"Ridiculous! but so cunning!" Qiao Zhiya looked at Nan Xiaoxuan on the other side and accurately dissected and refuted her opening statement, and added a bunch of crooked arguments to fight back, and she was unspeakably uncomfortable.

"What the hell are these guys talking about? "Shouldn't we focus on emphasizing that 'after mobile phones become more and more intelligent, security will decline, privacy will be easier to leak, or something like 'if you can pay Alipay on mobile phones in the future, money will be easier to be stolen'?"

The "dangers of smartphones" ideas that he had in mind were undoubtedly used by the imbeciles of the Beijing Language and Culture University team last year.

If the Normal University also focuses on privacy, security, and radiation today, it will undoubtedly be a send-off.

The Jinling team can easily use the panacea argument that "these problems just show that mobile phone technology is not advanced enough, and after further improvement of technology in the future, it will be safer, more private, and less radiation".

However, it is obvious that the division led by Feng Jianxiong has completely changed a number of offensive angles, although the "shortcomings" of each statement are not very serious, but each of them is very tricky and difficult to refute.

"No, according to this development, a considerable part of the summary statement written before the game will be deleted and useless, what can I do? A total of 4 minutes, I can't make up so much nonsense on the spot, forget it, I can only fill in one step at a time." The fourth debate Tennesie could only bury her head in writing while whispering and discussing with her teammate Rorida next to her.

Tennesie was still there to change the outline, and her teammate Meng Dana had cleared her mind a little and began to refute Nan Xiaoyuan's opening statement.

“…… The opponent's defense friend just said that the emergence of smart phones has led to the acceleration of the replacement of mobile phones and the serious waste of hardware. But isn't this just another way to show that the emergence of smartphones has promoted the progress of mobile phones and other related technologies?

It is precisely because of the rapid iteration of technology updates that old smartphones will fall behind in a short period of time and cannot adapt to the needs of new application software, so they have to upgrade. Therefore, it is debatable whether the opponent's argument that 'smartphones cause waste and environmental pollution increases' is true. Even if it is true, we believe that this kind of minor disadvantage is insignificant compared to the overall benefit of promoting scientific and technological progress - today's debate question is whether the pros outweigh the disadvantages or the disadvantages outweigh the pros, so there are disadvantages that are not terrible, as long as the flaws are not concealed......"

“…… Secondly, the opponent's defense friend mentioned the contradiction between the shortcomings of battery technology and the energy consumption demand of smartphones, which may lead to manufacturers making the battery as big as possible and easy to charge in order to compete for the market, and even produce the danger of spontaneous combustion and explosion - not to mention that we have not seen real evidence in this regard, only the other side's defense friend's words.

But from another point of view, even if smart phones bring energy consumption contradictions, isn't it also promoting the development of battery technology and spurring the progress of battery R&D manufacturers? All of this is just a problem in the development process, and it can eventually be solved by technological development, so it is not a big disadvantage at all.

However, the opponent's defense friend has always grasped these small technical details, and would rather slow down the progress of technology and suppress the needs of human beings, which is called choking and waste food - if every demand must be very mature before it can be put forward, then we will regress to the era of the planned economy, and the planned economy will never have new needs for unconventional ideas, but the society will also return to a dead atmosphere. Could it be that the opponent's defense friend just wants to negate the brilliant achievements of the past 20 years and rewind history?"

Meng Dana is worthy of being the number one main force of Jinling University, and has the only excellent adaptability in the team.

Rao is Nan Xiaoyuan's previous offensive angle was very tricky, and he also slightly "moved the world", processed the dry goods prepared before the game a little, and filled the three pits of Nan Xiaoyuan's attack one by one.

"Papapa~" The applause of the audience, the tide rose and fell, and it sounded more than a dozen times, obviously thinking that this rebuttal was really wonderful and powerful.

The warm applause of the audience obviously gave Meng Dana a lot of self-restraint.

After filling in the pit, he did not forget to take advantage of the victory to pursue, and the materials that his side had suppressed for a long time and could not use because the other party did not attack, and also picked a few points to change their appearance and supplement them as waste utilization.

“…… Okay, so far, we have finished stating the reasons why we think that the 'minor drawbacks' just mentioned by the opponent's defense friend are not enough to mention. Now, let's talk about the big benefits that the other side has spied on and speculated about and gave up because of avoiding these small drawbacks.

The opponent argues that the smartphone system is unstable, has too many unnecessary functions, and is more likely to leak privacy and insecure. Then I can't help but say: the computer will still crash, or return the pen or even the abacus, which is the most stable and reliable. As long as you come into contact with modern communication technology, you will have the security of leaking your privacy. The opponent's defense friend threw all the electronic products back, and the life of the cave man on the top of the mountain is better......"

sprinkled an attack, which made the audience applaud frequently.

