On the contrary, Soochow University students should focus on learning.

Wuhan University won.

Counterargument: Hello, everyone. The opponent's argument is simple, but did he ask? To learn professional things well, the most critical moment is to learn to be knowledgeable. They think that this is based on specialization and supplemented by learning. But what's our point? Our view is that before you want to develop your major, you must have a certain sense of morality, a certain social concept and a certain world outlook. Let's see how to compare different people at this time, that is, what is more important. For example, another debater, if you remember, is in the erudite part. He told us that if we study everything, the whole major will be ignored. Then the other debater told us that although they work professionally, their knowledge is ignored, so when both need to be compared, it means that when one can only choose one, or one must be right, the other debater thinks that professional knowledge is the most important and social outlook. So what do we think it is? We think it's time to develop your real major after you have a social outlook and world outlook. Why do you say that? If we say that we should train our major first and then consider the world outlook and social outlook, in other words, there may be a professional who has very strong professional skills but lacks a sense of morality. At this time, we may adopt what we say, which will cause such a situation that harms society. Is this major useful to society? Let's take another look. If he has no social outlook, that is, he can't get along with others, can't influence him, and can't be accepted by others. How can such a major help the society? Let's talk about it. Without a world outlook, such an invention might be acceptable to everyone in China. When we marched into the world again, we found that it had been eliminated by the world. Is such a major as the other debater said useful? On the other hand, it may be on you. In the future, if you adapt to the society, you may believe that your opponent is very active in professional study. Although the foundation may be a little poor, I found that even if I really can't increase my major, I can study it again at least after I enter graduate school, which means I can make up the major part in the future. But what's the use of having professional knowledge if you lose your sense of morality? Although we can compare, when both sides can do it, in fact, the situation of both sides is the same, that is to say, we all have a professional and knowledgeable person, but when we can only choose one, the second party will automatically step down, at least, be born as a human being, and then let him become a professional person. In other words, even if this person can't be beneficial to society, at least it won't be harmful to society. Isn't it reasonable to develop a major that is beneficial to society without endangering society? On the other hand, the opponent's debater can give him a powerful attack, but he doesn't know whether this attack is against the enemy or himself. Is such professional knowledge what we want? Therefore, we believe that university study should be based on knowledge, supplemented by majors. Thank you.

Positive argument:

Hello, everyone, other debaters are very elegant and have been emphasizing personal comprehensive cultivation. Let's first look at what the ancients said. The ancients in our country said that the first thing to cultivate one's morality is to govern the country, and the first thing to govern the country is sincerity. I would like to ask the debater of the other side, if he is mainly rich, then simply squander it and gradually become attractive. How can they be sincere? For us college students, especially our particularity, because we have a special mission as college students, we have chosen to travel in the vast ocean of knowledge, so we must pay attention to the cultivation of methods with special goals; We chose to fight in the hands of many powerful people, and we must focus on specialization and profoundness. As a college student, how can these things be realized if you don't focus on your major? Just like the other four debaters, I'm afraid young talents who specialize in defending blogs must also gain something in their professional direction in order to be worthy of the honorary title of Soochow University, their alma mater. Another debater told us that this can be achieved through blog, so let's see what the sages say. Zhuang Ziyun, my life is limited, and so is my study. Where there is a limit, there is no limit. This is an era of backward information, said by a sage with great wisdom. In today's era of knowledge explosion, for ordinary college students, even if they sow a good wish to concentrate on knowledge, I am afraid they can only get everything except superficial knowledge. Mr. Hu Shi was lofty and ambitious in his early years, which can be described as extensive. However, when he arrived at Cornell University in the United States, he suddenly woke up and sighed: The fault of life lies in the lack of knowledge. From then on, he made up his mind, made a clear goal, studied under Dewey and specialized in pragmatic philosophy, and finally became a famous great thinker in China's modern history. It can be seen that the so-called combination of Chinese and western, the so-called learning from others, its knowledge system must be an organic combination of specialization. Hegel learned everything, but he was first and foremost a philosopher. As we have said, Einstein has made achievements in the history of philosophy, but he first led the world with his theory of relativity; Chen Yinque entered from history and Wang Guowei started from philosophy. Both of them became masters of economic literature, eclectic and eclectic, and eventually grew into a generation of towering trees. Specifically and figuratively, this process requires us to make improvements today: first, we must determine a specific direction and height. Last night, the so-called west wind withered the green trees, and we were alone in the tall building, looking at the horizon; Secondly, we should take professionalism as the guide and carry forward professionalism, so that we will gradually undress and never regret it, and people will be haggard for Iraq. Only in this case, can we cultivate our professional quality, professional quality and professional ability, and at the same time, we will learn from others and finally be enlightened. Only in this case can we meet friends who argue with each other, laugh and forget the enemy, and say, "Many people have looked for her, but when I look back, my achievements are all in the dim light."

