Time: Wednesday, August 3, 2005/KLOC-0, 7: 00 p.m.
Venue: Singapore New Media Studio Hall
Positive: Shixin University (position: high salary can maintain integrity)
Against: Australian National University (position: high salary can't keep clean)
Chairman: Wen Bei
Player:
Shixin University: Liao Qianhui, Huang Zhizhong, Wu Zishen, Zhao Yiting
Australian National University: Sha Xinwei Historic Site
Jury members: Hee Theng Fong, Zhong Zhibang, etc.
Overview of the game: At first, I took notes with trepidation and prepared to write an impression of the game according to the conventional method, but later the pen in my hand began to lag behind the progress of the game. There are three reasons: first, the debate routines used by opponents in this competition were expected in the debate stage, but in the cross-examination and free debate stage, the situation of the competition fluctuated greatly, which made me really unable to predict the direction of the competition, so the records began to be intermittent. Secondly, Zheng Fang has a famous debater-Huang Zhizhong. In the chaos of this game, he can go straight to Huanglong and slam his opponent's key points, which has a wonderful effect of turning decay into magic. Later students were really fascinated. Thirdly, this competition has also taught me a lot about the experience and the value behind it, which is more important than experience. . . So, I devoted myself to the climax of the game, so I put my notes aside from the second half. But because this game inspired me a lot, I can still remember it clearly. Now I try to tell the story of the game in a more comfortable way.
The team members are composed of two women and two men, and so are the opponents. Let's talk about the argument framework of both sides first.
Zheng Fang pointed out that improving employees' treatment can help employees face and resist external temptations, whether it is government employees or private units. Honesty is an internal judgment and external behavior, employees are smart, and it is human nature to seek advantages and avoid disadvantages. High salary can increase the risk of corruption, because it increases the cost of corruption, that is, employees lose more when they fall into corruption, and it can also narrow the scope of corruption prevention. High salary can also bring employees a sense of job identity, think that they are valued, have a grateful attitude towards employers, and help promote people's conscience and integrity in values. The so-called food and clothing know the honor and disgrace.
Logically speaking, on the positive side, parenting is to promote achievement, but being able is not a sufficient condition. At the same time, high salary is positively related to honesty. With other benchmark conditions unchanged, if the implementation of high-paying means can really promote honesty, then the position can be proved.
On the other hand, the opposing party points out that the positive party cannot clearly define high salary, and thinks that both morality and law are necessary conditions to ensure honesty. Perhaps high salary is a supplementary tool. When opponents argue, take gasoline additives as an example. For example, gasoline additives can't make cars start. Opponents also pointed out that the morality of the debate lies in how to create a clean environment, and even if the high salary does not make people greedy for money to a certain extent, it does not solve the problem from the root of greed, but only makes people not greedy because they feel unworthy, rather than letting employees realize from the heart that corruption is a violation of moral laws. At the same time, the opposing party also requires the positive party to demonstrate that the use of high salary system will definitely put an end to corruption. The opponent also cited examples such as lust, position, power and forced corruption, and believed that such various corruption cases could not be solved simply by a single high salary. The opposition also believes that people's selfish desires are constantly improving, and the abyss of various desires cannot be filled with high salaries. They also stressed that only a society with sound laws and morals is the foundation of honesty.
Cross-examination and free debate give late students a sense of personal confusion. However, the outstanding performance of Huang Zhizhong's predecessors and the surprising performance of the other side brought many highlights to the competition. First of all, Liao, the master of the positive side, asked the opponent and the master about Beckham's foot injury or the opponent's foot injury, trying to demonstrate that high-paying employees lost a lot of jobs and benefits. However, the opposing debater did not follow the logic of the positive side to continue the question. Instead, he cleverly switched an angle and suggested that even if Beckham had a pair of golden feet, the mother would feel that the child's foot would lose a lot if he was injured. The positive side seems to be caught off guard by the other side's "irrationality", and then asks whether the other debater can buy high insurance for his feet like Beckham. The other party argued, but replied tactfully that as long as he could give the same amount of money, his feet would not be so easily injured. Why don't insurance companies sell insurance? I won applause, and the momentum was overwhelming. Founder had no choice but to question the other party about the cost of being invited to appear in a car advertisement. But the opponent doesn't seem to be a fuel-efficient lamp, saying that she is not an artist and doesn't want to appear in advertisements. That's his principle, no matter how much money she didn't do it. The radical cure of corruption depends on education, so that employees can truly realize that corruption is a bad thing. This round of opponents seems a bit unreasonable, but in fact their arguments are also worth pondering and pondering.
