It is another cherry blossom season, and the final of the 9th Debate Competition of China Ocean University arrived as scheduled in this beautiful spring. On April 17, the fourth climax of the war of words was set off in Fushan Campus of Haida University. Let's watch the sea, listen to the waves and bring you back to this exchange of wisdom.
-inscription
Argument statement
The positive side: Job-hopping is not blind job-hopping, nor is it blind talent flow. On the contrary, job-hopping is to leave the original unit or occupation, go to another unit or change jobs, which is an effective talent flow. Next, let's analyze the logical relationship of today's debate: when we say that job-hopping is helpful to talents, we mean that the change of an objective condition is helpful to people's subjective initiative, rather than demonstrating that job-hopping is a sufficient or necessary condition for talents to play their role. Therefore, as long as we can point out that the changes brought about by job-hopping will help talents to play their role, we can prove our point. We will prove our point of view from the following aspects:
We emphasize that job-hopping is a talent flow mechanism characterized by two-way choice, which is conducive to giving full play to the role of talents. The reason why some people choose job-hopping is because job-hoppers think they can't play a good role in their original positions. Job-hopping just respects people's independent choice and conforms to the people-oriented spirit. Pan Shiyi, a real estate tycoon, summed up his experience for many years, saying that the value of goods can only be reflected through exchange, and the value of talents can only be reflected through job-hopping. For talents, this is fair. It can be seen that job-hopping has changed the environment in which talents can play their role.
Second, from the perspective of social value, job-hopping is the vertical flow of talents, which is more conducive to the optimal allocation of resources than the closed talent management model. Undoubtedly, in the process of job-hopping, the value of talents is constantly improved, so as to realize their social value and complete the perfect unity of personal value and social value. The time when the opposing sides argued with each other has passed, and the time of real freedom and opening up has arrived. Our talents have clearly realized that "I was born useful, and I don't need to use myself here." Job-hopping is not laziness, but finding the right direction for your own efforts! "The sky is high for birds to fly, and the sea is wide for fish to jump". If you stick to your original career, there will be an unknown small capitalist in society, not a revolutionary mentor Engels; There is a rural teacher in Hunan instead of Chairman Mao! Opponents, please put down your arrogance and prejudice and accept our view with a rational attitude-job-hopping is good for talents! thank you
Statement of the opposing argument: The opposing defense friend made the following mistakes in the argument just now:
First of all, the concept is unclear, referring to a deer as a horse. What is job-hopping? Job-hopping refers to the behavior of leaving and changing companies automatically, which is a risky way of talent flow. Talent refers to a social group that has mastered certain skills. It can be seen that talent is a social factor of production and a social resource. To play its role, it must be aimed at organizations and society.
Secondly, the judgment standard is not clear, so that everyone can see the flowers in the fog. We believe that the standard for talents to play their role lies in whether personal value and social value can be realized and unified. It is true that job-hopping is the result of personal choice, which can really benefit some people in a certain period of time, but because of individual differences, there is no unified measure. Therefore, we should discuss today's debate from the perspective of groups and society as to whether it is conducive to talents to play their role.
After defining the concepts and standards, we will further demonstrate that job-hopping is not conducive to the role of talents from the following points:
First, job-hopping is not conducive to the establishment of personal credibility. Modern society is a society that stresses honesty. Unilateral breach of contract and leaving without saying goodbye will make people's integrity turn red. "Trees have no roots and are not straight, and people cannot stand without faith". Ignoring the axiom of honest society and talking about job-hopping, how can talents play their role?
Second, job-hopping is not conducive to the stable development environment of talents. Job-hopping will inevitably change the direction of talent work relationship. In the ever-changing environment, how can talents play their role? How can we play a better role if we are not rooted in our posts for a long time?
