in history.

In other words, even if there is a person today who has just watched the original video of the 2007 "Should the Government Control the Number of Private Cars" International Collegiate Debate Tournament, and memorizes every sentence of the pros and cons.

Then immediately crossed back to the arena where Feng Jianxiong and Yang Weiwei played against each other while it was hot, and became a copyist.

Then, this copyist is bound to lose in front of Feng Jianxiong and Yang Weiwei.

Debating is a technical job, a game played by the highly intelligent elite. In this field, even if Kaihang is a copyist, the mentally handicapped is still mentally retarded.

If your foundation, literacy, connotation, and adaptability are not up to par, you can't save him even if he is given a chance to be reborn.

Because, the positive team in history, the momentum of the scene is actually not weak, and if you lose, you lose in your mind, and there is no string for the two points of "administration according to law" and "who should pay taxes to whom".

Originally, this was also the norm for domestic college students in 07, because Chinese people were used to the government's casual administration. Except for those who have studied administrative law, the vast majority of people do not question the legality of administrative acts. And it is precisely the absence and contempt for this point that has made the historical Zhengfang resent by the vast majority of the jury as liberal intellectuals.

Now, after layers of debate about specific governance methods. Feng Jianxiong and his teammates have actually taken the risk of bypassing the two big pitfalls of "not administering according to law" and "improper tax recipients".

So, the game went completely into uncharted territory.

A realm where even the regenerate have no securing prophetic advantage.

However, Yang Weiwei is also stronger than the opposing players in history. This allowed the excitement and confrontation of the game to continue to push to the last climax.

……

Tang Wen and Chen Han's resistance was unsystematic, and they were defeated by Tian Haimo and Yu Meiqin.

Yang Weiwei, who had sorted out her thoughts, finally took the opportunity to take out the final killer feature that was originally going to be saved for the summary statement.

"The opposing side of the debate has just asked us which of the two views we support, 'free choice in the market economy' and 'scarcity of supply and high prices will exacerbate social inequality'. I would like to say that the opponent's choice is too domineering and lacks logic - because these two points of view can obviously be supported at the same time, and they do not contradict each other!

The opponent insists that we make a choice, but I would like to hear the opponent's argument explain what you think are the reasons for these two contradictions!"

Yang Weiwei's questioning was obviously aimed at Tian Haimo's rebuttal of Tang Wen just now.

Tian Haimo was slightly stunned, a little stunned by the surprise attack of Yang Weiwei, who had been gathering momentum for a long time, but she knew that this question had to be answered by her personally, and if she threw the pot directly to Feng Jianxiong, it would leave a bad impression on the judges.

In debate competitions, even though both sides of the free debate session can answer each other's questions at will, there is an unwritten rule that whoever makes a hypothesis is obliged to prove it himself.

Otherwise, it is easy for the judges to think that "only one or two people in this team are capable, and the others are vases that prepare their lines before the game and lack the ability to cross-examine and adapt on the spot".

Tian Haimo couldn't see the trap in Yang Weiwei's words, so she could only use cautious words: "Isn't this obvious? Respecting the free choice and regulation of the market economy, of course the price of scarce things will rise." Isn't it natural that those who have more money can naturally exclude those who have less money?"

Yang Weiwei smiled slyly: "Then I can only say that the other party's opinion is too narrow - first of all, the number of license plates is limited, not the scarcity of resources caused by the market economy, but the scarcity artificially created by administrative control." Therefore, the sheer use of money to restrict the choice of the poor is inherently a restriction on civil liberties.

If this scarcity of administrative regulation and control can be solved by throwing money at it, does the opponent's defense friend think that scalping stalls during the Spring Festival transportation are also legal? Then why does the state still use so many police forces to crack down on those train ticket sellers every year? Aren't those ticket sellers also realizing the goal of 'allowing the rich to buy train tickets at a higher price,' thus releasing the 'demand of the free market'?"

Tian Haimo was a little speechless for a while, she really didn't think about why the scalpers broke the law. In addition, she was the only one in the team who did not study the Fa, and after thinking for only two seconds in a hurry, she said urgently: "This ...... This is because scalpers hoarded Juqi, artificially created additional scarcity, and deliberately hyped up the ticket price of train tickets, and this kind of speculation that disrupts the normal order of the market should of course be punished by law......"

"No, no, no, you don't understand the legal basis for why scalpers are illegal - according to what you said, then only those scalpers who 'hoard, speculate and coax' are illegal. But the fact is that the laws of the country consider all scalpers to be illegal -

As we all know, the current national restrictions on the purchase of train tickets in peak seasons such as the Spring Festival have developed to the management level of one window queuing at a time and one certificate can only be limited in ticket purchase. Even scalpers can't 'queue up to buy dozens or hundreds of train tickets at a time' like in the past days. So there are a lot of low-level people in scalpers, who are actually making hard money.

