I can only help the landlord think from one angle, which is a bit sophistry.

That is to say, from the mother's point of view, take overseas Chinese as an example. Their genes are endowed by the motherland, and they are China people with black hair and yellow skin. However, if they grow up abroad, foreign countries give them good conditions, which means that China is their biological mother and the United States is their adoptive mother. However, in times of national disaster, they will choose to return to the motherland. Why?

Because their hearts still identify with the place where their ancestors inherited their genes.

You can say that no matter how a person is affected by the external environment, the blood flowing in his bones will not change.

The positive side should look for more data and examples from modern genetics and genetics, and don't let the negative side actively entangle in the moral category of raising family ties. You have to be divorced from science and data, but some of them have been divorced.

Debate: the grace of life is more important than the grace of cultivation, and the grace of cultivation is more important than the grace of life.

Zheng Fang: University of Electronic Science and Technology of China

Against: Jinan University.

They know what they want.

Three arguments: thank you, moderator. The essence of today's debate lies in who is more significant in the face of the value of life. The other party may downplay the value of human life and upbringing in order to be more conducive to their own argument, but ignore the problem of human life and upbringing. The other party may first cover up the meaning of life and increase the role of maintaining life conditions, thinking that life only provides a starting point, and nurturing makes life continue. Second, look at each other from the essential attributes of people. Will ignore the basic role of life, and think that only nurturing can affect people's sociality, make people truly become real people, and complete the value of human life. The third party may dilute human life, which is the most brilliant achievement condensed by countless years in nature. It regards life as a moment and ignores the great significance of creation. It is considered that nurturing is far more important than spiritual and material nurturing. Finally, it is argued that the other party may use China's traditional thought that it is better to raise goodness than to raise goodness, and promote the positive social significance brought by raising goodness to further support their views. Guess it's over. Thank you.

Counterparty: Thank you, moderator. Hello, everyone. Next, I guess the other side's argument from four aspects. First, the other party may engage in argumentation innovation and reinterpret the word "bearing" instead of "bearing" and "nurturing". Second, if the other party still understands "bearing" as bearing and nurturing, then the other party will demonstrate that the grace of life is more important than the grace of nurturing by providing the foundation, priceless and irreplaceable life. Third, the scope of grace is expanded, and the blood relationship of family ties is also included in the scope of grace, avoiding the true meaning of grace. The fourth is to separate the subject or process of raising, compare the whole process of life with the separated part of raising, and then deny that it is social raising to avoid disputes. This must be based on the fact that life and raising are a complete process. We will wait and see. Thank you.

Positive debate: thank you, moderator. Hello, everyone. In the vast galaxy, the earth gave birth to its first life in the throes of magma pouring 3.8 billion years ago. This is great. It's amazing. As the cleverest creature, man's highest value lies in his ability to respect life. Is it a means to cultivate and maintain the continuation of life? It is more important to see which is the more important standard. As a value judgment, the standard is to see which is the most important, the purpose is more important, and which is more critical and plays a decisive role. We believe that the grace of life is more important than the grace of cultivation. First, in terms of importance, the grace of life plays a key role. First, without birth, there is no cultivation. Life determines the meaning of all cultivation. Therefore, life is primary, and the second life is constantly developing. The process of breaking and surpassing in a person's life is a process of breaking and creating. It is the process of life that allows species to continue and the genes of organisms to be passed from parents to offspring. It's just a process of sustaining life. In any case, it has no important purpose, and the second birth is not just that moment. The embryo of life is formed in water. It represents a microcosm of the exploration process of life in the primitive ocean, so the value of life is exactly what nature has been doing for tens of millions of years. A crystallization in the process of evolution, so its value is far greater than the short-term cultivation process of the day after tomorrow, so life is the material basis, which provides conditions for flowering and fruition, while cultivation only determines the spiritual standard and direction of spiritual culture. Finally, from the social value, life is irreplaceable, and blood is thicker than water. The grace of life is an innate right and responsibility, which is irreplaceable, so it asks for nothing in return and brings nothing. Utilitarian demeanor: How many overseas Chinese have returned to China to seek their roots without seeking support, but they are grateful for their lives? This shows that the grace of life is really more important than the grace of support. What makes the glory of that moment condense into eternity? What makes people worship is like a pilgrimage. It is the shouting and the praise of life that echoes through time and space in the universe. Feuerbach said that life itself is the greatest happiness.