Third, job-hopping is not conducive to the rational allocation of human resources. Talent is one of the factors of production in society. The once popular phenomenon of "peacocks flying southeast" has caused the gathering of talents and the waste of human resources in the eastern region, while there is a talent gap in the central and western regions. In addition, job-hopping makes many enterprises reluctant to invest in training employees, fearing that their own enterprises will become the cradle of talents for others. This is obviously not conducive to the social supply of talents. After some people quit their jobs, they took away the capital and technology, leaving the original enterprises empty and sad. This order makes the competitive environment worse and the atmosphere of unfair competition more prevalent.
Fourth, job-hopping is not conducive to the guidance of social values. Love and dedication to one's post is a major manifestation of social value, but job-hopping and love and dedication to one's post are completely different. So we don't encourage job-hopping, because job-hopping is not conducive to the role of talents.
Fifth, no language can help rational thinking. Today, let's start today's debate in a rational space!
Interrogation link
The second and third arguments of the opposing party cross-examine the first argument of the opposing party;
Objection: Thank you, Madam President. Just now, the other debater said that people's value can only be reflected through job-hopping. Does it mean that people who don't quit can't show their value?
Argument: Thank you for your question. We say that job-hopping is more conducive to talents to play their role. We only talk about those who are willing to jump ship. Those who have done well in this position have played a very good role in this unit. For these people, there is no need to discuss today's problems.
The opponent's defense: But the opponent just made it clear that only job-hopping can make talents play their role, which means that the opponent should understand the relationship of "meritocracy"! Let's ask another debater another question. Another debater deals with numbers every day, and he has a high attainments in mathematics. According to the survey, 60% people will feel lost after job-hopping. Where does this sense of loss come from?
Argument: Thank you for your question. Let me also talk about the data. * * * The Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Communist Youth League investigates the reasons why young people under the age of 35 quit their jobs. The results show that 94. 1% of Germans think that they jump to give full play to their expertise, and 67.3% jump to satisfy their hobbies. What does this data show? Explain that it can't be met in a certain field, and its requirement is to jump!
Three arguments against it: if a position is not suitable, you will jump to another position. What would you do if another position didn't suit you?
Positive argument: the other debater, you can't deny that Le's future is bright just because the road is tortuous!
The second and third arguments of the positive side cross-examine the negative side;
Argument: If an external force has an effect on things, should we look at its effect by combining all the effects?
The opponent thinks that this is indeed the case.
Three arguments: thank you for acknowledging our logical foundation, that is to say, job-hopping is not a sufficient or necessary condition for talents to play their role. Now, if you become a math teacher after graduation and find yourself at a loss, what will you do if a company offers you a position that suits you?
The opponent argued that if the position suited me, I would go to that company. But I will not choose the way of job-hopping. Because there are many ways to flow talents now, why should I walk in the mountains knowing that there are tigers in the mountains?
Pro and con: Then I ask, how do you flow?
The opponent argues that I can use transfer, secondment, rotation, and so on. (Applause) Why does the opposing party only let me change my job?
Pros and cons: the opposing debater confuses the concept. Actually, job-hopping is also a way! I'm asking each other, if you do something you like and do something you don't like, is it better to do something you like or something you don't like?
On the other hand, the opponent thinks that what I like must be unified with social value, so as long as my personal value can be realized and personal value and social value can be unified, then I will do what I like.
Argument: So, the purpose of our job-hopping is to do what we like! Now, statistics show that Americans jump six times on average in their lives. What conclusion can this data draw? (Time is up)
One-on-one debate
Three positive arguments: Wang Fuzhi, a poet in the Qing Dynasty, said in Reading Like a Mirror: Flying kites and jumping fish should each be able to make their skills. In other words, kites fly in the sky and fish swim in the water. Only by getting an environment where you can play a role can you make the best use of everything and make the best use of people. If kites swim in the water and fish fly in the sky, survival becomes a problem. How can it work?
Three opposing arguments: First, can the animal mentioned by the opponent swim in the water? Second, can fish fly to the sky? Since this is impossible, why should we discuss it? May I ask another debater, what kind of talents does this society need?
