Field. First of all, I am honored to introduce the judges of this competition. They are: 1998 China Famous School Invitational Tournament.
Captain of the Asian Army Nankai University team, a senior debate enthusiast, and an associate professor of history at the School of Information; Letter from the Youth League Committee of College of Literature
Remember Teacher Zhai Mingrui; Guo Wei, Secretary of the Youth League Committee of History College; Thailand, the main debater of the second "President Cup" Asian Military Business School.
Jie Chen, deputy secretary of the Youth League Committee of the University and a third-year undergraduate student in the Department of Business Administration of the Business School (? ); The Second "Principal Cup"
Yu Long, the debater of the Asian Army Business School, the former deputy secretary of the Youth League Committee of the Business School, and a third-year undergraduate in the Department of Business Administration of the Business School.
Crown. Let's get to know the opposing sides of this game: the square chemistry of this game is sitting on my right.
College team, their point of view is "law has affection"; Sitting on my left is the opposite economy of this game.
College team, their view is that "the law is ruthless." Let's ask the eight debaters on the field to introduce themselves.
Shao, please welcome: Yi Debate, Chen Ruining, an undergraduate student in the School of Chemistry of Grade 06; Two positive debates, Wang, an undergraduate of the School of Chemistry, Grade 06.
Hui; Founder Sanbian, Li Jianxi, an undergraduate of Grade 06, School of Chemistry; Founder Sisi, Chen Zirun, undergraduate of Grade 06, School of Chemistry,
Thank you. I have feelings against the following: Hello everyone, Zheng Sijing, majoring in economic management and law in the School of Economics; Hello, Guo Jing, School of Economics.
Ministry of Trade, Tengchao; Hello, Jia Peng, Department of National Economy and Trade, School of Economics; Hello, Finance Department of Xu Haoran University of Economics.
Let me introduce the timing instructions and the detailed competition system ... first, please guess the time and time of the objection.
Please wait a minute.
Chen Zirun: Thank you, Madam President. Hello, everyone. Today's debate is whether the law is affectionate or heartless. Let's fight.
Dare to predict the other side's point of view and sum up the four words "three changes and one change." First of all, the law "materialized", the law.
The works are real objects, like stones, like steel bars, like the second main building. Another debater thinks that "stones and steel bars are the second largest buildings"
Without emotion, the law naturally has no emotion; Secondly, feelings are "one-sided", which deliberately ignores deep feelings.
Han, who only understands emotion as superficial emotion, even as opposed to justice, is extra-legal compassion or circumstance, from which the law is deduced.
The law is ruthless and should not even have feelings; Thirdly, "fuzzy" existence and nothingness, ignoring "nothingness" is nothingness in absolute sense.
Being and not being, we just confuse "nothing" with "ruthlessness" and confuse the concepts. Finally, according to the above "three articles"
"Change", we dare to predict that the other party will change its position, "change the debate" and turn today's "legal kinship" into law.
Whether the law is fair or not means that we don't want the justice of the law if we have feelings. The above is our defense of each other.
Regarding the spiritual prediction, I want to know what will happen later. Next time, please ask the other debater to break it down. Thank you. 1'
PRESIDENT: Thank you for your positive four points. Let's welcome four negative arguments to make a prediction. Time is also one minute. Please welcome.
Xu Haoran: Thank you, Madam President. Hello. We guess that the other side may start today's debate from the following aspects. first
First of all, I think there are people involved in the law from legislation to law enforcement. People have feelings, so the law should also have feelings.
And this is actually illogical; Secondly, the opposing party may think that there are many provisions in the law that are clearly defined.
At the time of judgment, it should be handled as appropriate, but in fact I didn't see that this discretionary "feeling" was a "plot", and
Non-"feelings"; Thirdly, the other debater may think that the law respects social conditions and public opinion, so the law has feelings for the public.
In fact, I didn't see that social conditions and public opinion are people's voices for their own rights and interests, not emotional calls. Finally, the other side argued.
Friends may look at the law more and more humanized from the perspective of development, and may think that the law was ruthless in ancient times, but today.
