Whether job-hopping is helpful for talents to play a role? I am a positive, please ask questions and answers.

Looking back at history, almost every human progress is accompanied by a magnificent debate: from the feudal autocracy of ancient China to the democracy and freedom of today's China; from the feudal theology of ancient Europe to the democracy and freedom of today's Europe. Scientific rationality; from the vigorous bourgeois revolution to the great discussion on truth standards that reversed the current situation - behind the fierce debate is people's bold exploration of the truth, and the test of truth on human wisdom. Debate, like the dazzling light produced by the collision of flints of wisdom, illuminates the avenue for mankind to explore the truth. After the grand debate, mankind has taken firm and powerful steps forward one after another.

It’s the cherry blossom season again, and the finals of the 9th College Debate Competition of Ocean University of China are coming as scheduled in this great spring time. On April 17, the fourth climax of the war of words took place on the Fushan campus of Hainan University. Below, Guanhai Tingtao will take you to relive this confrontation of wisdom.

——Inscription

Argument statement

The first argument of the affirmative: Job-hopping is not a blind jump, nor is it a blind flow of talents. On the contrary, job-hopping means leaving the original unit or occupation to another unit or changing occupation, which is an effective flow of talents. Next, let’s analyze the logical relationship of today’s debate: When we talk about job-hopping being helpful to talents, it means that a change in objective conditions can help people’s subjective initiative, rather than demonstrating that job-hopping can help people develop their subjective initiative. It is a sufficient or necessary condition for talents to play their role. Therefore, as long as we can point out that changes caused by job-hopping help talent function, we can prove our point. We will prove our point of view from the following aspects:

1. We emphasize that job-hopping is a talent flow mechanism characterized by two-way selection, which is conducive to the role of talents. The reason why some people choose to change jobs is because they think they cannot perform well in their original positions. Job-hopping respects people's independent choices and is in line with the people-oriented spirit. Real estate tycoon Pan Shiqi concluded from many years of experience that the value of goods can only be expressed through exchange, and the value of talents can only be expressed through job-hopping. This is fair to the talent. It can be seen that job-hopping changes the environment in which talents can play their role.

2 From the perspective of social value, job-hopping is a vertical flow of talents, and a relatively closed talent management model is more conducive to the optimal allocation of resources. There is no doubt that in the process of job-hopping, the value of talents is continuously improved, thereby realizing their social value and completing the perfect unity of personal value and social value. My fellow debaters, the era of being consistent has passed, and the era of true freedom and openness has long since arrived. Our talents have clearly realized that "I am born with talents that will be useful, and I will be useful if I am not needed here." Job-hopping is not about idleness, but about finding the right direction for your hard work! "The sky is high enough for birds to fly, and the sea is wide enough for fish to leap." If we persist in our original profession, there will be an unknown small capitalist in the society instead of the revolutionary teacher Engels; there will be a Hunan rural teacher in the society instead of Chairman Mao! Fellow debaters on the other side, please put aside your arrogance and prejudice and use your rational mind to accept our point of view - job-hopping is beneficial to talents! Thanks!

The opposing side’s first argument statement: The opponent’s fellow debater made the following mistakes in his argument just now:

First of all, the concept is unclear, and he refers to a deer as a horse. What is job hopping? Job hopping refers to the act of voluntarily resigning and changing units. It is a risky talent flow method. Talent refers to a social group that has mastered certain skills. It can be seen that talents are the production factors of society and a social resource. The performance of its role must be targeted at the organization and society.

Secondly, the judgment criteria are not clear, making everyone look at things in a fog. We believe that the standard for talents to play their role lies in whether personal value and social value can be realized and unified. It is true that job-hopping is the result of personal choice, and it can indeed benefit some people within a certain period of time. However, due to individual differences, we cannot find a unified measurement standard. Therefore, in terms of whether it is conducive to the role of talents, we should discuss today's debate topic from the perspective of groups and society.

After clarifying the concepts and standards, we will further demonstrate from the following points that job-hopping is not conducive to the role of talents:

First, job-hopping is not conducive to the establishment of personal credibility. .

Modern society is a society that values ??integrity. Unilateral breach of contract and leaving without saying goodbye will cause a red light on people's integrity issues. “A tree cannot be upright without roots, and a man cannot stand without faith.” If we ignore the axioms of an honest society and talk about job-hopping, how can talents play a role?

Second, job-hopping is not conducive to talents obtaining a stable development environment. Job-hopping will inevitably change the direction of the working relationship between talents. How does talent play a role in a changing environment? If you don't stay rooted in your position for a long time, how can you perform your role better?

