I said these four points, which may be shallow. 1, I think we should emphasize a value orientation on this issue. It is precisely because the situation of putting self-interest first in reality is so serious that we have to advocate it today. What's more, the subject is "contemporary college students". The reality that contemporary college students are self-centered and have a strong complex of "emperor" and "princess" is undoubtedly contrary to their sense of collectivism and mission that they need for their historical mission. On the other hand, in addition to value advocacy, there is a syllogism implied in it: everyone is for personal interests, and everything is the first step from personal interests, and college students are human beings, so the argument of college students ... is meaningless without GAI. What's more, even if everyone starts from personal interests first, how can this prove opposing views? Does it matter as soon as it happens? I think about eating before sleeping, so that I can prove that eating is more important than sleeping? 2. Why is individual interest the basis of collective interest? I just want to ask this question: is there such a situation that it loses someone's personal interests but benefits the collective interests? Even if we don't talk about the extreme example of destroying the family to solve problems and dying for the country, it is obvious that personal interests and collective interests are definitely not the relationship between the foundation and the superstructure. Collective interests are definitely not the sum of everyone's personal interests. What's more, even if its foundation is recognized, the foundation is more important. How is this proved? 3. Grasp the comparative characteristics of the debate. First of all, does it mean that individuals must promote social development while pursuing their own interests? Objectively speaking, there are positive and negative examples, but the landlord, as the positive side, can recognize the positive meaning and render the negative examples at the same time. Secondly, we frankly admit that individuals may promote the development of society in the process of pursuing personal interests. What does this mean? When we pursue collective interests, will it promote social development? If this is the comparison standard, we should compare which is more effective. 4. Regardless of whether there are some factors in the right time and place, just accept this one. Social progress is accomplished by people, so personal interests are more important. If you want to say that you are more willing to fight for your own interests, you can still go back to value advocacy. Personally, I think the comparison standard of comparative debate is one of the most important issues. Now I will simply take which is more conducive to contributing to the collective and individual development as the standard, assuming that I am the other side. As far as the collective is concerned, I can make an analogy: that is to say, no one or very few people are engaged in economic activities in today's market for the so-called market prosperity. If it is changed to a planned economy for the sake of market prosperity, will the market still have such vitality? Of course, there are at least three loopholes in my question. If the other person makes a fuss about the words "for contemporary college students", he may not talk to you about who is more beneficial to the collective at all, but only who is more beneficial to the individual. I think we should grasp this point well. "()" and "()" for contemporary college students contain some things, including making contributions to the country and society and seeking personal development. Anyway, I want to emphasize three points. First, there must be comparison. No matter how important the positive side talks about collective interests and how important the negative side talks about personal interests, it can't be regarded as a successful argument. Comparison criteria must be considered; Second, we should pay more attention to who comes first when personal interests conflict with collective interests; Third, the value proposition can be scrutinized. I haven't been in contact with the debate for a long time. This is the first time I've tried to reply to a post. Don't take it personally! [Student 2]