Friendship in law, but in fact the other debater ignores human nature and is inhuman. Thank you. 50"
PRESIDENT: I wonder if the guesses of both sides are correct? Let's welcome a three-minute debate.
Clock.
Chen Ruining: Thank you, Chairman, judges, other debaters and audience. Good evening everyone. Looking back 80 years ago, Lu Xun first
Sheng opened the feudal ethics and saw the whole story of "cannibalism" through the appearance of so-called "benevolence, righteousness and morality"
Words; But today, 80 years later, when we look at many laws, we see through her ruthlessness outside.
Table, we can see that she looks dignified but more kind, seemingly indifferent but more affectionate, seemingly ruthless but more affectionate.
Seemingly ruthless, hell to pay's law, how can it be affectionate? Next, I will talk about it from two aspects: theory and fact.
Explain our point of view. First of all, in theory, from the fundamental starting point of law, there are deep feelings. exist
In China, a socialist country with "serving the people wholeheartedly" as its fundamental purpose, the law protects me.
The fundamental interests of the broad masses of people in China are its fundamental starting point. How can you say that there is no law under such a pure heart?
Love? In capitalist countries, although there is no such great goal as "serving the people", since the Renaissance,
Since then, modern law has been branded as "humanitarianism", guided by great humanity and guided by maintaining social justice.
Go in the right direction. On the other hand, laws eradicate social corruption, safeguard the interests of most people and build a society.
Justice, thus safeguarding the long-term stability of the country and creating people to live and work in peace and contentment, is this not the greatest law?
Do you feel anything?
Secondly, in fact, today's world is mainly divided into common law system and civil law system. The former adopts case law,
Following the principle of precedent, each case constitutes its main part, and each case is a jury and a law.
Officials, even lawyers, are the result of casting. This is a law based on the people. How can the other debater be said to be heartless?
China belongs to the continental law system and adopts written law. As a form of expression, written provisions are by no means equivalent to legal texts.
Body. Laws must include a series of processes from formulation to application.
Judging from the way of formulation, China's laws are mainly formulated by the National People's Congress. All submitted proposals are included.
The personal feelings of the people of the whole country; In the heated discussion, the urgent needs of people everywhere were included; magnum opus
All the votes cast contain a serious responsibility to the people of the motherland; When the general secretary signed the latest law, all the people
It contains deep love for the whole country. Such a film was co-produced by more than 2,000 representatives from all over the country to 654.38+300 million people across the country.
Law, how can the other party argue that she is heartless?
From the perspective of application, a law must be applicable to all relevant cases, and it is impossible to be very detailed in itself.
Explain the details of each case in detail. At this time, we need the users of the law, according to the spirit of the law, taking into account the current situation.
The cultural habits and moral customs of the land are judged according to the specific situation. Among them, emotional factors are always reflected. because
Therefore, the application of the law must be affectionate.
Law is the pursuit of human justice, the maintenance of personal dignity, and the affirmation of life value and individual freedom.
Protection. Therefore, we say that there are feelings, and some have a special liking. This is a big feeling. Only such laws can be harmonious.
The essence of society is the true meaning of governing the country according to law, and it is a truth that you and I can accept and are willing to accept. Thank you.
Go home. 2'58"
10' 10"
PRESIDENT: Next, please debate the opposing side. The time is also three minutes.
Zheng Sijing: Thank you, Chairman, judges and hello. Guan Zi said: "The man of practice is the program of the world and the tool of all things.
Yes Law is the embodiment of national will, an objective standard to measure people's behavior and a universally applicable social norm. but
Emotion, emotion and emotion are the subjective understanding of the relationship between things based on individual differences in a specific state.
Characterized by psychological experience. Law and emotion, with different origins, are completely different and cannot be confused. Today, I will study law.
To demonstrate our thesis from three aspects: quality, function and development law, the law is merciless.
First, in essence, the law is merciless. Law and emotion come from different origins. Emotions vary from person to person, and the law is unique.
Unique. Law is a process of interest game and value balance, and it is never influenced by feelings. Its function is to pass without.
