93 International College Students Debate Competition Final Debate Competition

Pro: Taiwan Province University Team.

Human nature is good.

Against: Fudan University team.

The evil of human nature

Chairman: Li Xueping

Time:1afternoon of August 29th, 993.

President: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the final of 1993 International University Debate Competition. The International College Students Debate Competition was jointly organized by Singapore Radio and Television Bureau and China CCTV. In the past week, eight teams in the debate have experienced four preliminaries and two semi-finals, six of which lost. The two teams that entered the finals today can be said to be elites with rich debate experience. They will give full play to their eloquence in today's competition and bring you a "vigorous" (competition) to make everyone happy. Today, we are very honored to invite Singapore Deputy Brigadier General Lee Hsien Loong to participate in our final (applause). The winner of the International University Debate Competition will receive a cash prize of 10000 yuan, and the Asian champion will receive 5000 yuan. In addition, we will also select the best debater in the past few debates and today's debate, and he will receive a cash reward of 2000 yuan. Now I'd like to introduce the two teams that participated in today's finals, Taiwan Province Provincial University and Fudan University. On my right is the representative of Taiwan Province Provincial University. The first one is Wu, a sophomore in the Department of Political Science. The second is Cai Zhongda, a sophomore majoring in accounting; The third place is Xu Jinlong, a sophomore in the Department of Political Science; The fourth place is Wang Xinguo, a sophomore in philosophy (applause). On my left is the representative of Fudan University who opposes it: the first is Jiang Feng, a second-year graduate student of China Language and Literature in Chinese Department; The second is Ji Xiang, a sophomore in law; The third is Jia Yan, a fourth-year law student; The fourth place is Jiang Changjian, a third-year graduate student in the Department of International Politics (applause).

Today, our jury lineup is also particularly strong. The jury consists of five local and overseas professionals. They are: Professor Guo Zhenyu, Dean of School of Communication, Nanyang Technological University (applause); The second is Professor Wu Deyao, former director of the Institute of East Asian Philosophy (applause); The third is Mr. Cha Liang Yong, the founder of Ming Pao and a famous martial arts novelist, whose pen name is Jin Yong (applause); The fourth is Professor Du Weiming, who is a professor in the Department of Oriental Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University (applause). The fifth lawyer is Hee Theng Fong, who is a director of the Singapore Broadcasting Bureau (applause).

Tonight's debate is that human nature is good, and the opposing side's position is that human nature is evil. The positions of both sides were decided by drawing lots. Now I declare the final of 1993 International University Debate Competition officially started. First of all, we will have a positive debate. Ms. Wu will state her position and speak for three minutes (applause).

Wu: Hello, everyone! The philosopher Kant believes that people are rational regardless of intelligence, wealth, beauty and ugliness. Mencius believed that human nature is good, so he added that everyone has compassion. And Buddhists say that a thought is the real body and a thought is the Buddha. It is precisely because human nature is good that people can put down their butcher knives and become Buddhas anytime and anywhere. We advocate that human nature is good, that is to say, human nature is good, and good deeds can only be done if there is a good end. We don't deny the existence of evil deeds in human society, but evil deeds are caused by external environment, so evil is the result rather than the cause. If we insist that evil is therefore not fruit, that is to say, human nature is evil, then there can be no real morality in the world. Although the British philosopher Hobbes strongly advocated that human beings can form morality on the premise of evil human nature. But think about it, if human nature is evil, all human moral norms are human's greatest means of self-interest. When morality becomes a means, is morality still morality? In other words, once a person violates morality without being punished, he will not abide by moral constraints. At two o'clock in the morning, I saw a red light when I was walking on the road. If human nature is evil, I will rush over, because it is only for personal convenience. But this is not the case. There are still many people who obey the traffic rules. According to the premise that human nature is evil, Hobbes believes that there must be an absolute and ubiquitous authority to supervise everyone's implementation of moral standards. If human nature is evil, no one will willingly abide by the moral standards, but it has been proved that people still have good deeds, people still have morality, and people's actions are still beneficial. If human nature is evil, then we have only two choices: the first is to live in a world where "big brother" doesn't always supervise us; The second is that our human society will no longer trust each other. If so, I will see an old lady fall and someone help her up, and people will say that he has ulterior motives; The friendship we established in the debate was a false gesture. However, we will find that in human history and society, there has never been an absolutely authoritative monarch, but things that sacrifice themselves for others continue to happen. In life, many students are not known for their kindness. Mother Teresa's kindness and Mahayana Buddhism's compassionate ambition that "all beings don't cross the river, but don't be Buddha" are not the best examples of human nature. It's time! (Applause).