The complete works of the fourth debate speech of the debate competition

It is very important that we debate four times in the debate. As a final concluding speech, you should make full preparations for your speech. The following are the speeches of four debaters in the debate for your reference.

The fourth debate speech of the debate 1

Judges and debaters:

Hello everyone!

First of all, thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in the debate.

As the four arguments of the opposing side, I want to sum up our presentation stage and free debate stage and further elaborate our views.

In the presentation stage, our No.1 debater stated the purpose of our debate from the beginning, that is, to demonstrate the causal relationship between happiness and satisfaction with the words "happiness and satisfaction". People are satisfied with the happiness of the spiritual world. Our debater used the example of ancient literati in China to illustrate that as long as they are spiritually happy, people will not feel dissatisfied.

Later, debater No.2 and debater No.3 refuted the other side's argument of "contentment is always happy" in view of the contradictions in the other side's argument, and cited the complete Freudian psychological personality structure system to refute the correct explanation of the so-called "contentment is always happy" made by the other side's debater from the one-sided perspective of the happiness principle of ID.

In the stage of free debate, our debater began to take on the questions of three debates in the presentation stage and continued to refute the fundamental contradiction in the other side's argument. At our repeated requests, another debater explained the contradictions in his argument, and at the beginning, he just demonstrated "contentment and happiness" as a complete Freudian psychological personality structure system that we three debaters have already stated.

In the process of discussion, we demonstrated that "happiness and satisfaction" was extended to a higher angle, that is, spiritual happiness can cause the decrease of material desire, so as to achieve happiness and satisfaction. However, another debater did not directly answer this question, but argued from a personal point of view that "different people have different happiness" until the end of the free debate.

Judging from the summary of the first two stages, our debaters have been demonstrating the idea of "being happy and satisfied" with various facts and theories. The following is my supplementary explanation of our argument.

"Happy and satisfied" does not mean that happiness stagnates after satisfaction. The "contentment" here refers to the satisfaction of one's present situation and future development. It is a kind of satisfaction with foresight. To give a simple example, a person is now a clerk. He feels happy and satisfied with his life. It is not that he is content to be a clerk in ten years, but that he knows where he will be in ten years according to the current pace of life, and he is very satisfied with this position.

In the same way, we can see that another debater gave an example of a perverted murderer because he was satisfied with the life of the murderer after he felt happy. The reason why he will continue this abnormal life is because he feels happy, which leads to satisfaction. The satisfaction of happiness proves that our view is correct.

As for the idea of "contentment", we think it is wrong. Through the first two stages, we have explained that "contentment is not a human instinct." And will you feel happy after you are satisfied? We can see Qin Shihuang. His achievement was the greatest at that time, and he should be satisfied. But is he happy? Must be unhappy. If he was happy, he wouldn't burn books to bury Confucianism, build the Great Wall and Epang Palace, and even let Chui Fu take five thousand virgins to find him an elixir of life and do some atrocities that arbitrarily take away other people's property and lives. If I give this example, maybe the other four debaters will say, "contentment is not necessarily happiness, but are people satisfied in those circumstances?" Admittedly, we can't know whether others are satisfied or not. In this case, how can you prove whether the people in your example are satisfied? If you can't judge whether the other person is satisfied or not, how can you say that he is satisfied and happy?

Another debater said, "If many people didn't believe in contentment or contentment, then this concept wouldn't continue to this day and spread widely, right?" This sentence makes me feel as if a lie will become truth if told a thousand times. Everyone says the word "midnight". Is it really midnight? It should be 2.5 in the middle of the night. We have our own

Brain, we can think for ourselves about the right or wrong of things, which may not be right for thousands of years.

Based on the summary of the first two stages and a little supplement to their respective arguments, I believe everyone can better understand our views on "happiness and satisfaction".

Thank you all.

Speech in the fourth session of the debate II

Founder: Judging from the Xiaoyueyue incident, Cong Yi should be sentenced.

Opposing party: Judging from the Xiaoyueyue incident, from ruin should not be sentenced.

Thank you, Chairman!

Hello, judges, classmates and other debaters!