The iron law of love forms a mandatory constraint on individual behavior, thus safeguarding the legitimate interests of individuals and achieving social balance and harmony.
The ultimate goal.
Second, judging from the process of action, the law must be ruthless. Legislation is the confirmation of rights, obligations and responsibilities and the coordination of interests.
Process. Since the birth of the law, the role of emotion has been stripped. The judiciary, on the other hand, is not allowed to play an emotional role.
Medium. As the saying goes, "If you break the law, Shu Ren is guilty"; Zhuge Liang once warned his ancestors: "Don't be selfish, internal and external laws are different."
And ... As the saying goes, "law enforcement must be strict, and those who violate the law must be investigated." "The umbrella formed by law is embodied in its ruthlessness.
Now Law-abiding cannot be different because of their feelings. Strengthening legal consciousness and implementing legal spirit require us to
Put aside feelings and rationally understand the binding role of law.
Third, according to the law of development, law is independent of emotion. The law keeps pace with the times and protects the overall interests of society.
For the purpose of benefit. It is determined that it must adapt to the objective laws of social development, and at the same time it cannot be influenced by subjective feelings.
Transfer. "Substituting emotion for law" is bound to "confuse law with emotion". Once the law and feelings can't draw a clear line, the result will inevitably be obscene.
Infringe on legal dignity and undermine legal order. Why China's legal system is not perfect; Why is the implementation of the law still repeatedly prohibited?
Obstruct; Why do we see countless people breaking the law today but still ignorant? China has a long history of civilization.
Why does the construction of modern legal system in China always fall on people? The root of it is the idea of "rule by man" that has lasted for thousands of years. Law and
The mistake of unclear boundaries of love, the rule of man blinds our eyes. In the pre-Qin era, some ancestors put forward that "the law is as old as before"
Cooking is as bright as the sun and the moon "(who can tell me what this story is ...).
The law of objective balance. Today, only by facing up to the rational light of law above emotion can it become a guardian.
The eternal sword of justice, under this sword of justice, will be a beautiful world full of true feelings. Thank you. 2'
59"
13' 17"
Chairman: Next, we will enter the second link, defensive counterattack, in which the other side will make a rebuttal according to the other side's theory.
Please wait half a minute.
Jia Peng: Thank you, Madam President, and hello. Today's opponent's debater is an impostor, stealing the column. Combine love with humanity, human feelings and people.
Confused with humanism. The law is merciless, but it wants human feelings and protects human rights, but it contains human feelings (inaudible)
If the law has emotion, how can the participation of emotion be coordinated with the unity of law? Zhuang Zhou is still crazy about butterflies, so the law should be happy.
Flowers or white butterflies? As the saying goes, carrots and vegetables have their own tastes, so you say that the law is to safeguard carrots, too.
To protect vegetables. How to coordinate the emotional instability and the unity of laws? We say that people have joys and sorrows, and the moon has its ups and downs.
There are ups and downs. If the law has feelings, does it mean that it will change constantly?
Second, the opposing debater's logic is chaotic. Is protecting you a feeling for you? Then I said, for the sanctions party, isn't it?
It can be said that the law is ruthless, so what another debater demonstrated today is that the law can be both affectionate and ruthless. On the other side/opposite side
The debater gave me several examples (inaudible). Do I protect you today because I have feelings for you? Or did I win?
You do. Do you have me?
Finally, the defense friend of the other side imposed contact and thought that it was affectionate for someone to participate in the formulation and application of the law (Chairman: I'm sorry
Time is up), thank you. 1' 10 "timing error.
PRESIDENT: The argument against it is really sharp. I don't know what the opponent will do. Let's make two arguments, and time is also one.
Half a minute.
Wang Hui: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone. My opponent just asked me whether the law likes white butterfly or Hua Hudie.
Butterflies I will tell my opponent that if the white butterfly breaks the law, the law will protect the white butterfly; If Hua commits a crime,
Law, law will protect China (slip of the tongue! )。 Both Ci Yuan and various professional books are of great significance to the law.
