High-profile charity can enhance people's quality and enthusiasm, improve social justice, and unite the strong cohesion of our 56 ethnic groups, such as Yao Ming and Jackie Chan.

For example: standard (whether the behavior has clear and inevitable benefits and the disadvantages are within the acceptable range. Compared with low-key charity, abnormal charity with logical main line has no superiority, but it increases unnecessary risks. Argument 1. The first risk is about sincerity. High-profile charity is easy to doubt its sincerity, and it also increases the burden on the actors! A) Why is it easy to doubt its sincerity by citing examples? Example 1 (Zhang Ziyi cheats money, please note that most of the examples of celebrity cheating money are used in this point, not the point that "high-profile will be used by people with malicious intentions", because there may be nothing wrong with smearing stars, but it is not pleasing emotionally! Zhang Ziyi made a high-profile donation to the earthquake-stricken areas in China at Cannes Film Festival, but in the follow-up investigation, he claimed that the whereabouts of the $500,000 raised were unknown. Will such donations increase the public's suspicion of high-profile charity? How can such a message convince the public of the sincerity of high-profile charity? Example 1 no 2 (the other party (showing the evidence that the donation came to the account, it is unlikely! )?

We (we know that the reconstruction of the disaster area is quite urgent. When you admit that you have raised money to donate to the disaster area, both the psychological expectations of the people in the disaster area and the actual progress of reconstruction have been affected, so we believe that the money will eventually arrive after a long time, which has greatly damaged the initial goodwill of the donors. Take Jackie Chan as an example. By 20 10, a staff member of Beichuan middle school aid headquarters said ("even if Jackie Chan donates money now, what's the point?" The other party (star) admitted to donating 6.5438+0 million, and later donated 800,000. Although not as much as he admitted, he donated after all. )

Our side (this is not a question of donating more or less, but a question of integrity. We never think that people who donate 1 10,000 are ten thousand times kinder than those who donate 100. What we value is the sincerity of doing good. The other party (fraudulent donation) is all speculated by netizens. We (don't be so malicious to speculate on netizens, even if it is really malicious, why have we never seen netizens hype non-high-profile charity? )

The other party's fraudulent donation is only the fault of being a man, not the fault of high-profile charity. My point of view is not whether it is right to be a man, but that high-profile charity will always produce controversy. Please don't confuse other debaters. Please answer my question directly. Why does high-profile charity always cause so much controversy? )?

The other party (it is precisely because everyone has doubts about high-profile charity that we should encourage everyone to accept high-profile charity and give high-profile charity more time) We (wrong, this is a bad check. How can you prove that giving more time to high-profile charity will get better, instead of causing more farce? If the society accepts high-profile charity, it will bring great harm. Who will bear the loss? From these two examples, we can see that high-profile good deeds will be scolded if they are not honored, which is the advantage of high-profile good deeds;