It's about the "elite education" I answered earlier.

The present position is just the opposite of yours.

You can use it to "know yourself and know yourself"

I have time to try to supplement your point of view.

/question/ 13 10430 16 . html

=============

You said, "But we are opposites, and this is different."

I also said-you can use it to "know yourself and know yourself"

I specially waited for you to finish reading it, and I have enough time to add my answer when you think about it.

There are still some differences between the two debates. The answer to this debate mainly focuses on "higher education"

As can be seen from other answers in many posts, in fact, everyone supports "mass education"

In fact, your advantage is quite obvious (the reason why the post scored so high at the end was largely because the questioner found their position difficult)

There is no restriction on "higher education" in your debate, so you are faced with all kinds of education.

If "elite education" can meet the requirements of the public, why does the country spare no effort to promote "compulsory education", from 6 years to 9 years, and now it is raised to 12 years? !

It is precisely because education needs to face the public and all.

Even the recent two sessions (combining current affairs and politics, speaking with the attitude of the government, which is hard for the other party to refute), when talking about education, are also emphasizing "let more people enjoy better educational resources"-isn't this the best example of supporting "mass education is better than elite education"?

Grasp the "face" and attack the "point"; The essence of "elite education is essentially aristocratic education for a few people" is presented, and the initiative is naturally in the hands. ...

We both know each other's methods. As long as you can give full play to your advantages, what is there to worry about?