Third, job-hopping is not conducive to the rational allocation of human resources. Talent is one of the production factors of society. The phenomenon of "peacock flying southeast" that was once popular has caused the accumulation of talents in the eastern region, resulting in a waste of human resources, while there has been a talent gap in the central and western regions. In addition, job hopping makes many companies reluctant to invest in training employees, fearing that their companies will become the cradle of talent for others. This is obviously not conducive to the social supply of talents. After some people changed jobs, they took away their capital and skills, leaving the original enterprise empty. This kind of command worsens the competitive environment and makes unfair competition more prevalent.

Fourth, job-hopping is not conducive to the guidance of social values. Loving one's job and being dedicated to one's job is a major manifestation of social values, but job-hopping is quite different from being dedicated to one's job. Therefore, we do not encourage job-hopping because job-hopping is not conducive to the role of talents.

Fifth, no language is conducive to rational thinking. Today, let us start today’s debate in a rational space!

Cross-examination session

The second and third defenders of the opposition cross-examined the first defender of the affirmative:

Second debate of the opposition: Thank you, Chairman. Just now, the opposing debater mentioned that the value of a person is only It can be reflected by job-hopping. Will those who do not change jobs not be able to reflect their value?

Advocate: Thank you for your question. We say that job-hopping is more conducive to talents. We only target people who are willing to change jobs. For those who are working well in this position, they are already in the job. This unit has played a very good role, and there is no need to discuss today's issues with these people.

Second argument for the opposing side: But the other side just said clearly that only by changing jobs can talents be effective. In other words, the relationship between "only---talented" should be understood by the other side's debate friends! Let’s ask the other debater another question. The other debater deals with numbers every day and has high attainments in mathematics. A survey shows that 60% of people will feel a sense of loss after changing jobs. Where does this sense of loss come from?

Professor: Thank you for asking. I will also talk about the data. The *** Youth League Shanghai Municipal Committee conducted a survey on the reasons why young people under the age of 35 change jobs. The results showed that: 94.1% of Germans believe that they jump to develop their expertise, and 67.3% of them jump to satisfy their hobbies. What does this data show? It means that if you are not satisfied in a certain field, the requirement is to jump!

Three objections: If you are not suitable for one position, you will move to another position. What would you do if another position wasn't suitable for you?

The first argument of the affirmative: Friends from the other side, you cannot deny that Le’s future is bright just because the road is tortuous!

The second and third arguments of the affirmative cross-examine the first argument of the negative:

Second argument of the affirmative: When an external force exerts an effect on something, is it necessary to consider all the effects to see its effect? ?

Another argument: That is indeed the case.

The third argument of the affirmative: Thank you to the opponent’s fellow debater for recognizing our logical basis, which means that job-hopping is not a sufficient or necessary condition for talents to play their role. Let me ask you, if you become a mathematics teacher after graduation but find yourself at a loss, and now a company offers a position suitable for you, where will you go?

Counter-argument: If that position is suitable for me, I will go to that company. But I will not choose to change jobs. Because there are many ways for talent to flow now, why should I prefer to go to the tiger mountain even though I know that there are tigers in the mountains?

Pros and cons: Then let me ask you, how do you move?

The first counter-argument: I can use transfer, secondment, job rotation, and more than ten other methods of talent mobility (applause). Why does the opponent’s opponent only let me change jobs? What about the method?

Pros and cons: The other debater is confusing concepts.

In fact, job hopping is also a way! I am asking the other party, if you do one thing you like and one thing you don’t like, will doing the thing you like help you to play a role, or will doing the thing you don’t like help you play a role?

Opposite argument: The things I like must be consistent with social values. Therefore, as long as my personal values ??can be realized and my personal values ??and social values ??can be unified, then I will Do what you like.

Second argument from the affirmative: So, the purpose of changing jobs is to do what we like! Let me ask you, the data shows that Americans change jobs six times in their lifetime on average. What conclusions can be drawn from this data? (Time is up)

One-to-one debate

Three arguments for the right: Wang Fuzhi, a poet of the Qing Dynasty, said in his "Reading Tongjian Lun": When a kite flies or a fish jumps, each one can make it happen. to make it skillful. What it means is that kites fly in the sky and fish swim in the water. Only when we have an environment that allows us to function can we make the most of things and people. If kites swim in the water, fish fly in the sky, and survival becomes a problem, how can they play a role?