Three arguments: the other debater is avoiding our question. Obviously, kites can't swim in the water and fish can't fly. Genius is like the fish in the kite water that day. Only by finding your own position can you give full play to your expertise. However, we can see that in today's society, many talents can't give full play to their expertise in their jobs, or encounter too many obstacles in the working environment, which seriously hinders their role. It's a pity to study thoroughly! Is it wrong to say that these talents can play a better role by changing their jobs and changing their environment?
The three arguments contradict each other: this is obviously right, but why don't the opposing defense friends answer our questions? I want to reiterate our question just now. What kind of talents does this society need? What kind of talents does this society need? Li Yifei, president of Viacom, said that they wouldn't recruit people who change jobs frequently, because they are people who run away under pressure and they are losers. How will the other party explain this? Another debater just mentioned the environment. We believe that talents must have a stable environment to play their role. The other debater should know that in China now, stability is paramount!
Three arguments: we need all kinds of talents, and all kinds of talents need all kinds of environments. I'm glad that the other debater cares about talent as much as we do. I asked my opponent. Just talking about the environment, whether a person can give full play to his role is of course related to the environment. However, if a person is tired of the original work unit and even works with a tormented mentality, is it necessary to find a job he likes in a different environment and play a greater role?
Objection 3: Most of the work is actually doing repetitive things. If you do one thing repeatedly every day, you will naturally get bored. But when you go to a new environment, a new position and a new job, you are actually repeating the same thing, and one day you will get tired of it. Tired of boredom, jumping around, jumping today, jumping tomorrow and jumping the day after tomorrow, when is the end?
Three arguments: but the other debater should know that job-hopping is not about changing the environment, finding a job you like again, and regaining a sense of belonging. It's a pity that another debater is always wandering around, willing to be a caged bird. I'll discuss it with my opponent again. The ancients said, "A good minister chooses his master and waits on him, while a good bird chooses wood to live in." . For example, Han Xin and Han Xin were transferred from Xiang Yu's command to Liu Bangmen to help Liu Bangmen unify the whole country. Is it that his choice is wrong? Is his choice not conducive to its role?
Three arguments against it: first, I am a talented person, and I will break through the cage to realize my value, but I will not choose the way of job-hopping. Second, did Han jump ship? Did he meet Xiang Yu and sign a contract or did he sign a contract with Liu Bang? (It's time for the square)
Three arguments against it: Why are most job-hopping people young? Because young people are impetuous and can't do one position well, they think of another. There is a good saying: career is often destroyed by perseverance and impatience. If we can't be strong in our own posts and play our own value in ordinary posts, then we have no chance to do higher-level work. Since there is no chance to do something at a higher level, how can we play a better role? The other party said that we are partial and comprehensive, and we still have a set of data. According to the authoritative survey, only 65,438+00% job-hoppers have made preliminary plans. In other words, most job-hopping is blind. What kind of results can the blindness of the subject bring? This is self-evident. If you definitely change jobs, you will deny 90% people's reasons. This is the real blind spot. (Time is up)
Refutation stage
Four arguments: let's look at a simple example first: now we are like pharmacists in a pharmaceutical factory. We want to prove to you that this medicine is good for treating colds, but the other side says no. Once drugs enter the market, some people don't take them according to the regulations. If everyone does this, this medicine is not good for treating colds! Obviously, the other party is thinking in the wrong direction. Then deal with the integrity problem mentioned by Fang Yibian in the argument back and forth. When recruiting foreign staff, the United Nations clearly advertises that candidates need more than six kinds of work experience. Is the United Nations forming an alliance of dishonest people? If job-hopping is a kind of dereliction of duty, it is a kind and virtuous behavior to let a thousand miles pull the mill and let the tiger eat grass. No, that's just the destruction and waste of talents and the bondage of social progress!
