Debate team recruitment

The second debate may be backchat or cross-examination, depending on your specific arrangements. Because there are many cross-examination, I will analyze it directly according to cross-examination.

First of all, attacks and arguments serve their own arguments. It's best to play the most favorable point in your argument and make a clear point. This paved the way for the free debate afterwards. At the same time, we should pay attention to seize the logical loopholes of the other side and let the other side have scruples when debating freely.

In addition, from the analysis of the debate, this is a typical comparative debate, so don't play "moral importance" or "ability importance" all over the field, but focus on the "talent recruitment market". As long as the other party runs out of this range, it is necessary to catch it in time and pull it back. Secondly, comparative debate needs a standard, and you will establish a comparative standard when you make an argument. Because I don't have your argument, I won't describe it in detail. For example, if I set the standard as "the influence on the company image" (I said casually, you should carefully consider making the most favorable standard for you), then we can compare, because morality has a greater influence on the company image, so morality is more important than ability.

At the same time, many logical loopholes of the other party are lack of argumentation, that is, only argumentation ability or morality. For example, the other party gave an example: Does an honest pupil have an advantage over an ordinary doctoral student? This is a lack of argument, and this comparison can only be made on the premise that both sides are close, at least both sides have it. Pupils can be said to be incompetent, while doctoral students have certain moral qualities. This is not a comparative platform, and the platform must be equal.

In fact, the above statement is similar to that: what a civilized campus lacks most is bad students, so bad students are the most important for a civilized campus. This is a logical loophole, which is often committed in comparative debates, so not only the other side, but also you can't get into this quagmire. You can only compare under a comparison platform that the audience can recognize, such as learning excellent undergraduates and honest undergraduates. Then we can make a comparison under the standard: for enterprises, the ability can be cultivated, but the loss of corporate image caused by bad faith is irreversible.

I told you so many specific questions about attack and defense, because I don't have your argument. Always remember that both offense and defense serve an argument, and it will not make any contribution to this debate.