Three arguments for the opposing side: First, whether the animal mentioned by the opponent's friend can swim in the water. Second, is it possible for fish to fly into the sky? Since this is impossible, why are we discussing it? I would like to ask my fellow debater, what kind of talents does this society need?

The third argument of the affirmative: The opponent's opponent is avoiding our problem. It is obvious that a kite cannot swim in the water and a fish cannot fly in the sky. Talents are like fish in the sky, only when they find their own position can they use their expertise. But we see that in today's society, many talents are unable to use their expertise in their jobs, or they suffer from too many obstacles in their working environment, which seriously hinders the performance of their roles. It is sad that thousands of people are waiting to find out. ! Is it wrong to say that these talents change their environment by changing jobs so that they can perform their functions better?

Three opposing arguments: This is obviously correct, but why doesn’t the opponent’s fellow debater answer our question? I would like to restate the question we just asked, what kind of talents does this society need? What kind of talents does this society need? Viacom President Li Yifei said that they will not recruit people who frequently change jobs, because they are people who run away when they are under pressure, and they are losers. How will the other party explain this? The opponent's fellow debater just mentioned the environment. We believe that for talents to play their role, there must be a stable environment. The opponent’s fellow debaters should know that stability is paramount in China now!

The affirmative’s third debate: We need all kinds of talents, and all kinds of talents need all kinds of environments. I feel very gratified that my fellow debaters on the other side care about talents as much as we do. Let me ask my fellow debater, I just mentioned the environment. Whether a person can fully play his role is of course related to the environment. However, if a person is bored with his original workplace and even goes to work with a tormented mentality, should you change the environment to find a job you like and play a greater role?

Three objections: Most of the work is actually doing some repetitive things. If you do one thing repetitively every day, you will naturally feel bored. But if you go to a new environment and a new position to do a new job, you are actually repeating the same thing, and one day you will be bored. Boredom comes and goes, jumping around, jumping today, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow. When will it end?

The third argument of the affirmative: But the opponent’s opponent needs to know that by changing jobs, isn’t it changing the environment, finding a job you like, and regaining a sense of belonging? But the other debate partner always lingers in the same place, willing to be a caged bird, which I feel is a pity. I asked the other debater again for advice. The ancients said, "A good minister chooses his master to serve, and a good bird chooses a tree to roost in." For example, Han Xin was transferred from Xiang Yu's subordinate to Liu Bang's sect, helping Liu Bang unify the country. Could it be that his choice was wrong? Could it be that his choice was not conducive to its functioning?

Three objections: First, I am a talent. I will break through the cage to realize my own value, but I will not choose to change jobs. Second, does Han Xin count as a job-changer? Did he meet Xiang Yu and sign a contract, or did he conclude a peace treaty with Liu Bang? (Time for the affirmative is up)

Three negative arguments: Why are young people the majority of people changing jobs? Because young people are more impetuous. If they don't do well in one position, they will think of another position. There is a saying that goes well: A career is often built by perseverance and destroyed by impatience.

If we cannot persevere in our positions and exert our value in ordinary positions, then we will have no chance to do higher-level work. Since there is no opportunity to do higher-level things, how can we function better? The other party said that we are overgeneralizing, but we also have a set of data. According to authoritative surveys, among the many job hoppers, only 10% have done preliminary planning. That is to say, most job-hopping is blind. What consequences can the blindness of the subject bring? This is self-evident. If you definitely change jobs, you deny the rationality of 90% of people. This is the true blindness of a leaf. (Time is up)

Argument stage

Four arguments for the affirmative: Let’s first look at a simple analogy: Now we are like pharmacists in a pharmaceutical factory. It was proved that this medicine is good for treating colds, but the other party said it was not good. Once the medicine enters the market, some people do not take it according to the regulations. If everyone does this, this medicine is not good for treating colds! Obviously the other party's thinking direction is wrong. Let me now respond to the issue of integrity mentioned in the first argument of the other party. The United Nations clearly advertises when recruiting external staff: Applicants need more than six types of work experience. Is the United Nations forming a coalition of dishonest people? If job-hopping is a dereliction of duty, then letting a thousand-mile horse grind and letting a tiger eat grass is a kind and virtuous behavior? No, that is just the destruction and waste of talents, and a shackles to social progress!