Next, I will go back to the camp to discuss the loss after job-hopping. This phenomenon can only show that job-hoppers do not fully consider before job-hopping, thus hindering their own role. So what he has to do now is to leave his post temporarily, re-plan, find an environment suitable for him, and then jump without hesitation! Another debater talked about the phenomenon of peacocks flying southeast, saying that job-hopping ratio and talent play a role. A large number of talents are piled up in the east, unable to find suitable jobs or even unemployed. Should they be restricted from returning to the west to support the development of western China? Secondly, job-hopping means changing the external environment to promote the subjective initiative of talents. The other side is full of loopholes from the beginning of the argument-(time is up)
Four arguments against each other: the other side's two arguments are like a small bridge, and the three arguments are endless, but neither microwave nor angry waves can cover up the other side's minor faults.
First, the concept is unclear. The other party told us that job-hopping is the main way of talent flow, so I'm going to ask, what is an orange? According to each other's logic, oranges are the most important fruit. How can this logic, which has neither connotation nor extension, work in today's competition?
Second, the standard is specious. Another debater talked about the phenomenon left and right, but never told us what the standard was. When we were arguing, we made it clear that the standard for talents to play their role is whether they can be realized and whether they can be unified with personal values and social values.
Third, one-sided understanding. Trying to confuse job-hopping with talent flow, so I think if I don't resign, I will be in a stagnant pool. If there is no job-hopping, it is impossible to make a reasonable configuration. Isn't it obvious that the opposing debater has such a concept?
Fourth, the other party has been emphasizing changing the environment, and we think that job-hopping makes the environment change constantly, which is not conducive to talents to play their role. Because talents need a stable environment to play their role, and job-hopping makes the environment very unstable.
Close combat
Three arguments: Thank you. Today, our debate is whether job-hopping is beneficial to talents. Another debater is talking about blind job-hopping and frequent job-hopping. We are so wronged when we jump ship! For example, we are talking about taking medicine to restore health, but the other party says that taking a lot of medicine is good for your health. So, does the other side's statement conform to today's debate? I want to ask each other this question. If we feel very depressed and depressed about our working environment, and there is no joy brought by work, then if he resolutely chooses to quit, will his wise choice be more conducive to his role?
Counterparty: If job-hopping can play a role in the new environment, what are the reasons why it can play a role?
Two statements: since job-hopping is an active choice and a way of talent flow, job-hopping is a way of talent flow.
Counterargument: The other debater just said that job-hopping is caused by the environment, but today's debate is whether job-hopping is beneficial to talents, and the other party wants to tell me that the environment is the reason for job-hopping
Three arguments: so we say that the role of talents is the embodiment of their subjective initiative. We say that job-hopping has changed the working environment. Is it necessary to ensure that objective environmental changes can stimulate subjective initiative? Please don't deviate from today's debate.
The other side's defense: Just now, the other side announced that United Nations recruiters need to have more than six kinds of work experience. Does this mean that the United Nations recognizes that life has to jump at least six times? May I ask another debater, do talents need a stable environment to play their role?
Four arguments: But we need innovative talents more today! I want to ask another debater a question. If you are an employee of a large enterprise, you are overwhelmed by the complex interpersonal relationship of the enterprise and quit to a company with relatively simple interpersonal relationship. Does this change in objective conditions help you to play a role?
Three arguments against the other side: the other side just said that taking medicine is good for the body and is a three-point poison. You can't believe it all. The other party said that job-hopping can change the environment, and environmental change can give full play to the role of talents. Then I want to ask each other, since there are so many people who jump ship blindly, can you guarantee that the job after jumping ship will definitely suit you?
Two arguments: As we have said, job-hopping is not a sufficient or necessary condition for talents to play their role. As we said just now, whether objective conditions can bring subjective initiative is still a question of objective conditions! Please don't steal logic.
The opponent argues: then I have to ask again, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for talents to play their role? The other side has been avoiding our question, that is, do talents need a stable environment to play their role?
Three arguments: we admit that talents need subjective initiative to play their role, but the sufficient or necessary conditions for talents to play their role are not the issues to be discussed today.
Four arguments against it: put aside environmental issues for the time being. We say that job-hopping has certain risks. The existence of this risk greatly increases the opportunity cost of job-hopping. Is the opponent willing to spend his limited life on this?
