"Professor Gu! I think that these views of classmate Feng just now are really incorrect! We can't just consider talent and not character, and bring bad students who have just stepped into college!"

When Fu Chengcai said this, he was already out of the way. He knew that once he turned on the personal attack mode, even if he stinked Feng Jianxiong, he would not be able to be hired himself, so he could only cheapen a third party in vain.

However, the ardent expectation of the senior sister goddess made him have to be hard without knowing why.

"Oh, where is his three views wrong?" Professor Gu saw that the interview had a tendency to turn to personal attacks, and his tone was also immediately displeased, but he was still willing to listen to Fu Chengcai first.

Professor Gu had already made up his mind in his heart: even if what Fu Chengcai said made sense, he didn't need it.

"I have learned about Feng Jianxiong's consistent words and deeds, and combined with his exposition today, it is obvious that he is taking the road of 'guiding discordant speech' under the banner of 'encouraging the interactive expression of public opinion'. ”

After Fu Chengcai's first sentence was finished, Professor Gu felt that why was it so familiar, this was to label people as political?

It seems that the definition of Allah in the media is "to raise the banner of social attention and take the road of capital attention." ”

However, this time Fu Chengcai spoke quickly, and Professor Gu didn't have time to think about it, and was immediately interrupted by the words behind.

"As far as I know, this Feng Jianxiong will do whatever it takes to achieve his goals, and his character is very inferior. In this year's Freshman Cup Debate Tournament, he took the stage for the first time, and he blazed a trail and said some dirty remarks that no one dared to say in the seven or eight years since the birth of this debate topic!

The opponent's defense friend cited countless examples of people with lofty ideals throwing their heads and spilling their blood to prove that 'morality can be talked about in a desperate situation and in a state of lack of food and clothing', and he in turn attacked the martyrs, saying that those people were brainwashed fanatics and that those people were immoral! Hmph, in the eyes of such despicable villains, it is not moral to let women and children go first when they are afraid of shipwreck, and it is not moral to defend the family and the country!

No matter how good the program is to attract the audience, I am afraid that the program hosted by such a person will bring the 'voice of the teacher' to a reactionary situation!"

Professor Gu had never heard of that debate match, and when he heard this, he frowned, turned to Feng Jianxiong, and asked with the last trace of compassion: "Do you have anything to defend?" Don't worry, I won't wronged a good person, and I won't let anyone who attacks him personally benefit-Student Fu said this today, and he has no chance." But I would also like you to give an explanation. ”

Feng Jianxiong was also a little confused by Fu Chengcai's sudden-stirring stick just now - mainly because he didn't expect Fu Chengcai to lose so much, it's not that he couldn't cope with the other party's attack.

It's like a tanker with a Tiger tank, although not afraid that someone else will shoot you with a Colt 1911 pistol. But when he really encounters this kind of madman, he will always wonder why the other party has the guts to do such a thing - could it be that he expects his Colt pistol to have the same hidden skill of "summoning a P-51D fighter" like "Saving Private Ryan"?

After Professor Gu spoke, Feng Jianxiong finally calmed down a little and clarified the situation.

"I never knew this senior Fu before, and I don't know where he got to know me from now. But I want to say that the framers also have to make drafts -- which ear did you hear me attack those martyrs in the debate tournament for immorality? Which ear did you hear me say that they were brainwashed fanatic?"

Feng Jianxiong calmly counterattacked, took out his Nokia 7260 mobile phone, and motioned to Professor Gu: "Professor Gu, please allow me to play a recording - it is the confrontation between the two sides at the time of the debate competition." ”

Professor Gu's face turned cold, and he said in his heart, "Doesn't this guy know that Fu Chengcai is going to deal with him today?" So he recorded the game in advance?

He decided to be cautious and asked, "It's okay to play the recording, but please explain why you have this recording." ”

"Professional habits," Feng Jianxiong said as a matter of course, "I am a person who studied law, and I will become a lawyer in the future." During the courtroom debate, each sentence is recorded by the clerk and confirmed by both parties after the hearing.

However, there is no clerk in the private debate competition, so in order to ensure that I develop good professional habits, I urge myself to record every competition that is not recorded by media reports, and I will record what I have said and the relevant context of the other party. ”

"Good yin people...... But this is not a character problem, Zhuge is only cautious in his life. Professor Gu muttered in his heart, no longer entangled in this question.

Then, Feng Jianxiong pinched a few recordings and played them again, which contained his own voice and the dialogue of Qin Mingren, the third debater of the Academy of Mathematical Sciences at that time, so it was obviously recorded at the time of the competition.

After the release, Feng Jianxiong commented word by word: "My original words...... At that time, it was obviously said, 'Those who blocked the gun holes and blew up the bunker...... I'm sorry, for the sake of political correctness, I have no intention of judging those people' - from the perspective of legal thinking, this sentence is clearly a question of the 'probative effect of the evidence presented by the other party', rather than presenting evidence to the contrary. How can I say that I think those people are brainwashed by religious fanaticism?