Next, let’s return to the phenomenon of loss after job-hopping mentioned by the other party. This phenomenon only shows that job-changers did not fully consider before changing jobs, thus hindering the play of their role. So what he has to do now is to leave his job temporarily, re-plan, figure out what kind of environment suits him, and then jump in without hesitation! The other debater talked about the phenomenon of peacocks flying to the southeast, saying that the ratio of job hopping plays a role in the role of talents. A large number of talents are piled up in the east, unable to find suitable jobs, or even unemployed. Should we restrict them from jumping jobs and returning to the west to support the west of our country? What about large-scale development? Secondly, what we call job-hopping refers to changing the external environment to promote the subjective initiative of talents. The opponent’s arguments have been full of loopholes since the beginning of the argument - (time is up)

The opponent’s four arguments: The opponent’s second argument is like running water on a small bridge, and the third argument is eloquent, but no matter it is a microwave or an angry wave, it cannot be hidden A few questions from the other party.

First, the concept is unclear. The other party told us that job-hopping is the main way for talent flow, so I would like to ask, what is an orange? According to the other party's logic, oranges are the most important type of fruit. How can this kind of logic, which has neither connotation nor denotation, work in today's game?

Second, the standards are specious. The opposing debater talks about phenomena from left to right, but never tells us what the standard of measurement is. Our first debate has made it very clear that the standard for talents to play their role is whether personal value and social value can be realized and unified.

Third, one-sided understanding. They try to confuse job-hopping with talent flow, so they think that if they don't change jobs, they will be stuck in a stagnant water. Without job hopping, reasonable allocation cannot be made. Doesn't it mean that the opponent's fellow debater has such a concept, so that he can make others aware of his confusion?

Fourth, the other party has been emphasizing changing the environment, but we believe that it is precisely because of job hopping that the environment is constantly changing, which is not conducive to the role of talents. Because talents need a stable environment to function, and job-hopping makes the environment very unstable.

A close encounter

Three arguments from the positive side: Thank you, everyone. Today our debate topic is whether job-hopping is conducive to the development of talents, but the other debater talks about blind job-hopping and frequent job-hopping. Our job-hopping is so unfair! For example, we are talking about whether taking medicine is good for health, but the other party is talking about whether taking a lot of medicine is good for health. So, does the other party’s statement fit today’s debate topic? Let me ask the other person this question: If we feel very depressed and trapped in our working environment, and there is no joy brought by work, and if he decisively chooses to change jobs, will his wise choice be more beneficial? Does it work?

Second argument: If you can play a role in the new environment after changing jobs, what is the reason why it can play a role?

Second argument for the positive side: Since job-hopping is an active choice and a way of talent flow, then job-hopping is a way of talent flow.

Second argument for the opposing side: The opponent’s fellow debater just said that job-hopping is caused by the environment, but our debate topic today is whether job-hopping is conducive to the role of talents, but the other party wants to tell me that the environment is the cause of job-hopping. reason.

Three arguments for the positive: So we say that the role of talents is a reflection of their subjective initiative. We say that job-hopping changes the working environment. Do changes in the objective environment ensure that subjective initiative is stimulated? Please ask the opposing debater not to deviate from today’s debate topic.

An argument from the opposing side: The other side just announced that the United Nations recruiters need to have more than six kinds of work experience. Is that equivalent to the United Nations admitting that you have to change jobs at least six times in your life? I would like to ask my fellow debater, whether a stable environment is needed for talents to be effective?

Four arguments for the positive: But we need innovative talents more today! I would like to ask my friend the other side a question. If you are an employee of a large enterprise and you feel overwhelmed by the complex interpersonal relationships in the enterprise, and you switch to a company with relatively simple interpersonal relationships, will this change in objective conditions have any effect? Is it beneficial to your role?

Three arguments against the opponent: The other party just said that taking medicine is good for health, but the medicine is three parts poisonous. You can't believe it all. The other party said that job-hopping changes the environment, and the change of environment can make the role of talents be fully exerted. Then I would like to ask the other party's debater, since so many people blindly change jobs, can they guarantee that the job after job-hopping will be suitable for them?

Second argument for the affirmative: We have already said when we made the argument that job-hopping is not a sufficient or necessary condition for talents to play their role. We only said that whether objective conditions can exchange for subjective initiative is still a question of objective conditions. ah! Please ask the other party not to change their logic.

Another argument: Then I would like to ask again, what are the sufficient and necessary conditions for talents to play their role? The other party has been avoiding our question, which is whether a stable environment is needed for talents to function?

Three arguments for the positive side: We admit that subjective initiative is needed for talents to play their role, but the sufficient or necessary conditions for talents to play their role are not the issues to be discussed today.

Fourth counter-argument: Let’s put aside environmental issues for the time being. We say that job-hopping has certain risks. The existence of this risk greatly increases the opportunity cost of job-hopping. The opponent’s friends are willing to spend their limited lives on This?