Argument: Again, don't deny the bright future just because the road is tortuous. At 200 1, La Meriau, former president of Dell, moved to Lenovo as CEO. He was marginalized in Dell. Is it good for it to function by jumping from one excluded environment to another?
Three arguments against each other: the road is tortuous, and the future is bright, provided that the road has an end, and you jump around aimlessly, will your future be bright? Also, I would like to ask another debater that job-hopping will face a choice, and the choice is related to cost. How much is the charge? Cost is a burden. You bear a heavy burden. How can we play a better role?
Three arguments: when we say that talents change jobs, we don't mean that this enterprise really can't keep this talent, but that talents can attract more attention from the society through job-hopping, which will ultimately help talents to play their roles. Moreover, how can talents who can't even meet their own basic requirements play a role?
Three arguments against it: If the society definitely changes jobs, can other debaters list the consequences of job-hopping?
Affirmative argument: Let me give you a data. The Ministry of Labor and Social Security announced that at the end of 2006, there were10 million people looking for new jobs in the talent market, and 20% of them were ready to change jobs. According to the defense friends of the other side, what should these two million people do?
The opponent argues: I also give the other party a set of data. According to a data released by Hutton Management Consulting Co., Ltd., only 9.8% people have made a scientific analysis of new industries before job-hopping, which shows that most people are blind before job-hopping. Does the other party still admit collective blindness?
Two arguments: The debate we are discussing today is not about the blindness of frequent job-hopping, but whether job-hopping is beneficial to talents. The other debater has been stealing concepts, which is blind in itself.
Three arguments against it: Do frequent job-hopping and blind job-hopping belong to job-hopping?
Three arguments: Job-hopping is a neutral concept. I don't understand why the other party is so interested in labeling job-hopping. We are not keen on job-hopping, but it is often a mistake that makes our work not always satisfactory. If our majors are not right, isn't job-hopping just beneficial to our roles? (Time is up)
Four arguments against it: if job-hopping is encouraged, it is a style that encourages dabbling.
Counterargument: You danced lightly, and you took everything from me! (Time is up)
Set the tone with a beat of the gong-say the last sentence
Concluding remarks against the Fourth Debate: Thank you, Chairman! Good evening, everyone! Other debaters expressed their views with impassioned and sincere arguments, but please allow me to point out some prejudices of the other side here:
The concept is unclear. Another debater told us that job-hopping is the main way of talent flow, so I asked another debater, what is an orange? According to the logic of the other debater, oranges are the main fruit, so can your concept, which has neither connotation nor extension, work in this competition?
Two standards are specious. Another debater talked about the phenomenon left and right, but never told us what the standard was. Theoretically, we have defined the criteria for talents to play their roles, that is, whether they can be realized and unified with personal values and social values.
3. One-sided understanding. Trying to confuse job-hopping with talent flow, so I think if I don't resign, I will be in a stagnant pool. If there is no job-hopping, it is impossible to make a reasonable configuration. Isn't it obvious that the opposing debater has such a concept?
Fourth, confuse the audience. The other debater has repeatedly stressed that job-hopping is conducive to the optimal allocation of resources, but we have made it clear many times that job-hopping is easy to waste resources, so what?
5. self-contradiction. Another debater admitted that frequent job-hopping belongs to job-hopping, but it can't prove that it is beneficial for talents to play their role. Isn't that contradictory?
Next, please allow me to ask three questions about us:
First, as far as talent image is concerned, job-hopping is not conducive to the establishment of integrity. How can talents play a role? People can't stand without faith. If they lose the trust of all units, they are useless to real heroes. How can we talk about talents? Moreover, if you accidentally put on shiny red dancing shoes and beat them frequently, wouldn't it be "old grievances are not old, and the role has not been played well"?
Second, as far as the quality of talents is concerned, how can job-hopping make talents play a role when it is not conducive to the accumulation of work experience? "A rolling stone gathers no moss", and job-hopping is easy to make people lose more than they gain. As the old saying goes, it takes ten years to sit on the bench. It means that it takes more than ten years or even decades to study hard and accumulate experience. If we constantly change our minds, we are always looking at another mountain, and our working mentality is unstable. How do our talents work?