Counterparty: Thank you, moderator. Hello, everyone. Today, although we are discussing a seemingly emotional topic like grace, we still need to clarify several rigorous concepts. First, kindness means kindness, that is, the kindness that parents give us life, while the kindness that parents and society bring up us includes the kindness that parents and society bring up us, because in the process of bringing up, we can't separate the relationship between parents and society at all, and this is more important to understand, because grace is a perceptual word and can't be quantified. Therefore, we believe that the standard of today's judgment should be to see whose meaning is more important. Next, I will demonstrate our point of view from two levels and three points. First, from the perspective of children's benefactors, it is of course a great kindness for parents to give us life, but only through the process of parenting can we truly reflect the significance of life. Why is it like a piece? Only through continuous carving the day after tomorrow can a truly valuable jade be formed. This is the so-called unbreakable jade, which the living can't do. Otherwise, people and animals are different, just like wolf children can't be real people because they have no one to raise them. Secondly, from a social point of view, the kindness of parenting is more important than the kindness of life. People form society, lead society and develop society, so we have to stand. Judging their importance from the height of society can explain why human society needs to continue like other biological groups, but the difference between human society and other biological groups is that it needs more development, and development needs not only people, but also talents, and we rely on the cultivation of parents and society to become a useful person. Secondly, from the perspective of value, it is not just about raising. Grace is more important than the grace of life, and the grace of nurturing should be reborn. From the negative lessons of young people who have lost their feet, we see the importance of parenting. We should call on parents and society to pay more attention to the process of parenting, because only in this way can children truly realize their self-worth and repay the society with gratitude. This kind of life is meaningful. I want to thank my parents for giving me life. I want to thank my parents and all walks of life for training me, so I want to say that the grace of parenting is more important than the grace of life. Thank you.

Close combat:

Three arguments against it: thank you, moderator. Hello, everyone. Just now, another debater told us at the first point that because life is priceless and nurturing provides the continuation of life, it is more important to give birth to grace than nurturing. I would like to ask another debater, if you are born and abandon it, where does your grace come from? That is to say, life provides a starting point for life, and nurturing provides this thing for the maintenance and continuation of life. Born without raising, there is no second pair of grace at all. Fang Dianyou told us that life provides a material foundation for people, and nurturing can only nurture him, so life is more important than nurturing. I would like to ask another debater why he is called a wolf child because he is born with natural attributes, and his social attributes are realized through the process of upbringing. We don't call him a real person because he is endowed with social attributes after giving others this natural attribute.

Objection: add one point. Opponents have just told us that the use of tools can be continued through genetic methods. Opponent, were you born to learn to fly a plane? Then, opponent, you don't have to argue here today, because you are born with the gene of argument. Is it more reasonable? The most fundamental core issue of the opponent's argument is to drag out an ignoble existence and life. He told me that life is more important than the means to maintain life. Is it reasonable to tell me that people are more important than food? No matter physically or today's practice, it is only a means to maintain the continuation of life lineage.

Positive debate: Thank you. I answered each other's questions. The first question put forward by the other party said that life and support are indispensable. We totally agree with this, because today we are talking about parenting and kindness. Kindness born is greater than kindness raised, and it is more important than kindness raised. Then the second one is that another debater said that he gave an example of flying a plane. I told another debater that the grace of our birth doomed him to fly a plane after birth. You can imagine a monkey passing by. Systematic training: I studied in Guanghan Aircraft Academy for two years, but does it dare to fly a plane? Impossible, so another debater mentioned the problem of a wolf child again. I want you to think it over. We all know that Tarzan was brought back to this city. With a little training, he can walk around in a suit and tie. But if you take a wolf to the city to train it, can it become a man? Of course it can only be. As a big German shepherd, since we are talking about human beings today, it is of course a complex system. We human beings include material natural life, individual spiritual life and ideological value life. My teacher educated me, he gave me the possibility to realize my personality, and of course gave me a spiritual life. I created conditions for the society to create wealth and I had a valuable life. This is the greatest gratitude of mankind.