The other debater listed a series of similar cases around the Yue incident, trying to make us all accept the concept of "self-destruction should be judged", but we always stood firm and insisted that "self-destruction should not be judged"! Let me sum up our views again.

First, alienation is a moral issue, and people's behavior should not be regulated by law instead of morality.

As we all know, being brave is a noble act that conforms to justice and morality, while giving up on oneself is an act that violates morality and justice and is hated by people. Being brave and avoiding reputation, whether it is a moral problem or an uncertain obligation to help, can be regarded as a hero and praised, but avoiding reputation is a crime and will be punished by criminal law. How unfair and unjust this is! We don't think we should use law instead of morality to regulate people's behavior and put people in prison from ruins. On the contrary, it will reduce the gold content of doing good, raise the moral threshold, lead to people's enthusiasm for doing good, weaken their sense of justice, and make more people become "runners" from "onlookers".

Second, if from ruin is sentenced, the boundary between law and morality will be confused.

We who study law all know that laws are formulated by the national legislature and enforced by the state, while morality exists in public opinion and people's beliefs, is driven by people's inner beliefs, is influenced by public opinion and traditional customs, and is enforced by spirit. If self-destruction is sentenced, then in order not to commit the crime of self-destruction, people will have to help each other to die and be brave. In this way, being brave has changed from an active and voluntary morality to a passive and compulsory legal obligation, which not only changes the nature of the behavior itself, but also improves the moral evaluation standard of the behavior-who can be proud of not committing crimes? Obviously, the other debater didn't consider this behavior of confusing the boundaries between morality and law, which would lead to incorrect moral public opinion orientation.

Third, from the perspective of legislation and judicial practice, it is unrealistic to punish the crime of self-destruction.

Opponents think it is necessary and possible to be convicted of destruction. Assuming that the crime of accessory to destruction is established, legislators will first face the problems of "from ruin" and "saving" and "not saving". Obviously, the law cannot clearly define this, and too vague legislation will not be conducive to judicial practice. The defense friend of the other side has been avoiding the question of obtaining evidence raised by us. However, in judicial practice, public security organs will face the problem of obtaining evidence. Everyone pays attention to the Xiaoyueyue incident, largely because the camera caught 18 passers-by in from ruin, but not every public place has cameras, and the mobility of people in public places is large. It is quite difficult for public security organs to find out who from ruin is. The "Peng Yu case" in which the hero shed tears is the best example. Therefore, we believe that it is not feasible to punish the crime of self-destruction whether in legislation or in judicial practice.

Fourthly, the penalty of imprisonment in "Suicide" is too heavy, so it is suggested that legislation can be made, but not imprisonment.

For people in danger, there is no legal obligation, only moral obligation. Of course, people have the freedom to choose whether to help or not. We can condemn from destruction and encourage people to be brave, but obviously we can't threaten and force people to bear moral obligations in the name of crime. We believe that from ruin's imprisonment is too heavy, which violates the modern concept of rule of law and the legislative trend of modern national punishment mitigation. It is suggested to legislate from the ruins to solve the problem in other more harmonious ways.

Judges and classmates, through the previous debate and our discussion, do you still think that from the standpoint of another defense friend, from ruin should be sentenced? Then, the next bleeding hero is probably you! In order to avoid this situation, we insist that desertion should not be sentenced!

Speech at the Fourth Debate Competition 3

Thank you, Chairman, distinguished judges, teachers and students. (used when meeting at night) Good evening.

Our view is that people who achieve great things are informal. First of all, I want to thank the other debater for his passion in this debate, but I also want to advise the other debater that reason is not in the voice. Although the opponent's debaters are impassioned and eloquent, they can't hide the ambiguity of their logic and the paleness of their arguments. I don't know if you have noticed, but in fact, a series of disputes just now all originated from several key mistakes made by the other debater when opening the topic. Now, please join me in seeing the prejudice of another debater today.

First of all, Li is reserved. In our argument, we have fully discussed the great difference between details and details. However, the other debater arbitrarily grafted the influence of details on the bar. According to another debater's logic that "the cross section can be transformed into details, and the value of the cross section is equal to the details", I would like to ask another debater that we know that carbon and diamond have the same chemical composition and can be transformed into each other under certain conditions. Do we say that black charcoal and bright diamonds are of the same value? Then I'm sorry about the other debater. I can afford a kilo of carbon, but I can't even afford a carat of diamonds!

