Debate: I am happier with the person I like.

It seems that the debate is beneficial to you.

1. Where may the other party start to explain its point of view? How should we

the other party should ask you to prove that you are "happier", and they may say: it doesn't matter, or "the opponent is the one who knows you best, and being with him is more conducive to growth".

If I were the opponent, I would cite the example in Wolf Totem, which was very popular a while ago: Genghis Khan, an illiterate, never read the art of war, was able to finally build the largest empire across Eurasia, which is entirely the quality, body and strategy honed by him as a grassland nation, interacting with wolves, windstorms, blizzards and so on all the year round, learning from wolves and fighting against harsh environment.

I think that grasping the word "happiness" should be a beautiful feeling, and don't let the other side crowd out your "happiness" with things such as "success" and "victory" that require hard work and hard work. It should be beneficial to you to hold your ground and wait for an opportunity to attack (I really think the debate is biased towards you again and again)

3. When someone asked about the theory of relativity, Einstein's answer was: which time passes faster, being with beautiful women or being with the stove in summer? )

Didn't there once be a job advertisement for a secretary, asking for "looks like a young girl, works like a donkey ..."? Is it necessary to reverse "works like an ignorant girl, looks like a donkey" to satisfy the other party? (This is already a bit of a deliberate "laugh")