Three affirmative arguments: thank you, moderator, thank you for your good friends on the other side, and thank you for telling us that jade is unfinished and abrasive. It is the merit of life that determines the difference between stone and jade. On the other hand, it also tells us that human sociality can only be cultivated through parenting. However, it is impossible for a person without the spiritual foundation provided by life to be social. Scientists have tried to cultivate the sociality of apes, but in the end they failed. The moment a real mother gives birth to you is the crystallization accumulated by human beings for thousands of years, which gives you a spiritual foundation as a human being. Another debater also said that everything is better than life and seems to be above life. However, why does every country regard the most basic and important right of citizens as the right to life, and the biggest punishment for criminals is deprivation of the right to life? After all, everything else is deduced, and the other party will put the cart before the horse. The conclusion is not convincing. Let's ask Li Wei to explain the logic problem for everyone.

Positive debate: OK, thank you. Let's look at logic. The logic that the other debater told us today is that we can't draw a correct conclusion because we don't have a quantitative standard. Another debater believes that life is only an instant activity, and nurturing is everything in the future. I want to ask another debater a very simple question: Is nurturing and teaching and learning the same concept? Of course not, so today we should look at the source and see which is the cause and which is the effect. So we should look at this problem systematically.

Counterargument: Thank you for telling me that jade itself is very important, not carving. Why do we often say that jade is unfinished and abrasive? Secondly, the argument against it tells me that the basic rights of citizens are actually changing concepts. He equates life with living, living is a purely physiological process of childbirth, while we say that raising is a process of cultivation, both of which measure the means of prolonging life. Don't steal the concept here. The third opponent told us that nurturing does not include a process of teaching and a process of learning. Then I don't understand why the ancients in China told us to raise, not the godfather's excessive teaching, but the teacher's laziness. Doesn't this mean that teaching and learning are integrated? The other point is about the law. I am studying law. I tell you, in fact, in law, for adoptive parents, whether they are born or not, we have to support them, while for biological parents, if they don't support us, we don't need to support them, which shows that as the mainstream value judgment standard in law, the kindness of support is more important than the kindness of life. Why are other debaters so stubborn?

The other party told me today that we only raise spiritual life, which is our material foundation. If it's just spiritual life, I ask you to think about it. I weighed only a few kilograms when I was born. Now I have grown to 100 kilograms. Is this natural or raised? The other party told me today that we had an argument with the second party just now. He said that raising includes teaching and learning, so if raising does not include teaching and learning, I would like you to think about it. What do we compare at the bottom? Did we shed more blood than when my mother gave birth to us or did my father buy more rice when he raised me? This is not the standard we compare today, is it? That's it.

Close combat

Four arguments: Thank you. I heard the other side's point of view just now. They said that raising includes teaching, and listed the fault of raising without teaching your father. But we all know that if raising includes teaching, why is there raising and not teaching? Should the fault of raising without teaching your father be changed to the fault of raising without teaching your father?

Four arguments against it: What does this support mean? This support means life. Please think about it. Will the other party argue that we are born or gifted?

Affirmative argument: If parenting includes life, what's the point of today's debate? Should a labor camp be called a labor camp? Then why is there no continuous improvement of life?

Counterargument: it's simple, that is, you have to raise him when you are born. Doesn't this mean that raising grace is more important than giving birth to grace? I want to ask you, you just said that raising is to have children. My mother gave birth to me more than 20 years ago. According to your point of view, she raised me up to now, but she hasn't given birth to me for more than 20 years. When will mother give birth to us?

Two arguments: Today we are going to talk about jade. Jade needs cutting to make products. If it is not jade, it is stone. Can you stop?