For example, when the average hourly wage in the local society is 10 yuan an hour, some unemployed vagrants or low-income people, their time value is relatively low, not worth 10 yuan an hour, then they will choose to help people queue, and then assume that a train ticket has to wait in line for five hours to buy, they will increase the price by 50 yuan to change hands.

At this time, people who are not valuable in their personal time will still line up to buy tickets in person. Relatively high-income people with higher hourly wages and an hourly value of 30 or 50 yuan will choose not to queue up in person, but to buy tickets from scalpers at the cost of a queue fee of 10 yuan per hour.

According to the theory of the opponent's debater, this kind of scalpers who make hard-earned money should not break the law, because they are completely respecting the market and selling their hard labor - but the state still thinks that this kind of scalping is illegal, and also thinks that it is also immoral for people who 'rely on themselves to spend the same amount of time to make more money and then buy people to queue up', how can the opponent's defense friend explain?

If we can't explain this problem, wouldn't it just prove our point of view: for the scarce resources caused by administrative constraints, relying on the 'highest price' is also an aggravation of social injustice!"

Yang Weiwei's words took up more than half a minute of free debate time for the opposing side, and respent the advantageous time saved before, and it is estimated that the opposing side will use up the time of this stage in advance.

But when the opposing team members heard this, they all breathed a sigh of relief, and felt that Yang Weiwei's slightly lengthy speech was also worth it.

Tian Haimo's mind was completely puzzled for a while.

The angle of this question is too tricky.

And the key is that she has never thought about the question of "why is it illegal to sell even a scalper who simply sells his labor to make hard-earned money" in her life.

In fact, 90% of Chinese people subconsciously feel that if they just make hard-earned money and help others queue up, then scalpers should not be illegal.

However, Yang Weiwei was able to extend this problem to the pinnacle of the problem, as an attack point for attacking the restricted card behavior to "exacerbate social unfairness".

The problem has led back to the level of "political correctness" and "ideology", and if you are not careful, you may fall into the trap of "supporters of tyranny", which is really dangerous and abnormal.

In fact, from the time Yang Weiwei began to speak just now, Yu Meiqin's mind had already begun to run at a high speed, thinking of countermeasures.

She roughly knows the reason why the "coolie scalper" broke the law, but she didn't know how to use and organize this knowledge to refute Yang Weiwei's point of view:

"The reason why this kind of scalping is also illegal should be because the state believes that this kind of 'time to buy time' transaction is not allowed.

In other words, the state has adopted the threshold of 'you must spend resources to queue up' for welfare/guarantee resources with administrative restrictions/subsidies.

For example, low-rent housing and affordable housing are not things that can be bought with additional money, those are guaranteed things. It must be the household that has a household registration in the city, and the family housing environment has reached the XX level and lasts for many years. It is obviously illegal to deceive the purchase of affordable housing under the pretense of the 'suffering' of other people who are "really difficult but can't even afford affordable housing".

Specific to the question of train tickets for the Spring Festival. The government wants the people to be investing time in sifting through scarcity. That is, if you have to buy a ticket for an average of 5 hours, and a ticket is 100 yuan, and the average hourly wage of the local society is 10 yuan, then the final hidden comprehensive cost is actually 150 yuan.

But if a person's hourly salary is 50 yuan, and he queues up for 5 hours to buy a ticket in person, the final hidden comprehensive cost is 350 yuan, and the actual cost of buying a ticket is much higher than that of the poor.

The reason why the government cracks down on scalpers is to 'deny that those who are more valuable in time have the opportunity to buy the time of those who are not worth their time', to force up the cost of additional tickets for those who are valuable in time, to force these people not to grab the affordable means of transportation such as trains, and to force the rich to take buses or planes.

Unfortunately, I know the legal basis, so how can we explain this remark? If we say it directly, it will be too unfavorable to our viewpoint. Private car restricted auctions will be labeled as 'exacerbating social injustice'......"

After thinking about it, Yu Meiqin always felt that her knowledge stock and logic were enough, and she was a step higher than Tian Haimo, but she still couldn't catch Yang Weiwei's last big move.

Fortunately, Destiny doesn't need Yu Meiqin to take this trick.

"Please pay attention to the opponent's defense friends: Don't change the concept secretly! Spring Festival train tickets and low-rent housing for the poor are all social security resources, and of course we can talk about the issue of 'social justice.'" But private cars are not guaranteed transport – city buses, even in emergency situations, taxis, these are guaranteed buses. Private cars are a demand that mainly reflects social added value, so how can it be compared with other security needs?"

When Yu Meiqin and Tian Haimo heard this voice, they were inexplicably relieved.

Feng Jianxiong spoke, everything can be done.