Jiang Changjian commented:

Entrusted by the organizing Committee and the jury, the chairman, the debaters of the two teams present, the judges and all the guests made brief comments on this debate. If there is anything wrong, please give serious criticism after the game. Before the game starts, I think I have an expectation like everyone else. This proposition is a proposition that combines the players' personal experience or personal practice opportunities, so we expect this to be a happy and pleasant debate. So in fact, after 32 minutes of angry words, we found that we were immersed in a serious and solemn atmosphere, and sometimes our hearts were full of depth, as if we were back to our school days. Have we really handled the dialectical relationship between specialization and erudition?

Back to the opinions of both sides, the positive position is that college students should focus on specialization, and the positive position is strategic. Starting from the familiar knowledge structure, this paper expounds the dialectical relationship between specialization and erudition, and clearly tells us that specialization is the leading and decisive factor. In this case, he put forward four aspects of analysis: first, I call it division of labor determinism, that is, under the conditions of modern society, the division of labor is getting finer and finer, and so is the knowledge structure corresponding to it. The second is the so-called stage determinism, that is to say, whether it is undergraduate stage, graduate stage or doctoral stage, it is inseparable from the basic law of specialization; Third, attitude determinism, that is, focusing on specialization will definitely lead to a single-minded attitude, which is often our primary consideration in life, which makes us quite gratified. Fourthly, Zheng Fang repeated the dialectical relationship between specialization and erudition. As for the conclusion he used, we can clearly understand where Zheng Fang's bottom line lies. As soon as the other party came up, it was quite macro and far-sighted, which made us judges feel that we were on the threshold of 2 1 century. With such care, there will be broad and profound tolerance, which is probably a basic accomplishment that compound talents must have in the future. What is more valuable is that he turned the object of this proposition into two groups, the first is educators, and the second is educatees, which was unexpected by our judges. More importantly, a basic framework of his argument is that under the modern conditions of focusing on specialization, socialization and internationalization, Bo is probably an important factor to consider whether the dialectical relationship between university specialization and Bo is correct. Is it time for us to pay attention to erudition? This question is timely. At the same time, it should be pointed out that the opposing party has given some explanatory and case-based evidence while making a simple and clear argument. This may be a microcosm of the positive spirit development of Soochow University, and this is the aspect of debate. Next, we turn to the offensive and defensive stage. In the offensive and defensive stage, we also have an expectation that there will be a pleasing situation like yesterday's scene in this offensive and defensive stage. We also expect it to be further promoted with the flow of the competition until it is over. We all know the result. So in the offensive and defensive stage, we found several phenomena. The first phenomenon is that the opposing party tries to express a basic point that they don't understand clearly, or a point that all of us here vaguely know from their discussion, that is, to separate learning knowledge from the application of learning knowledge, thus giving moral education a lot of room for expression in the application of knowledge. This is a very good design, and it is a pity that education is actually used in learning. On the same positive side, there should be a lot of evidence combined with one's own life experience in the offensive and defensive stage, which is based on the basic position of giving priority to majors and supplemented by knowledge. Regrettably, in the face of the question that the other party's major is not equal to professional knowledge, it failed to come up with a very effective method. This may be in the future attack and defense stage, and we should continue to make a fuss about how to enhance its pertinence and how to enhance the effectiveness of the attack after aiming. In the stage of free debate, it is also the stage of bonfire and smoke that we want to expect. However, it seems that at the dawn of a battlefield, both sides have quietly interpreted this stage, but they have some wise suggestions. For example, the opposing party wisely mentioned a basic problem, that is, a basic premise that we are discussing today is that our current university is based on professional design, so professional learning itself is no longer a problem in our proposition today, which is a very good method. In the free debate, Zheng Fang constantly put forward how to integrate the so-called dialectical relationship between analogy and specialization and erudition, so around this basic point, both sides tried to introduce some humor, but it seemed that the effect was not very good. There is no criticism here. On the contrary, I think everyone is really hard. This is the stage of free debate. As for answering questions and concluding remarks, of course, I still have