Debate on the other side: Does the other debater know how Cui came out? I didn't give it three times, I cut off my foot. It was the giver, and it was finally carved by the king before it was accepted. Doesn't this mean that the process of carving is more important than the process of raising?

Argument: So we say that giving one's life for righteousness is the best righteousness, and the other debater, can you tell me if giving one's life for righteousness is the best righteousness?

Four arguments against it: What is life? Life is for our bodies, and what is nutrition can give us personality and make us real social people. We know that to be masters of society and nature, we must have experience and ability. Is this experience and ability born or acquired?

The other party said that experience and ability are acquired. Today we only divide people into two parts. The first is the moment of birth, and the others are cultivated. So when I went out today, someone gave me a sap, which made me realize that there are not only good people and bad people in the world. Do you think this man gave birth to me or raised me?

Another argument: I finally understand my opponent's logic. He told me that life is more important, because life comes first. According to this logic, I want to ask my opponent to show me how spring is more important than summer.

Argument: We didn't say it was more important to move forward. We say that life is the foundation and the essence. Why is man the spirit of all things? Then why can't other animals cultivate this spirit because he is a man? This is determined by life.

Three arguments contradict each other: the opponent finally talked to us about the essence. We say that people's essential attribute is social attribute, while students only provide you with natural attribute. Opponents think that social attributes are nurturing and providing. Isn't that important enough?

Three arguments: life gives you a brain and a spiritual foundation for being a man. Who has the sociality of so many small pets?

Objection: The other debater didn't answer our question. Excuse me, can you raise or live to better promote your socialization and the completion of social essential attributes?

Argument 2: Have you answered? If he is unclear, how can he become like that through the argument of the other side? The other debater asked us how he could be shaped like that. I want to tell each other that today, I want to say an original question. All other nutrients are derived and should serve life. Is origin more important or derivation more important? Thank you.

Four arguments against it: the other party told me that clean people are self-cleaning, while turbid people are self-cleaning. Are you telling us that we are a world where dragons, dragons, phoenixes, chickens and mice are born with holes?

Another classmate just told us the importance of raising him. He said how old he was when he was born, and now he weighs 100 kilograms. We can watch a child grow sturdily, but how to cultivate this pen? Can it turn into a golden beam? Are you talking about the golden hoop?

Objection: Why can people have such a strong ability to make tools? Isn't it formed in the process of evolution for millions of years? It was not born in millions of years of evolution, but was raised.

A positive statement: yes, this is what life gives him. Why are people raised by wolves smarter than wolves, because they are human?

Four arguments against it: please tell me an example of using a pen just now. Who are the parents of this pen?

Argument: We tell this example to say that everything depends on the essence. Just like this microphone, we have to maintain it, and I have to maintain it, but my voice can pronounce, but the microphone can't.

The opponent argues: since life is so important, why is there such a clause in the law that deprives people of their right to exist?

Argument: So this is the greatest punishment for people, so we say that life is more important than parenting.

Counterargument: Counterargument is nothing more than an essential problem. We know that if there is a piece of wood here today, we will cut it from the wood and make it into a handicraft. Is it important to cut wood or carve wood?

Argument: So we call it root carving, which is carved out of wood.

Opposing point of view: Is the root carving carved by wood or by an artist?

Four arguments: please don't forget a sentence, it is called rotten wood can't be carved.

Counterargument: then why is our artist called turning decay into magic?

Four arguments: to turn decay into magic, there must be magical bloodline and magical origin. If not, no matter how hard you carve a piece of mud, you can't help the wall.

Argument of the other side: The other debater is still talking about such a problem after all. Dragon begets dragon, phoenix begets phoenix, mouse begets hole, so how did the other debater fly out of golden phoenix from the henhouse?

Four arguments: It is the credit of raising, raising and teaching to fly out of golden phoenix in the henhouse. Therefore, we say that it is kind to raise it today, but we are not comparing which one is kind and which one is not, but which one is more important. What is the significance of today's debate?

