"Perhaps because the opposing debaters felt that the concept of 'democracy' itself was too self-explanatory, I regretted that I did not hear any definition of the word 'democracy' itself in her argument. In order to illustrate my point, I had to pick out the words carefully.

The so-called democracy, whether we check the "Cihai" or read the encyclopedia, has one thing in common, that is, it emphasizes 'the state system of jointly managing state affairs in accordance with the principles of equality and the subordination of the minority to the majority'.

Among them, according to the different Chinese and foreign documents, the qualifier 'within a certain class range' is also added to some expressions - but this is not important. ”

Yu Meiqin said this, pausing slightly, only about a second or two, to give the audience and judges time to understand.

Sure enough, some laymen watched the lively audience and soon began to struggle with why "this is not important".

However, anyone who knows the line can automatically filter out this difference in these two seconds.

Because as we all know, this expression "within a certain class range" is only used by some countries in order to exclude some people from the definition of "people", and there is not much to say, and it really has no impact on the debate.

Yu Meiqin swept her eyes and knew that the judges had already reacted, so she grasped the rhythm and continued:

Therefore, a key measure of whether democracy has been achieved, and to what extent, is to look at the functioning of a country's politics and the proportion of people who can be affected by it. For example, if only 20% or less of the people in a country's elections can play a role and influence the outcome, this is certainly not democracy. In the process of evolution, if this proportion becomes lower, then we can say that the process is not good for political democracy.

Some people say that the United States has always been very democratic, but when we look at the election situation in the United States in recent years, what do we see? When O'Dark Horse and McCain were running last year, the proportion of white male voters in the United States who voted for McCain was slightly higher than that of O'Dark Horse. Everyone has seen the final result, and Odark Horse won by a relatively obvious advantage. There is an important factor in this, and that is that the voter turnout in that election rose very dramatically -

There are blacks, who make up about one-ninth of America's potential voter population, who have not exercised their right to vote in decades. As soon as a candidate with black blood came along, they swarmed to vote. In interviews, many black voters invariably said they were illiterate and did not understand any of the platforms. But this time they're just willing to watch the pie vote.

In the end, O'Dark Horse received 98.4 percent of the votes among black voters, and this part of the votes ended up accounting for more than 20 percent of the total valid votes.

We have seen many, many examples of this in history, and every time a revolution broke out, if we could really review the population, we could find that most of the people who were enslaved and rose up did not reach half of the total population. When the French big brother died, it was just that there was a bit of bourgeoisie and abject poverty in Paris, and he accidentally set off a craze for murder and treasure.

At the end of the Ming Dynasty, when Li Chuangzhang rebelled and thieves arose, only Shaanxi and Henan (and some Shandong) could not survive, accounting for less than half of the country's total population.

It can be seen that in many cases, it is not the majority of people who have few desires, but a small number of people who have strong desires. The reason why the business society has the principle of the 28th law is also this reason - 20% of the strong people have more influence on the pattern of a field than 80% of the indifferent.

Because those who don't care will not unite, they are not as good as the 20% of aggressive dissidents in the face of every small confrontation, and thus are finally cleaned up by the 10%~20% of the strong desires who 'unite the majority and strike a small handful at all times'.

When Jiannu was in Yangzhou for ten days, the people of Jiading watched all this indifferently, when the three massacres of Jiading, the people of Jiangyin still watched all this silently, and when Yan Yingyuan and his soldiers were slaughtered again, the people of Kunshan still watched all this, can the success of Jiannu and the thieves prove that they were the 'majority' at that time?

With the intensification of the development of new media such as the Internet, we seem to have encountered an environment of more and more freedom of speech, but in fact what we have obtained is a 'spiral of silence' - I am glad that the opponent dared to mention this concept at the end of his argument and said, 'This is irrelevant, it is just a problem caused by development, and it will inevitably be solved with development'.