The definition includes the following two points: first, it is formulated by the legislature; Second, implementation is guaranteed by state power. Afraid of each other
The debater stripped away formulation and execution. Is there only a few Chinese characters in the law? People often say.
The ruthlessness of the law means that "those who violate the law must be prosecuted and the law must be strictly enforced", not that there is no kindness, emotion and desire in the law.
Hope. The law is affectionate, not only in safeguarding the legitimate rights of the parties, but also in upholding justice for the victims.
On the punishment of criminals and criminals. Punishing criminals is love for the people. Newly developed
Taiwan Province's "Civil Evidence Law" stipulates that people who are related by blood can refuse to testify, for example, the wife can refuse.
Testify against her husband. The emergence of the concept of immunity from testimony is the product of the renewal of ideas, which shows that legislation, implementation
The law has been developing in the direction of respecting human feelings and humanity. The other debater said, keep pace with the times, the club now
Social values are undergoing profound changes, emphasizing respect for human feelings and humanity, emphasizing people-oriented, then the law is just like this.
The reflection and embodiment of mainstream thought. Finally, I want to ask my opponent not to step on the beach and deny the existence of seawater.
Law is not heartless, but it protects flowers more when it turns into spring mud. 1'25"
PRESIDENT: Please exchange roles. Let's make three arguments. You also have a minute and a half to grasp it.
Li Jianxi: Thank you, Chairman. Hello, everyone. Here, I propose the following differences to the other party's theory.
Discuss it. First of all, the opposing debater constantly emphasizes the ruthlessness of the law, which is nothing more than emphasizing the objective materiality of the law, but the opposing debater
Is the understanding of the law too superficial? Our argument has explained the situation before the law was enacted and implemented.
It is very clear, but the opposing defense team has separated the formulation and implementation of the law. Is there only one law left?
If it is cold, according to the logic of the other party, then the law of China is left with that pair of horizontal and vertical; What about Britain?
There are only 26 letters left in the law.
Secondly, the defense friends of the other side constantly stressed that the law cannot be merciful in the trial process, which will make the trial unfair, but
The opposing debater is too one-sided. The other debater emphasized an affair, while we talked about great affection. law
Such as sunshine and air, care for us all the time. Isn't this a great love for the law? The opposing debater insisted.
There is nothing we can do to describe sentimental laws as heartless and cold stones. But the law of love is really
It's worse than Dou E's. Who can complain about the injustice in her heart? If the law has a mouth now, I believe she does.
At this moment, I will definitely say to my opponent: I love you! 1' 13"
PRESIDENT: I don't know how the other party should respond to the positive rebuttal. Please invite the opposing side to debate, and the time is also one and a half minutes.
Clock.
Teng Chao: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your debate. Hello, everyone. Today, the opponent's debater is full of love and public interest, which is really stealing the column.
Pillar, the human nature that the law protects people and appeals to its own value (? ), is there love? Today, another debater said that human nature is
If there is love, let's have a look. Humanity, as its name implies, is a human attribute; Human feelings are human feelings.
As we all know, human attributes are divided into natural attributes and social attributes. Social attribute is the essence that distinguishes people from animals.
Social attribute is the sum of social relations (inaudible), and the most fundamental economic relationship in social relations is people.
The fundamental interests of the decision. We all know that the law protects interests and values, so the law defends human nature, but it doesn't.
Doesn't mean the law has feelings. According to the opponent's logic, the peasant woman protected other people's farmland, didn't she?
Take other people's farmland for yourself?
Let's look at the essence of law again. The essence of law is the will of the country, and it is the law and norm, which has nothing to do with it.
Relationship. "The layman looks at the excitement, and the expert looks at the doorway." Everything the other debater said was affectionate, which was wrong.
This conjecture. All laws and regulations based on equality of all people are attributed to love. Then let's see, there is a child here.
He may have no feelings for his parents and there may be a generation gap, but he still has to support his parents. this is because
Love? No ~ because the law stipulates that he has the obligation to support his parents, and parents have the right to accept support.