An argument from the positive side: Again, don’t deny that the future is bright just because the road is tortuous. In 2001, former Dell president Lamelio jumped to Lenovo as CEO. He had been marginalized at Dell. Will he jump from one marginalized environment to another to show off his talents? Will it help it play a role?

Three anti-party arguments: The road is tortuous, but the future is bright. The premise is that this road has a purpose. If you jump up and down, without any purpose, your future will be bright. Is it? Also, I would like to ask my friend, when you change jobs, you will face choices. Choices are related to costs. What are the costs? Cost is a burden. How can you function better when you are carrying a heavy burden?

Three arguments for the positive side: When we say that talents change jobs, it does not mean that the company really cannot retain this talent, but that talents can attract more attention from society to talents through job-hopping, which ultimately is conducive to the role of talents. of. Moreover, how can talents who cannot meet their basic requirements be effective?

Three opposing arguments: If people in this society are determined to change jobs, can the opposing debater list the consequences of job-hopping?

The affirmative’s argument: Let’s give you some data. The Ministry of Labor and Social Security announced that at the end of 2006, more than 10 million people were seeking new careers in the job market, and 20% of them were preparing to change jobs. So according to the other party's opinion, where should these more than 2 million people go? ?

Opponent’s argument: I also give the other party a set of data. Data currently released by Hedun Management Consulting Co., Ltd. shows that only 9.8% of people have scientifically analyzed the new industry before changing careers. It can be seen that most people are blind before changing jobs, and the other party has to admit their collective blindness. ?

The second argument of the affirmative: The debate topic we are discussing today is not that frequent job-hopping is blind, but whether job-hopping is conducive to the role of talents. The opponent's debate partner has been secretly changing concepts, which is blind in itself.

Three opposing arguments: Does frequent job-hopping and blind job-hopping count as job-hopping?

Three arguments for the positive side: Job hopping is a neutral concept. I don’t understand why the other party is so interested in labeling job hopping.

We are not keen on job-hopping, but often a combination of circumstances makes our work unsatisfactory. If our majors are not suitable, wouldn't job-hopping be beneficial to us? (Time's up)

Four counterarguments: If you encourage job-hopping, you are encouraging a style of dabbling.

The second counter-argument: You jumped slightly, and you took away everything I had! (Time is up)

The final word

Concluding remarks of the opposition’s four arguments: Thank you, Chairman! Good evening everyone! The other party's debate partner expressed his own point of view with an impassioned and sincere speech, but please allow me to point out several biases of the other party here:

1. The concept is unclear. The other party’s fellow debater told us that job-hopping is the main way of talent flow, so let me ask the other party’s fellow debater, what is an orange? According to the logic of the other debater, oranges are the main type of fruit. So, will your concept, which has neither connotation nor denotation, work in this competition?

Two standards are specious. The opponent's fellow debaters talk about phenomena from left to right, but never tell us what the standard of measurement is. We have made it very clear in theory that the standard for talents to play their role is whether personal value and social value can be realized and unified.

3. One-sided understanding. They try to confuse job-hopping with talent flow, so they think that if they don’t change jobs, they will be stuck in a stagnant water. Without job hopping, reasonable allocation cannot be made. Doesn't it mean that the opponent's fellow debater has such a concept, so that he can make others aware of his confusion?

Four. Confusion. The opponent's fellow debaters have repeatedly emphasized that job-hopping is conducive to the optimal allocation of resources. However, we have made it clear many times that job-hopping can easily lead to a waste of resources. How can we say that it is conducive to optimal allocation?

5. Self-contradictory. The opposing debater admits that frequent job-hopping is job-hopping, but cannot argue that it is conducive to the role of talents. Isn't this contradictory?

Next, please allow me to ask three questions about our side:

First, as far as the image of talents is concerned, job-hopping is not conducive to the establishment of integrity. How can talents be brought into play? People cannot stand without trust. If they lose the trust of all units, then there will be no place for real heroes to use their talents. How can we talk about the role of talents? Furthermore, if you accidentally put on the red dancing shoes with a bright surface and dance frequently, "old sorrows will be added to new sorrows", wouldn't it mean that "people who have traveled through the green mountains are not yet old, and their functions have not yet been fully exerted"?