What is a spiral of silence? It means that if a person feels that his opinion is in the minority, then he is more likely to give up expressing it for fear of retaliation or isolation from the majority. Especially in the age of the Internet, because of the excessive dissemination of information, it is easy for people to judge 'what is the mainstream opinion of the public' through the media.

Because people have an innate fear of being isolated, they conform to the herd and are unwilling to speak out, just like Mr. Lu Xun wrote about pretending to sleep in the iron house. And the internet makes it easy for them to know what opinions can lead to their isolation from the 'mainstream group', and the situation will only get worse."

Therefore, what the Internet brings is not really the 'mainstream view', but the opinion brought out by people with a loud voice and people who know how to lead the rhythm. Historically, the handful of people who have a strong sense of resentment and a strong desire to do things will be able to suppress the indifferent masses more than ever before.

And the 'public' has obviously not completed its role transformation, they are still as indifferent as the traditional era, and in the end they will only be under the wave of the Internet, and their voices will become smaller and smaller.

Just as the evolution of human social sciences and morality and ethics has never been able to keep up with the development of natural sciences and applied technology. The new style of freedom of speech brought about by the Internet has not made the cornerstone of 'the public' adapt to it in terms of human beings. To sum up, how can this deformed freedom be conducive to political democracy......"

……

The brain hole seems to be very big, but if Feng Jianxiong himself is to say it, he will only say it worse than Yu Meiqin.

The main thing is that he knows too much and can say too little - many of his arguments are too fanciful and have not yet happened in this era.

Therefore, when he was rehearsing, he could only choose to tell Yu Meiqin his thoughts, let Yu Meiqin find a way to understand it by herself, and if she couldn't understand it, she would understand it hard, and then find argument materials to make it up. This is also why Yu Meiqin's theoretical arguments sound a little fragmented.

However, fortunately, her overall theory is relatively unusual, and she can pull some global points from a high-level perspective. So even if the details and clues are a little broken, you can still have a tie with the other party. The rest is made up by free debate and intersectional disputes.

Moreover, the biggest advantage of letting Yu Meiqin find evidence by herself is that there will definitely be no loophole like "traverser".

"I've heard of the Law of Twenty-Eight, and I've heard of the Spiral of Silence, but it feels like two completely unrelated realms. Wouldn't it be too far-fetched to put together such a whimsical effort to talk about freedom of speech and political democracy?"

"However, no one has ever considered this angle, and it seems reasonable to think of any obvious logical loopholes at once......"

Several neutral judges were thinking like this, and they fell into hesitation for a while.

The second debate of Xiangjiang University also felt that it was too sluggish to deal with Yu Meiqin's "nonsense", so when he spoke next, there didn't seem to be much head-to-head confrontation. Instead, it is still a cliché in this field to still use the people's right to know and express themselves, and it is easier to get redress under the freedom of the Internet.

After the two sides briefly clashed for a minute or two, the other party came to their senses a little and began to confront Feng Jianxiong's side.

"Many of the examples just cited by the opponent's defense friend are not appropriate, and the subjugation of the majority of the people by violent means is not a manifestation of democracy, and isn't this confusing to the public? If everyone sits down and talks and votes for the minority and obeys the majority, how can there be the drawbacks of violence? ”

For this kind of piecemeal problem, Feng Jianxiong can of course see the move, and he doesn't have to think about it: "You don't need to sing violently, Ireland and Northern Ireland's 'unite the majority and fight a small handful', isn't it just dressed in a perfect democratic coat?"

It is possible to label and draw lines anytime and anywhere, tie up a part of the minority with oneself, and then let oneself form a majority in this small circle, and wait until the minority is eliminated and then draw a new circle, which is the biggest problem of democracy -- the people of our country have not thought of this problem, because our country's great reunification has been relatively long, and everyone thinks that under normal circumstances, this 'people' should be the whole of China.

