The opening remarks should be rigorous and thorough. Cross-debates are about highlighting the key points and quickly distinguishing between a debate and the core points of disagreement.

This kind of technical characteristics is inherently common to the world. And once we discuss some new debate topics that are more divergent and touch on cutting-edge hot topics, it becomes more obvious.

The reason is also very easy to understand - the perennial debate of old topics, all kinds of routines are basically exhausted, and the rest is the polishing of words and sentences. Debaters on both sides can guess each other's argument intentions without waiting for the other side to speak. And those angles of attack that have long been proven to have no future by their predecessors are naturally not mentioned by both sides very tacitly-

Because the party who mentioned it knew that even if it was mentioned, it would be in vain, so naturally it would not be humiliated.

As for the defending side, since the opposite side is not attacking from this angle, it is not good to take the initiative to pull or even secretly change the opponent's position to assume a counterattack. It is also very impolite to do that, and it will leave a bad impression on the jury of "living the belly of a gentleman with the heart of a villain".

As the topic of the semi-finals of the Freshman Cup, the debate topic of "whether population control is conducive to economic development" is undoubtedly new and at the forefront of hot topics.

Since no one has used it before, there is no written opening statement on the Internet. Therefore, it is impossible for Shi Nicole and even the Academy of Social Sciences to predict the opponent's attack point, so they can only lay their own stalls like mercury.

At the end of the arguments between the two sides, all the members of the jury, including Su Qin, did not even score a single point in their hearts.

In other words, in their eyes, there is no difference between the two sides' arguments, and there is no aggression in any way.

The ensuing cross-questioning session also did not see a head-to-head fierce confrontation. Both sides quickly narrowed the scope of the points of disagreement on this open-ended debate in a dip-and-go mode, and removed large areas of the points of the argument that were recognized by both sides and had no objections.

For example, Chen Sicong, the second debater on the law school's side, his three questions are as follows:

"Do you admit that disorderly population growth will lead to the collapse of the carrying capacity of the earth's resources and environment, and ultimately the collapse of the social economy?"

The second argument of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences took a step back very simply and without hesitation: "I admit that if the population really grows in a geometric progression, resources, the environment, and the economy will collapse." But we believe that this disorderly and barbaric growth would not be sustainable even without population control, so the problem behind this assumption is not directly causally related to the dilemma to be discussed in today's debate. ”

"Then I would like to ask the other side again, you just kept saying that this kind of disorderly growth is impossible. And how do you explain the horrific population growth rates in India, Africa, and a host of other countries?"

"What we just replied was 'this kind of barbaric and disorderly growth cannot be sustained', and we asked the opposing side to refrain from changing our wording, and we never said that this phenomenon would not be 'temporary'. The problems of India and African countries are simply the result of their backward economic development and the ignorance and insecurity of their people. Once the economy improves, and the national education and quality are improved, they can all be avoided. The declining trend of population growth in developed countries has proven that human beings will spontaneously reduce their willingness to have children in the face of continuous improvement in the quality of the population. ”

"So you're also admitting that overpopulation is bad?"

If we had to ask, we would say yes – but be aware that this is not possible. ”

Feng Jianxiong's question is naturally sharper and several layers higher than Chen Sicong's, but the progressive structure is similar.

He mainly emphasized that "the control of the population is not only the control of quantity, but also the control of quality, and the improvement of the quality of the population is also a kind of population control." There are not only restrictive controls, but also encouraging controls. ”

In response to Feng Jianxiong's question, the other party adopted a strategy of admitting defeat in the details of "quality control of eugenics and improving the quality of the population", and allowed the law school to score - because there is no argument at all.

However, on the point that "encouragement is also control", the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has taken strict precautions, repeatedly emphasizing that "encouragement has no coercive force, and even if it is to encourage childbirth, it is impossible to have a thorough and violent enforcement force like restricting childbirth, and it is technically impossible to force people to have children, so quantitative encouragement cannot be regarded as 'population control'." ”

After the question was raised on the law school's side, the situation was as follows: The people of the Academy of Social Sciences have fully admitted that "population explosion and overpopulation are not good," "too many people will indeed lead to the collapse of the environment and resources," and "control of the quality of the population is indeed beneficial to economic construction."

However, it is only necessary to stick to the bottom line of the three debates: "this will not happen", "the population can naturally tend to be healthy and stable without violent control", and "encouraging the number of people does not belong to population control".

On the other hand, the active questions from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences attack the problems of aging and labor shortages, and take into account the lack of consumption boost and insufficient demand in the secondary aspect.

As for the "benefits of a large population to extensive economic development", even if this angle is beneficial to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, they do not mention it - because it is too easy to be slapped in the face by the law school.

When the law school answers the question, it is natural that it will have to fight back with a trade-off.

Because Feng Jianxiong is already famous, according to the rules of the competition, he can choose any one of the opponent's second and third debates to answer the question. Therefore, the members of the Academy of Social Sciences with normal IQ unsurprisingly all chose to let Chen Sicong answer.

But fortunately, the questions are relatively simple, Chen Sicong was also trained by Feng Jianxiong before the game on the opponent's possible offensive direction, and he was well prepared, but there was nothing wrong.

His answer roughly emphasized the following key points: "If there is a serious labor shortage in an economic society, it will indeed have a serious adverse impact on economic development. But we don't admit that based on this, it can be deduced that an aging society will inevitably lead to a recession -

Because ageing cannot be equated with a shortage of labor. On the one hand, because of the progress of medicine and the improvement of the average physical quality of human beings, it is unscientific to always measure it by the current life expectancy index of human beings who have basically lost the ability to work, and it is entirely possible for human beings to delay retirement.

