After the snow is over, it will be Yubihama's turn.

How far can Yubihama speak? Anu was not curious about this. But he didn't think about secretly helping Yubihama cheat, and he wouldn't speak for her, because that would be equivalent to depriving Yubihama of the right to compete, just like Hibiya who didn't say a word (laughs).

"Uh-huh!"

Yubihama cleared his throat, and then, took out his phone, opened the website of the collection, and ...... I read it up.

"Most of the entangled debates are the result of a truth being cut in half. For example, human nature is a mixture of good and evil, so it is difficult to distinguish between "human nature is inherently good" and "human nature is inherently evil"; For another example, knowledge and practice are two sides of the same coin, so "it is easy to know what is easy to do" and "it is easy to know and difficult to do" can only be said in different ways.

When I first started to learn debate, the most perplexing question was the question - what about the dialectic that is good? What about being okay and not being paranoid? What about seeking truth and goodness? If the debate is deliberately cutting the truth into two fallacies, so that the two sides quarrel so that people laugh, what is the difference between it and fighting crickets? I happened to see a joke at the time, saying that most of the debate topics are actually boring idle talk similar to "Is the zebra black or white", and after laughing dumbly, I thought it was true.

However, later I saw a popular science article that said that "is a zebra with white stripes on a black background, or black stripes on a white background" is actually not a boring question, from the evidence of embryonic development and evolutionary reasoning, the zebra should have been a black animal, and the white stripes grew on the black background later.

It doesn't matter if this conclusion is right or not, but the important thing is that this article made me realize that even the seemingly extremely boring question of "is the zebra black and white" can be solved by dialectics, and can lead people to a deeper exploration of the world. Imagine if someone asks you "is a zebra black or white", and you answer "both black and white" or "black or white doesn't matter", of course, it is very dialectical and comprehensive, but then what? And then there was no then. This is the end of the question, and it is impossible to think more deeply. ”

This passage is actually from the article "The Meaning of Paranoia" by Zhou Xuanyi, the best debater in the 2000 National College Debate Competition, and not a word has been changed.

By Hihama-san, this is not a debate, this is plagiarism.

"It's cheating...... right?"

"It's cheating."

Biqigu and Xuexia's faces were full of black lines, and Anuwei also put on an expression of "worthy of you".

Yubihama did not realize the seriousness of the problem, but felt that what he said was reasonable, and then announced that the first part of the debate competition was over.

So came the second link: the second defense of the opposing party chooses the first defense or the second defense of the positive side for one-on-one defense.

That is, under the snow, Yuhihama or Anu did not have a one-on-one defense.

The choice is much more comfortable than Hama, and it can be said that it is a steady victory. If it's an official match, it's certainly true, if the opponent has a particularly weak affirmation, they will focus on attacking him, because the debater wants a victory rather than a good debate. If you choose to fight with the strong, although it will make the debate exciting, you will definitely be scolded for lacking brains, you know, the debate is just a war, and some unclean tactics are naturally needed in order to win.

Thinking like this under the snow, she hates the debate even more.

Naturally, she did not choose Yubihama.

"Anu classmate, let me ask, are these scholars who study zebras really go to study zebras because of the debate competition?"

"Probably because they happened to watch a debate called 'Are Zebras Black or White,' and they slapped their heads and said, 'Oh, Master, I'm going to study zebras!'

How can it be!

Is it too arrogant to attribute the reason why scholars study zebras to a debate tournament that can't be played?

Could it be that they wouldn't have studied zebras without debate? ”

At this point, the speech was concluded under the snow.

Anu kept rubbing his three-millimeter head, as if wishing it would open sooner.

"Hmmm......"

"Under the snow, you've got a wrong question. Yubibin, oh no, what Zhou Xuanyi is referring to should not be a debate competition, but just a simple debate, and there is also this possibility, the scholar himself asked himself, 'Is the zebra white on a black background, or black on a white background?' Of course, the debate can argue on its own, so he finds the direction of his research. ”

"Humph!"

There was a silver bell-like laugh from under the snow.

"Well, debate and debate are two completely different things, I'm in favor of debate, but not in debate. It's like eating and eating and big stomach king competition, I am in favor of eating, but I don't approve of big stomach king competition, that is completely meaningless and unhealthy for ordinary people, if ordinary people imitate overeating, they will definitely get gastrointestinal problems. ”

Anu Wei didn't expect that a face would be under the snow, and now, he has fallen into a trap, and everything seems to be under the control of the snow.

The question now has changed from "does the debate tournament make sense" to "is the debate tournament and the debate the same thing".

It may seem like it's the same thing, but when you think about it, the difference is huge. Debates and debates are like eating and big stomach competitions, one is an indispensable basic behavior of human beings, and the other is a dispensable multiplayer sport.

Eating is a must, but the Big Stomach Contest is not necessary, and it is also harmful to health, which is the point of view under the snow.

Now Anuwei has fallen into the dilemma of "this view must be overturned".

Could it be said that the Big Stomach King Contest is very meaningful? Alas......

Under the snow, the concept of "debate competition" was secretly replaced by "big stomach competition", which is also a debate technique called "stealing concepts".

Under the snow, he may not realize that he has also used the same trick that he hated just now.

Changing concepts, this happens not only in debate competitions, but in almost all arguments, and it is very easy to happen. Users often use metaphors or analogies, ignoring the difference between the two, turning one thing into another, such as killing a dog and eating meat, "What if you think about the person who died? What if you eat human flesh? So they rightly objected to eating dog meat, so they justifiably carjacked halfway, so they justifiably robbed the store.

It's not that metaphors and analogies can't be used, but they must be used appropriately, and the similarities between the two must be firmly grasped, and metaphors cannot be arbitrarily and unfounded without logic.

Therefore, Anun still has a glimmer of life.