But there is no history of great unification in foreign countries, and if a sect or a nation becomes a minority in a certain country or a certain government, they will always 'self-determine' and then turn themselves into a majority in this small handful.

In the United Kingdom, Ireland was an oppressed minority, and after the Irish GH Army bombed the British every day to compromise, Northern Ireland became a minority in Ireland and once again demanded a return to the British. Then the GH army in Northern Ireland became a minority again.

Where is the principle in those democracies that allow a few divisions that are beneficial to certain partition systems to be legitimate, while others that 'draw a frame and draw a line to unite the majority against a handful' are illegal?

Otherwise, why is the self-determination of Kosovo from Serbia democratic, the self-determination of South Ossetia from Georgia not democratic? It is a traitor? Why is the 'second self-determination' of Northern Ireland from Ireland in the 1940s democratic, while the 'second self-determination' of the Norwegian industrialists from the comprador faction that had just split the motherland in the 1910s is undemocratic? It is a traitor?"

The issue of Norway and Sweden mentioned by Feng Jianxiong is actually the case of the Ghislings that lasted until World War II.

In textbooks in most countries around the world, Quisling is portrayed as a "traitor" who collaborated with the Führer and betrayed Norway.

But in good conscience, people are born Swedes, and they are industrialists. The Norwegian split was nothing more than when he was in his 20s - the Norwegian dogs were able to split successfully because they casually found some historical origins and then relied on the support of the British.

(PS: Even in modern times, the four Nordic countries are rich, but the Norwegian dog mongrels are not at all technological, and they are not in the same category as the other three.) Finland has Nokia, Sweden has Ericsson, and Norway has only the national oil company, relying on the Brent oil field in the North Sea, a good resource reincarnated to continue to live a good life, although the oil field is not large, but only three or four million people are enough to pay dividends and appease. ）

In a word, Norway was only a narrow coastline of Greater Sweden at that time, so the residents of those cities preferred to take the foreign trade comprador route. Support low tariffs, more compradors, and less development of national industries. In terms of tariff policy, it is naturally inconsistent with the large number of industrialists in the Swedish mainland. Years after the conflict, the Norwegian dogs artificially created a concept that created a small majority, and caricatured themselves out -

But after being carved out, why can't the former Swedes who have been coerced into a minority have a second struggle? Giesling may just want to be a Swede again, or to make a pure land on the territory of Norway for those who still want to live with the Swedish way of life and foreign trade policy. He just had no other external force to rely on, so he turned to the Führer for help.

The British allowed Northern Ireland to fight a second time after Ireland was carved out.

So in the final analysis, which "democratic lines" on the earth are legal and which are illegal, it depends on whether it is in the interests of Britain and the United States, and Wilson's "Fourteen Points" is actually just a piece of papyrus to wipe.

Drawing the line from a small country that is independent and self-reliant, betraying its ancestors and defecting to Britain and the United States, is the "democratic line".

From the dog country, which is already a slave of Britain and the United States, those who want to escape from the second draw a line are "dictatorial lines".

Of course, these are not the main points of today's debate. With the high level of education of the judges in the venue, these are all needless to explain. Feng Jianxiong and the other party did not have anyone in the debate.

However, "the arbitrary drawing of the line in democracy divides the majority into countless minority factions and breaks each one," and "the most despicable thing about democracy is that it can create a united front at all times, unite the majority, and strike at a small handful." After killing this handful, draw a little bigger circle, kill a handful, and finally kill the mainstream with a silent spiral" This most dangerous drawback, with the cross-game between the two sides, has become very obvious.

All the people who rated it were wary of this sensitive issue.

There are some things that Feng Jianxiong doesn't need to say, but because the judges are affected by his huge brain hole, the countless associations that they involuntarily produce are actually imperceptibly helping Feng Jianxiong to occupy the advantage of the scene.

Although this is a debate competition, each side's point of view has to theoretically be said in person. But being able to force the judges to think more and make up for it is undoubtedly a kind of ability.