something to say, especially in the concluding stage. The jury believes that a formal, formal or well-conceived debate should try to organically reorganize the key points, conflicts or strengths and weaknesses played by both sides in the previous debate through the summary stage, and mix their own views with the situation on the field, so that the audience can have a clear and definite conclusion. Therefore, in this respect, we have to point out that the students from the opposing side are doing quite well, and the students from the positive side are also working hard. We also noticed a phenomenon. From the positive speech, we have fully felt the beauty of Chinese, but we also have a critical idea, that is, while emphasizing the beauty of Chinese, we must not use words to harm the meaning. Of course, you didn't do it. This is our suggestion. The next step is to look at the shortcomings of both sides, which is the last thing I want to say. To say the least, I am not qualified to say it, but fortunately, our experts are right in front of me, and they have given me encouragement and courage. Disadvantages: We feel that the square is neat, steady and solemn when doing the argument. It may be because Wuhan University is located in the center of China, which has something to do with it, but it may still have some gaps with our expected innovations and different opinions. Of course, the innovation and different opinions we are talking about here are not a new way to talk about a very important issue skillfully; Second, we think that when Zheng Fang expresses his views and makes a speech, he may try his best to express the prepared information 100% and fully because he has sufficient preparation time at the same time, but it gives us a little report language, or attitude, or form. I hope that in the future, the content you have prepared fully can be expressed in a more impromptu, brainwave, or impromptu and brainwave way, so that the atmosphere on the court can be improved. We appropriately raised another point. Perhaps the students who agree appreciate the types of questions and prefer the students who disagree. We believe that if the debate is more colorful, we also hope that the students' goals will be more diversified. At the same time, we also think that the opposing side may also have some weaknesses, so this weakness lies in that the opposing side is very creative when giving examples, and it also has a great and far-sighted feeling. However, during the whole debate, several aspects of your creativity have not been well implemented. To a certain extent, it may be that I am clear about my own questions or the other party's questions, and some questions deviate from the subject. This is the one to be mentioned. The other side's second problem is that they may focus on one side on the court. For example, it is completely correct to emphasize the important role of moral education in the application of knowledge, but it is easy to give the audience an impression that all the connotations of erudition seem to fall in the field of moral education. This may be one of your designs, but I think this design still needs to be considered. In addition, compared with the positive, the negative speech is an impromptu speech in class, which we are very much looking forward to. It is spiritual, supercilious and very tragic and brave, so we also hope that your impromptu and brave speech can organically integrate the whole presentation process in all aspects and return to the bottom line of your opinion, which may be better. In short, this debate has also given me room to play, that is, to talk about my personal feelings about this proposition. We said we should discuss whether college students should focus on majors or majors. In fact, we should not forget a basic context, that is, we are talking about this proposition in the process of continuous modernization. Habermas believes that the modernization process is a market system with money as the medium and a bureaucratic administrative system with power as the medium, replacing the life world with language as the medium in the past. Such substitution has divided the cultural structure within the university, made our major setting more and more complicated, and at the same time, the scope of disciplines has been expanding day by day. But I don't know if the students from both sides have noticed that this aspect provides the possibility of specialization on the one hand and the reality of bo on the other. If both players can think more about this aspect, this debate may be more abundant. Because of this, it poses a challenge, just like the concept of a university. The idea of the so-called university may originate from Mr. W. Von Hunboldt, the founder of Berlin University. He proposed that universities should not only teach scientific knowledge, but also cultivate comprehensive personality. In the utilitarian modern society, how not to ignore the so-called care of humanistic feelings is a challenge that we have to face and how to strengthen our own problems. But I found from the quotations that this major and blog is not the burden of modern talents, nor is it the patent of westerners' thinking. I think we ancient people have been thinking about this for a long time. We have a saying that we specialize in art, and another saying that we believe in erudition. Whether based on personal subjective needs or social objective needs, I think even in modern society, we still have reason to believe that my speech is over, thank you.