It can be seen that in the initial impression of the audience and the judges, it is likely that there are many opponents.
So, at the starting line, you have suffered a little.
So, how to get it back?
I think:
Define "elite education" as: let all the educated college students become "elites" instead of "disappearing into the crowd"
Now everyone knows that "elite education" means educating only a few elites more than ordinary people, which is "unequal"
Our definition is to overthrow this view.
Realistic examples are in our favor:
Nowadays, higher education is becoming more and more popular, so more people should be able to receive education and become "elites"
"Mass education" should achieve the stage of universal education, which is a necessary means to improve the quality of the population in an all-round way.
However, in the stage of higher education, it is still doing "popularization" and still producing "popular products" instead of producing more "fine talents". So, what is the significance of higher education?
You said you needed "questions in the process of attack and defense".
Someone above also said, "Can three heads are better than two heads can deal with Cao Cao's million-strong army?" "Can a Mao Zedong defeat the Japanese devils?"
If the other party asks this question, I think it is not difficult to deal with it:
Without Zhuge Liang, Liu Bei is a fugitive running around all day. With Zhuge Liang, Liu Bei can finally compete with Cao Cao's millions of heroes and divide the world into three parts.
A Mao Zedong really can't beat the Japanese; But how many people died in China because of Mao Zedong?
The Kuomintang has millions of soldiers and millions of land, but without Mao Zedong, most of the land fell into the hands of the Japanese.
Only millet plus rifles, only a few base areas, but Mao Zedong's * * *, it is "a single spark, can start a prairie fire."
On the other hand, can you explain what "a strong general has no weak soldiers" and why "a flock of sheep led by a lion is better than a flock of lions led by a sheep"?
Of course, we hope that "the elite will be strong", but according to the other party's theory, if we oppose the "elite", the result can only be one: "one soldier and one pawn will make a nest."
===============
Answer supplement:
PM received, now add some suggestions.
I think there must be fierce competition between the two sides on what is "elite education" and what is "mass education"
Just like the fact that "universities have repeatedly expanded their enrollment", both sides can support their own views. We can say, "This shows that elite education is for everyone and gives everyone the opportunity to become an elite." The other party can say, "This is a manifestation of popularization."
How the judges and the audience judge depends on your definition, which is more acceptable.
Therefore, we should try our best to package the "elite education" into the image of "the masses enter, the fine products come out" and dress up the "mass education" on the other side as "raw materials enter, the standard products come out".
-we can be humorous: if we enter the university and don't work hard to be a "boutique", we just muddle along. So, does university really become "you play for four years"? !
On the contrary, the other side must push "elite education" to "inequality" and "only a few people can enjoy it".
In this regard, I think we can put forward a statement of "aristocratic education". As long as the other side puts forward any "unequal" or "minority" education methods, we can classify this kind of "aristocratic education". Because "aristocratic education" means "only a few people and the rich can enter", while our "elite education" means "as long as you have the learning ability, you can come", which is based on "fair competition".
I want to find some examples about the debate, but I can't find them in history, because there was no distinction between "higher education" and "primary education" in ancient times. Modern thinking has not found a suitable one.
Since you are a debater, when you ask questions, both sides' views have almost been expounded. I think you can ask this question:
Since the other party thinks that "higher education" should not be "elite" education, when do you think "elite" should be cultivated?
Because it is offensive and defensive, the other side should answer directly (if the other side really avoids answering, it can be pointed out directly, and it is illegal not to answer during the offensive and defensive period).
The other party must not answer "in the primary education stage". You may be booed to death by the audience if you say so.
If you answer "in higher education", you are supporting your point of view.
If the answer is "to the postgraduate and doctoral stage", then you can ask: "Don't the postgraduate and doctoral stages belong to higher education? Is there a so-called' super education' stage? "
In case the other party is cunning and answers irrelevant questions, such as "every stage can produce elites" and "there are excellent students in primary schools, middle schools and universities", then you can directly attack:
"Can primary schools cultivate elite talents? ! It seems that genius is really born, and primary school is the "pillar" ...