Suppose that in court, if the opposing lawyer takes out an IOU and says that my client owes money, and I cross-examine the evidence and say that the IOU cannot be authenticated and overturns the evidentiary validity of the IOU, can it be equated with me winning the case directly? Of course not! That just destroys the probative effect of a piece of evidence.

In the same way, I just said, 'The other side can't prove that the examples they just gave are moral,' which is not the same as 'it must be fanatical brainwashing,' but something else entirely. ”

Fu Chengcai did not study law, although he also participated in the Freshman Cup, worked as a media person and practiced eloquence, but he did not have Feng Jianxiong's delicate thinking. In a hurry, he said, "But didn't you win the game? Didn't you just prove that those people were fanatical and brainwashed? If you didn't do that, how did you win the game?"

"That can only be said, Senior Fu, you don't even understand the basic principle of 'who asserts, who adduces evidence', it seems that it is necessary to go back to your freshman year to retake the "Fundamentals of Law" course. Feng Jianxiong took pity on Fu Chengcai's IQ with compassion,

At that time, what we proved was the general situation, and what the other side proved was an exception. To prove the general situation, you can give a few positive examples - for example, the example that you can't talk about morality because you don't have enough food and clothing, the kind that is 100% certain, and then give a set of theoretical inferences.

The side that justifies the exception naturally needs to give examples to refute my argument. And my cross-examination, as long as I make it possible for the judges to see that the opposing side can't make a 100% motivational argument for any example, so all their examples don't have the force of conclusive evidence, I win - you are already the opposing side, you only need to give a special case, if you can't achieve 100% certainty, and you are still a mess? ”

Professor Gu is still quite speculative, and after listening to the opinions of both sides from a fair standpoint, his heart is suddenly inclined to Feng Jianxiong.

The word "probably" is used only in the field of debate in relation to macro theories.

When confronted with specific examples, "maybe" is a fart – the court will never convict a suspect just because the victim "may have been killed by A" or "may have been killed by B".

"Fu Chengcai, please stop making trouble. You've been knocked out. Professor Gu finally spoke up in person and scolded Fu Chengcai.

Fu Chengcai looked at Wang Yan in a panic and asked for help, but Wang Yan turned his head disdainfully and didn't look at him at all.

He could only grit his teeth and continue to push down: "Professor Gu, I have nothing to say if you eliminate me." But I'm going to finish my point -- even if you don't explicitly say that a certain martyr was brainwashed by fanaticism, but you have at least said that their actions may be immoral, how can such a righteous act be immoral? Doesn't your conscience hurt?"

Feng Jianxiong looked disdainful: "Have you finished it? Didn't you hear the recording just now? When did I say that it might be 'immoral'?"

Fu Chengcai was anxious: "You said it clearly!"

Feng Jianxiong sneered: "Are you deaf? I obviously said 'not based on morality' - even if you want to simplify it to 'not morality', it's up to you." But if you want to further change my words into 'immorality', then you will be punished.

Is 'immoral' the same thing as 'not moral'? There is a world of difference! What is the part of speech that can be directly followed by the word 'no'? It is an adjective, not a noun.

I can say that people are 'not beautiful' and 'not kind', and beauty and kindness are both adjectives, but I can't say that you are 'not human', because 'people' is a noun.

If I have to say that, I have to add a verb as a predicate, for example, you are 'not a person' - when there is no predicate, add an is, remember?

In the same way, when I say that human behavior is 'not morality', this morality is noun, it is juxtaposed with 'law', 'religion', and 'nature', and there is no distinction between good and evil, and it is not a disparagement to say 'not morality'. Unless I say 'immoral', which is an adjective, an emotional color of value judgment. ”

"Well said, very clear thinking. Professor Gu and Director Dai also nodded secretly.

Fu Chengcai saw that it was not good, and the dog hurriedly jumped over the wall and asked: "Then why do you say that the morality mentioned in the debate of the competition is noun, it is noun? Maybe the argument at that time was the 'morality' of adjectives!"

"Alas, tsk, I can't hold down your elementary school Chinese teacher's coffin board," Feng Jianxiong felt that his compassion was no longer enough,

"This question is not simple? What is the topic of debate? 'Food and clothing are necessary conditions for talking about morality', in this, what is the word in front of morality? Talk! What is talk? Is it a verb! Subject-verb-object, big brother, can the object followed by the predicate be an adjective?"

When he said this, Feng Jianxiong's eyes were full of disdain, "Your Excellency's Chinese teacher died early, and it is not enough to speak with Gao Shi".

It's a pity that Fu Chengcai is already a dead pig and is not afraid of boiling water.

Although his thinking and language have been completely messed up:

"Good...... Well...... That one...... Even if...... Even if you say that the morality in the debate topic is the morality of the noun. You don't mean insults or compliments. But...... But for most people, it is certainly more important to be perceived as doing good deeds based on moral motives than to be perceived as doing good deeds based on faith...... Be noble.

So, in fact, good faith presumes that those righteous people do righteous deeds based on morality, which is the mentality that a person who is not psychologically dark or obscene......, right? Why are you. ”

"Shut up, who told you that doing good deeds based on faith is not as noble as doing good deeds based on morality?"