At the beginning of the article, the author set the object of criticism and put forward arguments and arguments against the enemy. The reason is: two years ago, we always boasted about the vast territory and rich resources, but soon we stopped boasting and only hoped for the League of Nations. Now blindly pray to God and worship Buddha. The argument is: China people have lost self-confidence. The difference is that this paper points out the absurdity of the enemy's argument by refuting the enemy's argument, and can't draw the conclusion that China people have lost self-confidence according to the enemy's argument. The correct reasoning should be: there is the belief of "land" before, the belief of "things" after, and the belief of "League of Nations" after. We can only say that China people once had "trust". Since I was disappointed in the League of Nations, my "trust" has also been lost. Praying for God and worshipping Buddha can only make people anesthetize themselves for a longer time, so China people are developing "self-deception". By refuting the argument against the enemy, it is proved that the argument against the enemy cannot be established at all. Finally, the author puts forward a positive argument: Some people in China have not lost confidence. The author cites the facts since ancient times and the present facts as arguments, which makes the positive arguments invincible. The establishment of a positive argument is an indirect refutation of the enemy's argument. Finally, the author uses a series of metaphors to enlighten people to polish their eyes, look at the problem in essence, see through the enemy's disguise, and see the reality that China people have not lost confidence.

This argumentative paper strongly refutes the argument that "China people have lost confidence" spread by the media at that time, which is pessimistic and disappointed with the future of the war of resistance against Japan. In the refutation part, the article first puts forward three established facts that form the view that "China people have lost confidence", and then refutes them one by one. In addition to stating facts and reasoning, the article also proves the correctness of another opposing argument, "Have we lost confidence in China", by disproving the mistake of "China people lost confidence".