The breakthrough of your point of view lies in the definition of idolized stars and the idolize way. Never let the other person lead you into the wrong path that only some entertainment stars are stars. You should give a broad definition to stars, with special emphasis on those positive people who are so successful. On the issue of chasing, going to the concert is chasing. Seriously study the spirit of struggle and persistent pursuit of art by stars, and the way to learn from them, isn't it chasing? The so-called pursuit is low-level material pursuit, but only spiritual pursuit can be called real pursuit. We can't confuse these two concepts. The reason why a star is a star lies in his spirit rather than matter, just like the stars in the sky. You can only call stars in the sky, but you can't call them stars when you fall to the ground. Because his light has fallen, the real idolization is to pursue those stars with personality and achievements in spirit.

You can say that this is blind and naive, but another debater knows that the history of human development is an idolized history. The earliest humans chased the sun, the moon and rivers because of their great temperament. Later humans chased outstanding people, which led to the emergence of China's 5,000-year civilization. How can they achieve great things without chasing great people? As the saying goes, soldiers who don't want to be generals are not good soldiers.

Back to the low-level idolization that the other debater has been trying to emphasize, the other party said that he was blind and naive, wasting human, material and financial resources and neglecting his studies. Then I want to ask each other: What makes you decide that they will inevitably lead to the decline of their present life, what is talent and how many ways to realize it? Is there only one way to behave at school? Obviously not. Their pursuit of stars now is likely to play a positive role in their future life development. Have other debaters seen this?

Besides, blindness and naivety, what is blindness and naivety? These are the words of adults, in the minds of children? Have you ever thought about children? A nation, a country, needs faith and pursuit. Our country pursues national rejuvenation and people's well-being. Western society pursues Christ even more. A country must have faith if it wants to make progress, which is also the reason why China put forward Theory of Three Represents and a harmonious society in the new period of socialism. This is precisely a belief for the whole party and society. People, too, should have pursuits. It's just that the methods we pursue are different from the goals we pursue. Children idolize because of their specific age. It is unfair to call them blind and naive. They are indeed limited in age. Is this also wrong? Do they have to have a naive idea to enter the society, and do they want 10-year-old 1 children to have an idea of being 60 years old? Another debater may say, are there any students in idolatry? This goes back to what we talked about. Everyone has different pursuits. Just because they're not idolized doesn't mean they don't chase other things. Compared with many students who chase the internet, fight, smoke and alcohol, they are idolized, even if they are not so mentally high. The other party will say that they made a mistake when chasing and chased in the wrong way. As the saying goes, our country will make mistakes in the process of pursuing national rejuvenation and people's well-being. If they are naive, then this country is not naive. Are experts and scholars who have entered the society to formulate national policies more naive and blind than children?

I am too tired to write.

The first part is used to establish one's own point of view, and the second part is used to refute the other's point of view. I hope it works for you.