Objection 4: For such a chicken, if someone can turn it into a phoenix, do you think it is more grateful to turn it into a phoenix or a chicken?

A positive statement: then it is decided that it is a muddy chicken, not a phoenix. Why should we teach students in accordance with their aptitude? Some people are good at logical thinking, while others are good at thinking in images. Can the left hemisphere be cultivated into the right hemisphere?

Opposing point of view: We all say that farmers are great and hard. Who knows that every grain on the plate is hard? What is the hard process of farmers watering and fertilizing? It's not that he said it's hard to buy a bag of fertilizer or seeds at the consignment station. Of course, the grace of parenting is more important than the grace of life.

Argument: But if a farmer doesn't love his children and his land, how can he let it produce Chinese food on the plate? (It's time for the square)

Counterargument: The other debater told us that he loved his daughter and his son, and that he would soon give birth to Chinese food.

On the other hand, the opponent thinks that being born without raising is equal to not being born, although we can raise it even if it is not our own, which means that our life grace can truly reflect its value only in the process of raising it.

Argument against: In his last speech, the argument against just told us that we can't repay the kindness of our birth. He just told us that in fact, we give back to our parents and honor them, just in return for the kindness of raising them. Are we just repaying them for raising them? According to your logic, do you want to tell us that if you only have children and don't raise them, you don't have to honor your parents (objection time is up)

Set the tone with a beat of the gong-say the last sentence

Lei Yu: It seems that life can't just be equated with childbirth. Cultivation and teaching are related. As we all know, just like life and teaching are also related. But is there a difference between raising without teaching and raising without teaching? If so, what's the difference? On the basis of explaining this concept, please tell us that people's social attributes are a process of continuous accumulation. This accumulation process is a long process, and it takes countless generations to reach today's civilization. In this long process of accumulation, which is more important, health or parenting?

Jiang Changjian: If our cultivation is to cultivate the value of pursuing self-interest, then we will vilify the overall value of human beings. Do you think that this improved self-worth is beneficial to the survival of all mankind? Thank you.

Four arguments against it: Thank you for your questions. In response to the first question, I talked about raising but not teaching. In fact, I just heard this word in the confrontation. This is what it says. For example, what does it mean to raise without teaching this? This is not the ascension we define today. You can look up reference books to raise it, and you don't have to teach it. In fact, this support refers to the meaning of life. What it wants to express is. It's my dad's fault that I didn't teach at birth, so I pointed out from the beginning that the other debater stole the concept today. They said we were stealing concepts. In fact, they didn't use reference books to let everyone know such a final result. When it comes to the specific problems of developing a society, we must know that it is indeed a long time for the development of our human beings. Process, but during this period, we are really born with the spread of our genes, which is of great significance to the process of our family generation, but we should know that we are born with only one basic thing, that is, before we have talent, we have demonstrated that the basic thing is not the most important, so we have been saying a good word, that is, the French educator Lang Lang. Charles said that without education, there would be no knowledge, no ability and no enterprising spirit, and it would be impossible to mobilize and organize the energy of the nation. Therefore, this problem can be solved just now, and the second question will be left to us for the second debate.

Counterparty: One more thing: Mr. Lei Yu just asked me a question. He said that society belongs to this process of precipitation, but let's think about how the first generation precipitated some social attributes and passed them on to the second generation. Isn't it inherited from his genes? I'm afraid to have a baby and teach him from an early age that you should use tools, chopsticks and bowls. The premise of such a precipitation attribute is to teach him to achieve a learning goal by improving. Regarding Mr. Jiang Changjian's second question, is it possible that there is a bad situation of family support and social support? We say that there may be some parents in the world who are not so full of expectations for their children, but are there any parents in the world who don't want their children to be good? Should we focus on the essence and mainstream of the problem? Then why is the environment so important? We realize that the original only provides one possibility, and the day after tomorrow can cultivate us into countless possibilities and infinite possibilities for development. In this sense, we say that if the children raised in your bad family and bad environment are not so good, in fact, it shows from the opposite side that today's topic is that the kindness of parenting is more important than the kindness of life. I wonder if my answer can satisfy the two guests. Thank you.