On the other hand, Professor Jeff Hinton of the University of Toronto, Canada, has developed machine intelligence based on deep learning algorithms, as well as a new generation of convolutional neural networks. In the future, with the advancement of artificial intelligence technology, a large number of creative mental work can also be simplified, and simple and repetitive mental workers are more likely to be replaced by machines in batches. As a result, there is a risk that the number of jobs needed in the future will decline, and there will be significant changes to the skills education system. All of this leads to the judgment that "aging equals labor shortage" and that it cannot be taken lightly. ”

In a word, controlling the population will bring about aging, and the law school recognizes it. However, if it is said that controlling the population will lead to a shortage of labor, and even lead to a disconnect in the social and economic cycle, this pot will not be carried out.

"The debate topic was dismantled so quickly into six pairs of detail points of three offenses and three defenses, and the main debate itself seemed to have no potential and room for confrontation. The host Su Qin watched the development of the situation on the field, and secretly assessed the game situation in his heart.

"Both sides are too professional to talk nonsense, and they give up as soon as they see a point where there is no hope. The key now is to see how to attack the core points that the other party insists on during free debate. Once one or two of these points are breached, it is definitely a catastrophic loss of points. Feng Jianxiong, let me see your true strength. ”

The judges can still see some doorways, and the audience feels a little boring.

After all, the dip-and-go game is too unwatching, and you can't even see the embroidered legs. It's just like in the blockbuster "Hero" directed by Zhang Yimou two years ago, the masters of both sides can start a duel in their minds, knowing each other's strengths and weaknesses, but the body doesn't do it at all.

"Now into the free debate, please start first, and you can agree for yourselves who will ask the first question. As the cross-question ended, the moderator Su Qin announced.

Several members of the law school team had a tacit understanding and pushed Feng Jianxiong out without any suspense.

He got up gracefully, holding a small note of the outline, not showing off his memory at all:

"In the cross-question session just now, it seems that the opponent's defense friend has repeatedly emphasized that 'developed countries, with the improvement of the education level and economic level of the population, can naturally suppress fertility without any legal control'. So I would like to ask, do you really think that kind of spontaneous low fertility can be applied to China's national conditions? ”

Liu Ming, the main force of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, was afraid that his teammates would drop the chain, so he took the issue seriously: "Of course, it can be applied to China's national conditions, is there any difference between this?"

Feng Jianxiong did not hesitate to reveal his trap: "Of course there is a difference! Because you have missed one factor, that is, the common legal obligation to oppose maintenance in these developed countries in Europe and the United States with low fertility and high welfare - in the United States or the United Kingdom, few parents have children to ensure that they have someone to support them when they are old."

On the one hand, this is of course because they have good social security benefits, and people don't have to worry about having nothing to provide for in old age - we can learn from this. But on the other hand, it is because China's "Marriage Law" has provisions on the obligation to support:

According to article 21 of the Marriage Act: parents have an obligation to raise and educate their children; Children have an obligation to support their parents.

If the parents fail to fulfill the obligation to support them, the child who is a minor or who is unable to live independently has the right to demand maintenance from the parents. In the event that a child fails to fulfill his or her maintenance obligations, the parent who is unable to work or who is in difficulty in living has the right to demand maintenance from the child.

And whether in the common law system, or in the European and American countries with the big green law system such as Germany and France, you can not find a similar provision in the precedents or statutory laws - even the RB law, which has always been considered to be eroded by the culture of filial piety in East Asia, does not have such a legal provision. It can be seen that children are born with the legal obligation to support their parents, which is a unique national condition in China.

Therefore, the current low fertility rate in European and American countries is actually composed of two factors:

For some people with high education, high quality, high economic level and social responsibility, they are indeed consciously giving birth to fewer children.

On the other hand, for those people with low education, low quality, and low sense of social responsibility, they actually rely on the expectation that 'even if you give birth to a son, the law will not protect you and will not force your son to support you in the future', so that these people who have children for the main purpose of preventing old age are jealous and do not give birth. For those countries, children are not the private property of their parents, but belong to society as a whole. Parenting is a pure expense, and there is no right to demand any feedback or return.

Why are the demographers you are looking at who advocate the 'theory of natural regulation of quality' blind to the difference in this law?

Backed by the current compulsory maintenance clause of our law, you still expect those in our country to be poorer and poorer for purely self-interest? Isn't this a big joke?"

"Yes...... British, American, German, French, Japanese...... Is the law like this?" Liu Ming was dumbfounded, he didn't know anything about the marriage laws of hundreds of countries in the world.

All their arguments today are taken out of context by those cent-demographers on the Internet, and even those who coax advocates such as Liang Zhizhi and others, how can they withstand such a tricky attack angle of Feng Jianxiong head-on.

He was in a hurry, and first prevaricated: "Feng Jianxiong! I didn't expect you to be such a person with low moral character. Your parents have worked hard to raise you, don't you think that filial piety is right? Don't you think that children should support their parents?"

How could Feng Jianxiong fall for such a clumsy strategy?

"One thing is the same thing, please don't change the concept and play the emotional card. I have never said that filial piety is bad, but filial piety is filial piety, it is a moral thing, and the law should not cross the line to care. From a jurisprudential point of view, this is an unjust, moral matter of legal coercion.

Of course, I will support my parents, but I think that all support should be based on the education of the child, so that the child can do it from the heart. Instead of letting those who are unworthy of parenthood with ulterior motives and despicable purposes force an innocent life born to them to support them in the future by virtue of the coercion of the law.

If a parent does not teach their children so that they do not want to raise them in the future, it is a failure of their own education. Such a person should not use the law as a public instrument of the state to protect it. Only in this way can we ensure that everyone pays enough respect and attention to the issue of education, and prevents the abuse of life without a sense of social responsibility.

Therefore, I believe that the revision of the law and the control of births will play a decisive role in preventing the population explosion. ”