"There's an inner taste, there's an inner taste, Goddess Jiang Ge has begun to fight back!"

"A backhand is a like! Ahaha..."

"Actually, I think that the No. 1 team is nothing more than that the Mandarin is not standard, and the others are okay, but I just met a better Jiang Ge!"

"The legendary one-debate question?!"

"That's a verdict!"

"It's so strong, grasp the ambiguity of the words, and draw out our opinion."

"The first, second, third, and fourth debates: do you still have four questions?"

"This seems to be the first time that Goddess Jiang Ge has made trouble during a debate! The previous few games were gentle and pushed the problem back. ”

I feel that everyone does not put too much emphasis on the basic concept of "ten thousand", and compares them all on the advanced concept of "source". ”

If you focus on "10,000", it will be too low, and it will be a grade like a shrew scolding the street! It's like arguing about "whether you're human or not." ”

"Ahh ”

"Goddess Jiang Ge is studying the Fa, right? No wonder this principle is so clear and logical. ”

"This is the domineering that the opposing side should have!"

"The immortal debate on both sides of the debate made me feel that I was really just a mortal!"

"We just have to start from the essence and take advantage of our opponent! him!! ”

...

Jiang Ge's momentum suddenly rose, and he said sharply:

"First, there are thousands of evils in the world, and can a single piece of money explain all evils?

Robbers may kill people and set fires for money, but are domestic violence, child abuse, and even genocide/killings all about money today?

It can be seen that money is not the source of all evil.

Second, the origins of money today are so complex that we cannot classify them as a common source.

We know that a dictator may exclude dissidents for money, but can't he be powered, positional, or ignorant?

It can be seen that if money is used as the root of all evil, it is a bit of a suspicion of generalization.

Third, today, the philosopher Sartre told us that man has free will, man has the right to choose, so man must take all responsibility for his actions, and we should not blame money for all evil crimes.

It's the same money, but why is it that a gentleman seeks wealth but takes it in a proper way, and a villain likes to steal when he seeks wealth?

It can be seen that the key is not money at all.

Fourth, if money is the root of all evil today, why would anyone use the root of all evil to do good?

Mr. Chen Liushui founded NTU, and we see that Chinese people from all over the world also donated generously during the great floods in East China. If money is the root of all evil, then how does this source of evil produce good deeds?

Thank you. ”

Just when everyone didn't fully react, Jiang Ge ended his argument.

Four questions in a row made the audience stunned, and it was not until Jiang Ge sat down that he came back to his senses and let out thunderous applause.

Obviously, they were all blown away.

If it is said that the first argument of the Laima team established the premise, and tried to reach the premise of the debate, "human nature is not evil", and excluded the consensus that the other side might put forward that "human nature is inherently evil, not the evil of money", Jiang Ge refuted it from the beginning.

The next discussion of "unique attribute connection", that is, the instrumentality and the characteristics that trigger the purpose are all unique attributes of money, are also recognized by Jiang Ge's "Four Consecutive Questions".

In other words, if Jiang Ge did not prevent "instrumental and special purposes that can cause evil in people", then it is tantamount to admitting that money can lead to evil.

This is the preset trap for the team.

Quite clever, but seen through.

In this first round of offensive and defensive battles, Jiang Ge slightly prevailed.

Of course, that's a modest statement!

In a real sense, Jiang Ge's speech and speech laid a great advantage.

Jiang Ge can be said to be a debater with a good grasp of logic, his expression skills are also excellent, and his demeanor is not faulty.

In these three aspects, Jiang Ge completely defeated the other party's argument.

Moreover, if you talk about appearance, hehe, there's really no way, this is Jiang Ge!

Whoever compares Jiang Ge's appearance with Jiang Ge is equivalent to "suicide".

Not to mention the horse team!

He is now directly opposite Jiang Ge, and his appearance has been completely crushed by Jiang Ge... I don't know if it should be considered a natural disaster or a man-made disaster?

However, except for the results of the competition of appearance, which are clear at a glance, the rest of the comparison results are all people who know how to debate, and they are things that can only be seen by senior participants and enthusiasts of debate.

And most of the audience can only sigh on the barrage with the words "cow beep", "cool", and "awesome", as for what is powerful?

I'm sorry!

I don't understand!

That's the beauty of debate.

The audience still shouted "666" even though they couldn't understand it.

Having said that, there are still people on this barrage who expressed their opinions on Jiang Ge's first round of speeches.

Jiang Ge's words made a clear concept at the beginning, that is, "money is just an active medium", and there is no other possibility. This fundamentally refutes the positive view. ”

The raising of these four questions undoubtedly increases the other party's obligation to demonstrate, grasps the concept that "all evils" are "all evils", and requires the other party to argue that "all evil comes from money", so that they have no time to care about other arguments, and their time is wasted on explanation! Wonderful, wonderful! ”

Not only that, but he even opened up his own advantageous battlefield, did not entangle the opponent's preset battlefield, continued the concept of "evil" above, and approached the obligation of argumentation that "all evil is all evil".

Where did the evil come from before money appeared?

What is the key to evil?

Is it good to be instrumental with money?

The raising of these three questions made the positive side take care of itself! ”

"I think the explanations of the above two bigwigs are not accurate enough, and I think the advantage this time is that we first defined the statement of "ten thousand is not everything" and seized the opportunity. ”

"Hold the grass, there are so many doorways in here!"

"We can only chant "666" here. ”

"Big guy, big guy, if you say that, now we have the advantage on the field?"

"Nonsense, my goddess Jiang Ge is out of the horse, why can't gasoline win?"

...

Just when everyone was discussing, the second debate of the horse team came on.

"Thank you**. Hello everyone.

The other classmate has four major problems, but unfortunately one premise is wrong.

They told me that in Cihai, "10,000" is everything. However, we have also checked "Cihai", whether it is "Cihai", "Ciyuan", or "Shuowen Jiezi", "Wan" has never had all the meaning.

Is the other classmate using piracy? But piracy is also an evil created by money! ”

As soon as these words came out, the audience burst into laughter.

But unlike the joyful laughter at the scene, the voice of "sophistry" unanimously appeared on the barrage of Chinese netizens.

Obviously, Jiang Ge focused on "source" just now, not "10,000", but the other party was stunned that he only hit "10,000" and not "source".

It's clearly an opportunistic approach.

Zhu Quan smiled indifferently, picked up the pen and sketched on the manuscript paper, preparing for the next speech.

The second debater of the horse team continued: "Classmate of the other party, let's give another example, when we say that a person has gone through a lot of hardships, do we mean that he has to go through all the hardships?

Then this person is definitely not a man, because no matter how bitter a man is, he has never suffered from a woman giving birth;

But he is definitely not a woman, because no matter how bitter a woman is, she has never suffered from a man's fear of his wife.

So, is everything in vain? ”

All right!

It is also a refutation of "10,000", trying to explain that "10,000" is worth "a lot".

Zhu Quan remained silent, and according to the pre-game deduction, the team would establish the argument of "everything is not everything" to reduce the pressure of argumentation.

It's just that contrary to Zhu Quan's expectations, the method used by the horse team is to appeal to authority, that is, like Jiang Ge, quote the content of "Cihai", and use the bitterness of "men and women" to substitute the context.

Although the method used is novel, it has not exceeded the content of pre-game preparations.

Zhu Quan continued to listen and take notes, while briefly revising the draft of the debate he had prepared.

And the top priority is to compete with the positive side for the core concept:

"Ten thousand" does not mean "everything".