Third, job-hopping in the old society is not conducive to the optimal allocation of resources. How can talents play their social role? You know, why is there a shortage of talents in China? That is, education, rural areas, state-owned enterprises and backward western regions. The mainstream of job-hopping just runs counter to it. In the face of the phenomenon of peacocks flying southeast, is it beneficial for the other side to talk about job-hopping That's exactly "work at sunrise, rest at sunset, and the Tao is beneficial but not beneficial"!
Let's take a long-term view, take a long-term view and take education as the foundation. The trend of job-hopping cable guidance is the emergence of a large number of talents in basic industries such as domestic education. Do other debaters want to see China's economy develop into a tree without resources?
Let's stand higher. The crisis caused by job-hopping has become a problem that cannot be ignored. Now the resignation of high-level collective has not played a role. Isn't this enough to sound a social alarm for the society?
Only a reasonable flow of talents can really help talents to play their role. From rotation to attachment to transfer, it can be said that "Xia Hongyun is foggy and heavy-clothed". The other party keeps saying that he is free to choose a job, but he jumps around in a prison way. I am afraid it is contradictory!
I implore the other debater to seek the overall situation instead of a city, and to seek eternity instead of a moment. As the saying goes, "the clouds are long and beautiful, and the lotus garden is full of sunshine"! Thank you!
The conclusion statement of four positive arguments:
First of all, you should know that the more experience you have accumulated, what should you do if you make a wrong choice and stay all your life? As the last debater in this competition, I sincerely invite you to remember this competition with me calmly.
Secondly, the other side said in the argument that talent is a social resource with mobility. Then, why does the other party always refuse to treat the flow of job-hopping with a fair eye? Instead, I have been telling us that blind job-hopping and frequent job-hopping are conducive to the job-hopping of talents, and I call myself a reasonable talent flow instead of job-hopping. Like our second opinion, isn't he wearing a vest today? This is obviously irresponsible and stealing the concept!
Thirdly, we should see that job-hopping is a kind of talent flow, and some problems will inevitably occur. We are not comparing which traffic mode is better today. Obviously, job-hopping is a good combination of independent choice of talents and social needs. Enable talents to play a role in a better environment and make greater contributions to society. It makes the individual value and social value of talents reach the greatest unity, and maximizes their role!
Finally, what we should all see is that when we do something, we will encounter setbacks of one kind or another. We can't deny that the future is bright just because the road is tortuous! We can't deny the benefits of job-hopping to talents just because some people don't look at their situation rationally. Job-hopping is a challenge to personal potential and a new starting point for life goals. Working in a unit for a lifetime can easily make people lose their passion. It is true that it is human nature to give up the prospect of great pressure and choose a comfortable and comfortable life. Just like a butterfly flying across the sea, we are not demanding, but talents can only be called "talents" because they have a charm different from ordinary people. Only those who are uncomfortable and dare to challenge themselves will inject vitality into our society. There are many talented people who are making progress all their lives, creating new environments and new pressures for themselves. Aren't they more effective than those who are happy? There is such a person, 19 years old, who could have exchanged obedience for a dull life, but defended his interests with his own actions; At the age of 27, he invented a new language system, which could have bought food and clothing for a lifetime, but chose to do his best to promote TC frenzy around the world. At the age of 44, he made his mark at Microsoft. He could have chosen to stay away from the hubbub and enjoy leisure, but dragged his tired body and was criticized for returning to China in order to gain higher social influence. He is Kai-Fu Lee, and the reason why he can bring his talents to the extreme is not only because he strives for perfection in technology, but also because he dares to jump ship again and again to find a better environment! Job hopping is not the goal, development is the direction. What job-hopping tells us is continuous self-breakthrough and self-adjustment, and never give up on the road of life! thank you
Sort it out in your own language. I hope it will help you draw materials for your debate.