This time, I was fortunate to see the style of attack and debate of Huang Zhizhong's predecessors (that was the most wonderful attack and debate I have seen so far in this year's national debate). In the first two roulette problems, the diamonds didn't seem to grasp some weaknesses of the other side, but they were somewhat overwhelmed by the other side. In addition, most of the audience on the field generously applauded each other, and the square really needs a heavyweight to stand up and set things right in time. Senior Huang did it. His problems can be said to be interlocking. He took reading and intelligence, exercise and health, rest and illness as topics and asked each other whether these were positively related. (Note that the former is not a sufficient condition for the latter) The opposing party seems to be aware of his purpose and dare not give a clear answer. Later, he continued to ask whether the morality of the legal system is positively related to honesty, and the opposing party finally admitted it. (But it seems that the legal system and morality are not sufficient conditions for honesty, right? Finally, he proposed that it was their position to replace the former with high salary and the latter with honesty in the previous relationship. (Applause thunderously) (Note: My memory of this game is much better than mine)
In the end, the opponent questioned whether the legal ethics of the square played a major role, and the square claimed that this could not rule out the role of high salary in maintaining integrity. Taking the referee as an example, the opponent asked him if he paid bribes to the referee of the competition, so did they refuse because the organizer of the competition offered him a high salary? (Teacher Zhao Lingmao told me before that the judges didn't even get enough money for clothes and gasoline), and Zheng Fang also talked about the core of the problem in time and pulled back to his position, thinking that this was a sign that the referee attached importance to himself and had a sense of identity with the game, and high salary was a means to promote this performance. What's interesting here is that the opposing player seems to have forgotten that he wanted to question Huang Zhizhong, and when the chairman reminded him, his time was running out. Finally, it's a pity that I didn't see Mr. Huang's heroism in the face of cross-examination this time.
Free debate is chaotic, and neither side has grasped the other's core argument well. The opponents have always stressed that high salary is not everything, and cited many examples (such as China, Hongkong, Singapore, Australia, etc. ) As to whether the definition of high salary is higher than before or higher than other members of society, the two sides have failed to argue, but it is not very important and there is no need to distinguish. Zheng Fang continued to express his views on competence, and proposed that high salaries give employees greater sense of pride and affection, and also increase the risk of corruption, making it easy to eliminate corruption, which is promotion and realization, that is, improvement.
The two sides did not put forward any new arguments in their concluding remarks, but the opposing side paid more attention to the manuscript, and there is no doubt that the positive summary (not to mention that everyone knows who should do it) was wonderful. Here, I'll sell you a pass (because it's so wonderful, I didn't make a rational record, and my ears are too cold), but when the audience asks questions, the example of the high-paid cleaner mentioned by Teacher Huang really makes people laugh. Senior Huang also said that nothing in this world is certain, just like studying hard can't guarantee full marks in exams. What we can do is to find out the relationship between those things and discuss what kind of development trend they will be. This is "energy". Really must probably only exist in the laws of science and mathematics?
Finally, Dr. Zhong Zhibang commented. He thought that both sides performed well and the game was not one-sided. Unfortunately, the opposing party relies too much on the prepared manuscript. He praised each other's excellent performance.
Personally, I think, just like the University of New South Wales in 1999, being unfamiliar with the debate is a disadvantage. But it may also be an advantage. Because such a debater's logic library is more diverse, it is easier to jump out of the opponent's preset framework. This time, the other party has done a good job.