Four arguments against it: Today, when we say that the kindness of parenting is more important than the kindness of life, we don't want everyone to think about whether the biological parents are closer or the adoptive parents are closer. Today, we hope everyone will make it clear that we must invest more resources in the process of cultivation, otherwise, many of our grand plans, such as social development goals, will not be realized. I stand here to speak, not only for my parents, but also for the whole society. Because we must take this responsibility for our social growth, we can realize our value. This is what our debate today wants us to really think about (time is up).

Jiang Changjian: I'm very touched. Zheng Fang expressed their love for life. We know that we know a little about the history of natural development.

Then I think every species cherishes its own life, but with the development of nature, we find that some species have been eliminated or even disappeared, and some species have indeed survived. How to cause a very important theory called survival of the fittest, how to adapt to environmental changes and how to realize the sustainable development of species? We can develop a very important thing that determines the sustainable development of species, that is, to cope with environmental changes. What have you learned in the process of transformation, or what do you like to say, even if you raise it, how can you raise this species with the right food to cope with environmental changes? I think it needs a learning process, so in this sense, can you prove that keeping is more important than living? thank you

Lei Yu: There is such a problem. I heard a strange saying that life is the purpose and cultivation is the means, so life is more important than cultivation. As we all know, ends and means belong to different categories. How do you compare them and come to your conclusion? On the basis of this topic, let's think again. Life does provide countless possibilities for human development, but practice has turned this possibility into countless realistic means and methods. Why is the first half more important than the second half? Thank you, two questioners.

Four arguments: First of all, he answered the first question of the guests. He asked that there is a most natural principle in natural development, that is, the survival of the fittest has a learning process, or the process of raising is good. We don't study whether learning is included, but we know that the fittest survive. How can we pass on the accumulated experience to the next generation? By living, we can't make every child re-adapt to this environment after birth. This gene transmits the result of adaptation to the child, so life also determines his sociality. For the second point, we say that life is the purpose and cultivation is the means, because life is the birth of life, which is the most fundamental purpose of our inheritance of human civilization. Therefore, cultivation is to serve this means. The two seem to be different categories, but for the overall value of life, it is the relationship between purpose and means, so we say that the grace of life is more important than the grace of cultivation. We admit that the other party's No.3 theory supports life, but does this mean that support only serves life? What we pursue is a complete life. The other number two also said that it was useless without health care, but where did it come from without health care? Life is the premise and foundation of everything. Cultivation determines whether the object of life is this, the end, quality, quantity and leap. Which grace is more important? The other side's argument says the other side's is. Student No.1 said that life only makes natural people, but for more important social attributes, it is training and education that makes talents. We don't say whether parenting includes teaching or whether the formation of society has a useful role. Just to see if this investment can have a return, depends on life, because first of all, we must ensure that it is a person. No.3 student said that life is a natural behavior, denying its social attribute, but we don't care about the essence. God's life can determine people's personality value, and life can sublimate people's value. Only natural life can bring us the power that blood is thicker than water. What can be replaced? The water in Hu Aishan Mountain must have its source, and the towering trees must have their roots. When we see countless wanderers wearing dresses with a China heart, and when we see countless overseas Chinese returning home to seek their roots, we know the meaning of being born in people's hearts. Today, another classmate just. Talking about life and parenting is limited to individuals, but we say we should establish a new outlook on life. Today we see that there are already billions of people in society, so we often ignore the importance of life. We see that raising these billions of people will bring us great pressure, so some people will ignore their own lives and even deprive others of their lives in order to meet their own conditions. However, princes prefer to regard life as a god-given right. It will not be different because of the change the day after tomorrow, so it is the responsibility of each of us to be kind to life. Only by creating infinite value with limited life is the greatest reward for the grace of life (time is up) and the best explanation for life.

Score:

University of Electronic Science and Technology of China: 1307

Jinan University: 1268