However, the reaction of the professional judges was not as earnest as he was in the first half of his speech.

"It's a bit ugly to eat, and I didn't mean it just now. This is completely dragging the other party's point of view one step further, and then preventive hanging. CCTV's Luo Fatzi knew quite well in his heart and couldn't help laughing.

"It should have been a long section prepared before the game, and it was a pity to waste it, so I deliberately distorted the opponent's remarks to make up the number. But it's nothing, the first half of the rebuttal is still strong, and it's a positive response.

THE ONLY FLY IN THE OINTMENT IS THAT AFTER THE TWO PEOPLE SPOKE, NO ONE IN THE JINLING TEAM PUT FORWARD AN OPPOSING POSITION ON THE DEFINITION POINT THAT "IF THE IPHONE AND ITS IMITATIONS ARE NOT GOOD, THE SMARTPHONE IS NOT GOOD", THE OPPOSING SIDE INSISTED ON THE DEFINITION POINT. However, it may be that no one is clear about the scope of future technology, and there is no way to come up with a different and precise definition in this regard. Yu Qiuyu, a well-known poet judge, thought.

……

Next, I would like to ask the opposing side to defend the second side, Feng Jianxiong, to cross-refute the positive side's offensive remarks. ”

When Feng Jianxiong got up, the audience in the stadium was almost overwhelmingly inclined to the other party, that is, the Jinling University team.

After all, Meng Dana's rebuttal is very wonderful, and college students are all young people, who doesn't like cutting-edge new technology?

Therefore, even if Nan Xiaoyuan and Meng Dana's eloquence are tied, the popularity in the field will tend to be positive.

"I can only watch Xiaoxiong, if he can't figure it out, relying on the outline we prepared before the game, I won't be able to play. "The three debates, Tian Haimo and Feng Jianxiong, are next to each other. The moment she watched her teammates stand up, she even felt a sense of powerlessness hit her.

Whoever is labeled as "against scientific and technological progress" by the enemy will be very uncomfortable in the subsequent debate. This kind of common sense, how could Tian Haimo, as a veteran of more than three years of debate qualifications, not know?

Feng Jianxiong stroked the hair on his forehead, and in the midst of all the attention, Shi Shiran spoke:

"I don't know if the opponent prepared everything in advance, and then at the end of the attack and defense session, he found that he had nothing to say and could only read from the script - he actually refuted the clichés of 'since you are worried about the instability and privacy leakage brought by new technology, it is better to go back to ancient life' to refute non-existent.

When did we say not to use new technological products and not to embrace technological progress? If we take a step forward in truth, it will often become absurd, and if we make an erroneous and expanded generalization of the other side's viewpoint, forcibly drag it one step forward, and then refute it, isn't that refuting the air?

Here, I have to remind the opponent's debaters, the judges and the audience present to pay attention: we have never said that the convenience brought by new electronic products and technologies should not be pursued by human beings.

Let's just say that humanity can reflect on what hardware would be better used to implement these functions?' Is it necessary to use mobile phones to implement them?

Of course, human beings need multimedia services, watching videos, listening to music, playing games, and flexible work...... But if humans can use desktops or laptops to handle these needs, or further upgrade PCs to solve existing hidden pain points, then the pressure on society and the environment will naturally be more friendly than relying on smartphones.

At the very least, PC computers are not so serious about battery technology. At the same time, everyone who has used a PC knows that when we configure a computer, once we find that the computer is backward, you can insert an extra memory module when assembling, and the graphics card performance can not support the latest games, so you can only change a graphics card. Other CPUs, hard disks, etc., can also be replaced by DIY modularity.

THEREFORE, THAT KIND OF PRODUCT OBVIOUSLY CAUSES MUCH LESS SOCIAL WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION OF E-WASTE THAN IPHONE-STYLE SMARTPHONES. The resulting social comparison problems will also be much less. Of course, in the future, some companies – such as Google – will launch a new generation of mobile phones, which can also be DIY and upgraded in the same way as computers to reduce social waste and environmental pollution.

However, please note that if such a hypothetical product appears, it can no longer be defined as a 'smartphone'. As we said, the 'smartphone' we discussed today refers specifically to the current generation, led by Apple, as defined by this model garbage.

The same is true for battery technology. In the future, battery technology may indeed make a major breakthrough to allow lightweight and portable devices to take into account battery life, safety and performance, but perhaps the product form of 'smartphone' has been eliminated by then.

We've never been against mobile technology, and we've never been against technological progress. Let's just say that Qiao Bu died in the case that the supporting basic technology is not yet mature, in order to meet the insatiable desire of consumerism, and construct a product that can be replaced by other modes of hardware......"