Second, there is a misunderstanding about the definition of "detention". Just now, our second debate has pointed out that "detention" means "formality". Obviously, detention does not mean attention. "Arrest" is a passive verb, while "attention" is an active word. Another debater confused active words with passive verbs. It seems that the other debater obviously doesn't understand the definition of the word "arrest"!

Third, deviate from the debate. Our three arguments have explained that now we are talking about achieving great things, not how to achieve great things. However, another debater talked endlessly about this, but unfortunately the premise was wrong. However, the argument of the other debater obviously deviates from the topic of debate and is indecisive in concept. At the same time, you can't cite examples to prove your point of view, or even label us without pointing out any irrationality in our argument. Really a waste of time, but very silent!

Gorgeous words can't replace rational thinking, and poetic romance can't help rational sublimation. Let me sum up our views:

First of all, it is not too grand to advocate that those who achieve great things are informal, but to let people look at problems from a developmental perspective and grasp things from a holistic perspective.

Secondly, people who achieve great things are determined by their limitations. Life is only a few decades. Although people who achieve great things have more excellent ideas and abilities than ordinary people, how can they stick to the details in such a long and arduous process of achieving great things?

Finally, informality can provide opportunities for those who want to achieve great things to explore new ways, which means that those who want to achieve great things should keep pace with the times and not stick to the inherent model.

Imagine, if Liu Bei was detained for a short period and returned to Jingzhou, where would there be three points in the world? If Emperor Taizong was confined to a small number and severely punished Wei Zhi, where would there be political clarity of Zhenguan rule? If Li Bai stays in a bar and dies of depression, where will there be romantic poetry? On the contrary, Fan Kuai is informal, and when he hears that the savior will be sealed; Sima Qian, who writes books in an informal way, is immortal ... both positive and negative examples eloquently explain to us such an unbreakable truth: those who achieve great things are informal!

So, finally, I send you a couplet to end our statement:

The first part: Make great achievements and pay attention to every detail.

Bottom line: Show your edge, carry forward national prestige, and don't stick to all the details.

Horizontal batch: dreams come true!

Speech at the Fourth Debate Competition 4

Thank you, Chairman. Hello, judges and audience!

I dare not say that the other debater is stubborn, but I have to point out several mistakes of the other debater.

First, just now another debater said that after a period of time, urbanization will no longer be urbanization. Will the other debater tell me that Shanghai and Nanjing are urbanized, and their quality of life is lower than ours?

Second, we just demonstrated that our urbanization is a static process, but we didn't know that urbanization is a process of starting to have problems and constantly improving! Third, just now another debater said that rural areas cannot be transformed into cities, and cities cannot be transformed into rural areas. Then the opposing debater should be a direction of our new China construction!

Please allow me to continue to expound our view that urbanization has improved people's quality of life. In view of the confusion of concepts just now, I have to reiterate that urbanization and quality of life are two issues.

First of all, urbanization is a social concept, that is, surface rather than point. Furthermore, urbanization is not simply turning rural areas into cities, otherwise the development of society is "destroying cultivated land and saving cement".

Furthermore, for the quality of life, life includes two aspects: spiritual life and material life, so what we call quality of life also includes two aspects: material life quality and spiritual life quality. Please allow me to elaborate from these two aspects.

First of all, from the perspective of the quality of material life, urbanization, under the guidance of government norms, strives for new production through people, just as the invisible hand is promoting economic development, making productivity progress and improving production relations, thus improving the level of primary and secondary industries as the standard of material life quality. Of course, this is only theoretical. What's the truth? After the industrial revolution, the whole world turned to urbanization. China started late, but achieved remarkable results. On a large scale, the gross domestic product has increased significantly, productivity has advanced by leaps and bounds, and production relations have become increasingly perfect. From a small point of view, from living in straw houses to building buildings, we can't afford corn, and urbanization has made great contributions!