Secondly, in terms of talent quality, job-hopping is not conducive to the accumulation of work experience and how can talents be used? "A rolling stone gathers no moss", changing jobs can easily lead to more gain than loss. As the old saying goes: The bench needs to be cold for ten years. This means that it takes more than ten years or even decades of hard work to accumulate experience. If we often have different thoughts and ideas, we always look at the heights of this mountain and the work mentality is unstable, how can our talents play their role?

Thirdly, in the old society, job-hopping is not conducive to the optimal allocation of resources, and how can talents play their social role. Do you know that our country is still short of talents? It is education, rural areas, state-owned enterprises, and the backward western regions. The mainstream trend of job hopping is exactly the opposite. Is it possible that the opponent's fellow debater should face the phenomenon of peacocks flying to the southeast and talk about the benefits of job-hopping? That is exactly what "the sun rises in the east and rains in the west, the Tao is beneficial but not beneficial"!

Let us look further. Education is the foundation of a century-old plan. The trend guided by job-hopping cables is the massive loss of talents in basic industries such as education in my country. Does the opponent's fellow debater hope to see China's economic development become a river without a source and a tree without roots?

Let us stand taller. The various crises caused by job-hopping have become a problem that cannot be ignored. Nowadays, isn’t the outcome of senior executives collectively changing jobs but failing to play any role enough to sound a social alarm for society?

Only reasonable talent flow can truly help talents play their role. From job rotation to temporary assignment to transfer, it can be described as "red clouds, hundreds of layers of clothing". The other party talks about the freedom to choose a career, but he sticks to a trap and jumps around in one way. I'm afraid it's self-contradictory!

I urge the opposing debater to think about the overall situation rather than one city, and to plan for the whole world rather than just one moment. As the saying goes: "It is advisable to keep an eye on the situation, as the lotus garden is full of sunshine"! Thank you all!

Summary statement of the affirmative’s four arguments:

First of all, you need to know that the more you accumulate experience, the more experience you accumulate. If you make a wrong choice for a lifetime, what will you do? What to do? As the last debater to speak in this competition, I sincerely invite everyone to reflect on this competition calmly with me.

Secondly, the other party said in its argument that talents are a kind of social resource and are fluid. So, why has the other party been unwilling to look at the flow of job-hopping from a fair perspective? ? Instead, they have been telling us about blind job-hopping and frequent job-hopping, and calling job-hopping that is conducive to the role of talents as their own reasonable talent flow instead of job-hopping, just like our second friend is wearing a vest today and he is not him? This is obviously irresponsible, just changing the concept!

Again, what we should see is that job-hopping is a kind of talent flow, and some problems will inevitably arise. Today we are not comparing which flow method is better. Obviously, job-hopping is a talent flow. It is a good combination of independent choice and social needs. It enables talents to play their role in a better environment and make greater contributions to society. It maximizes the unity of talents' personal value and social value. , to maximize the effect!

Finally, what we should all see is that when doing something, we will encounter setbacks of one kind or another. We cannot deny that the future is bright just because the road is tortuous! We cannot deny the benefits of job-hopping for talents just because some people change jobs randomly without looking at their own situation rationally. Job-hopping is a challenge to personal potential and a new starting point for life goals. Working in one unit for a lifetime is very difficult. It is easy for people to lose their passion. It is true that it is human nature to give up stressful prospects and choose a comfortable and comfortable life. Just like a butterfly cannot fly across the sea, we are not demanding, but talents must have a courage different from ordinary people to be called " "Talent", otherwise, even talents show such mediocrity and unprincipledness, then is there any hope for our society? It is talents who do not tend to be comfortable and have the courage to challenge themselves that will inject vitality into our society. There are many talented people who, throughout their lives, keep making progress and creating new environments and new pressures for themselves in order to fulfill their role. Aren't they more capable of playing a role than those who take things as they come and enjoy themselves? There is such a person. At the age of 19, he could have exchanged obedience for a smooth life, but he used his own actions to maintain his interests. At the age of 27, he invented a new language system and could have used a patent to exchange for a life of poverty. Worrying, but he chose to do his best to promote the world TC craze; at the age of 44, he became famous at Microsoft. He could have chosen to stay away from the hustle and bustle and enjoy leisure, but he dragged his tired body in order to achieve a higher social impact He was criticized for his efforts to return to China. He is Kai-Fu Lee. The reason why he can maximize his talents is not only because he strives for technical excellence, but also because he has the courage to change jobs again and again to find a better environment! Job-hopping is not the purpose, development is. Direction, job hopping tells us about constant self-breakthrough and self-adjustment, as well as never giving up on the road of life! Thanks!

Organize it in your own words. Hope it helps with your debate.