Secondly, from the perspective of the quality of spiritual life, firstly, urbanization brings people together to concentrate on their lives and work, provides an urbanized life mode of constantly improving cars, and provides people with more and better places for communication. Furthermore, urbanization constantly promotes the development of education, culture and other industries through economic means, and improves the development level of the tertiary industry as a standard of quality of life. Thirdly, in the process of urbanization, with the continuous enrichment of material life and the continuous injection of fresh blood, people's conceptual vision is also constantly improving. For example, the appearance of the debate contest is an example. Of course, everything is not perfect, and urbanization is no exception. There will inevitably be disadvantages, and urbanization cannot improve all aspects of life.

Therefore, we should look at urbanization from a holistic and mainstream perspective to improve people's quality of life. When I pick up this piece of white paper, I hope everyone will say that it is a piece of white paper, not an ink mark. Finally, look at society. The improvement brought by urbanization is more and more common and has been put forward as a policy. Thank our dear motherland and Party Committee for pointing out the road of urbanization for us, and let us stride forward along the road of urbanization! Because there are thousands of words, thousands of cases have proved that urbanization can really improve our quality of life. thank you

Speech in the fourth debate in the debate 5

Thank you, Chairman! Judges! Hello everyone!

The other debater's speech is wonderful, and it is not difficult to find that the argument logic of the other debater is actually the following two points:

1, a thing from scratch is an improvement, and it is an improvement that college students never work as nannies.

2. Another debater thinks that the nanny industry has broad employment prospects, while college students have high quality and they hit it off.

Therefore, the other debater came to the conclusion that college students went from not having a job to having a job and engaged in the nanny industry, which proved that being a nanny for college students was an improvement in employment concept. However, during the whole debate, other debaters never demonstrated how and where these two points reflected the progress of employment concept. I hope the closing arguments of the other four arguments can give you a good argument. `

We believe that "it is the depreciation of talents for college students to be nannies". Let's summarize our views as follows:

1, it's inappropriate for college students to be nannies.

As john hennessy, president of Stanford University, said, "University education distinguishes majors precisely because it focuses on different training expectations to meet the needs of society for different talents."

The knowledge of higher education does not match the service of nanny industry, which is contrary to the training expectation of college students as nannies. Therefore, considering the needs of the nanny industry and the practical talents of college students, it is the depreciation of talents for college students to be nannies.

2, college students do nanny, improper use.

The influx of college students into the nanny market not only greatly reduces their own value, but also squeezes out the jobs of full-time nannies, leading to market disorder. Delayed the timely use of talents, did not put the right people in the right position at the right time, so that they could not fully display their talents. The trend of talent depreciation is expanding, which leads to the devaluation of group talents is inevitable.

3. When college students are nannies, they don't try their best.

As nannies, college students lack the proper stage and conditions to fully display their talents. The enthusiasm, initiative and creativity of college students are affected to varying degrees. As Cai Yuanpei, the first president of Peking University, said, "Universities are the light of society and should shine where they are needed more." The ultimate goal of cultivating talents in society is to make better use of talents. Only when talents are used well can they reflect their value and give full play to their effectiveness, and become an important driving force for economic and social progress.

From the first National Talent Work Conference in June 5438+February 2003 to the National Medium-and Long-Term Talent Development Plan (20 10-2020) released not long ago, it is clearly pointed out that giving full play to the role of all kinds of talents is the fundamental task of talent work, especially guiding college students to enter the society as soon as possible, giving full play to their talents and realizing. Premier Wen Jiabao has earnestly warned college students to go where they are most needed in the motherland to realize the greatest value of life.

Therefore, in the end, I still insist that "it is the depreciation of talents for college students to be nannies".

Articles related to speeches in the fourth debate of the debate;

★ Four debating skills in debating competition

★ Four Debate Skills in Debate Competition

★ Four debates and statements in the debate competition

★ Selected 5 speeches hosted by the debate contest.

★ Four debating skills in debating competition

★ Tactics and Skills of Standardizing Speech in Debate Competition

★ Speech by the host of the debate.

★ Wonderful opening remarks of the 2065438+09 debate competition

★ Skills about debate in the debate contest

★ Classic practical debate skills and common sentences in debate competition