Objection: The University of Macau network makes people more alienated.
President: Has the Internet brought people closer or has it brought people closer? This is also the theme of our debate today. According to the results of the pre-competition lottery, the University of Malaya holds the view that "the internet has brought people closer", while the University of Macau holds the view that "the internet has alienated people". The first stage is presentation and argumentation, and each side has three minutes to present its views. First of all, please welcome the support for the debate. (Applause)
A positive statement: in the past, people were far apart, but now people can meet each other across thousands of miles of network. In the past, even in a small country with few people, people were still isolated from each other. Now people and thousands of miles can get married. Hello, ladies and gentlemen! A network is a communication thread composed of e-mail. Its appearance makes people have another communication channel besides direct conversation. Its appearance has changed people's concern about quantity and quality, bringing them closer. From a macro point of view, it means that the global human beings reduce barriers and increase understanding. From the microscopic point of view, it refers to an emotional change between people from scratch and from shallow to deep. Therefore, today, the other party must demonstrate that the emergence of the Internet has increased the gap between people and established various barriers to turn good friends against each other, so that the other party's position can be established. We will demonstrate our position from two levels. First of all, the appearance of the Internet makes it easy for people to communicate. Whether it is culture, education or science and technology, all information can flow quickly on the Internet. At this time, we should not only ask, when all medical experts enjoy their vitality through the Internet and make friendly efforts for patient Julie, how can other debaters say that the Internet has alienated people? Since the Wenchuan earthquake, people all over the world have carried forward the spirit of mutual assistance and friendship and cared for each other through the Internet. In terms of personal contact, the Internet has reduced the time and space restrictions for human beings. Let human beings freely strengthen personal ties. Today, we study abroad, but we can get in touch with our families quickly. Second, the network provides people with a broad space for making friends and communicating. People can find bosom friends online, whether in culture, education or science and technology. Standing in this corner of history, standing at the crossroads of history, we look back and see that the network is to make people closer and more familiar, and we can also see the future human beings. (Applause)
PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr HO. Thank you! Let's invite Zhang Ying, the opponent, to state his views for 3 minutes.
The opponent's defense: Hello, Chairman and Judge! First of all, the just side argued that our view is that "the Internet makes people more alienated", so she asked us to demonstrate how friends turned against each other. What does this have to do with alienation? Please don't exaggerate the debate. Secondly, the other debater said that she had never been to Macao and could get some information about Macao from the Internet, but I haven't seen you. How can we close the distance through the network? Just now, the other party's argument was eloquent, which just showed you the speed and convenience of information exchange on the Internet. However, interpersonal relationship tells us that the communication between people mainly includes emotional communication and information exchange, and most of the communication on the Internet is information exchange at present, but we all know that the so-called closeness and alienation mainly refer to the closeness of interpersonal relationship and thoughts and feelings, so how can the Internet shoulder the heavy responsibility? Marx said well that the criticism of weapons cannot replace the weapon of criticism. The network is just a tool invented by human beings, which really facilitates the long-distance communication of human beings. However, we can't become admirers of the internet, thinking that with it, we can get a panacea to narrow the distance between people. Judging from the influence of the internet on people in recent years, it has not only failed to narrow the distance between people, but has alienated people even more. We never deny that the Internet provides a convenient way for people's transportation. But many people are addicted to man-machine communication, ignoring direct face-to-face communication in real life. How can your email compare with the kindness that you personally brush chopsticks to wash dishes, wipe back and rub shoulders for your parents? How can the difference between friends on the Internet be compared with "Peach Blossom Lake is deeper than thousands of feet, not as good as Wang Lun"? How can online lovers' greetings compare with the poetry of "willow shoots on the moon, people meet after dusk"? Finally, judging from the problems existing in the network, today's network has not yet formed a set of mature network ethics and network laws and regulations to restrain and standardize it. Many people wear masks to surf the Internet, and what they get is probably a message sent by one or more masked people. There is a famous saying circulating on the Internet-"I don't know if you are a dog". Isn't this a vivid portrayal of online life? You can talk nonsense about anything on the irresponsible network. The internet has become a sticky net. How can we bring people closer? Therefore, we must be more aware that the network without human rational constraints can only bring emotional alienation to people. Thank you! (Applause)
PRESIDENT: Thank you, Zhang Ying! The following link, I think everyone here and the audience in front of our TV will be refreshed. The following is a new link specially opened in this debate. In order to make our debate more aggressive, we specially set up a free man among the four debaters. The so-called free man does not participate in the stages of statement, attack and defense, free debate and summary statement in traditional debate. Only during the time of talking and talking will we meet and communicate with each other's free people. According to the rules, the next link is the free man's speech. In the speech session, each freeman has 1 minute for 3 seconds, which can be used twice. Now we ask the freemen on both sides whether they are willing to use this speaking time. (The freemen on both sides expressed their willingness) Well, according to the principle, first of all, please welcome the freemen on the other side. (Applause)
Anti-Freeman: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen! The pros and cons have repeatedly stated that the network provides convenience for long-distance transportation. Does it mean that the shortening of space-time distance means the inevitable narrowing of spiritual distance? Thank you! (Applause)
Freeman: The other party just mentioned that some people are addicted to the Internet, which makes people more alienated. But there are many hobbies that people are addicted to. Some people are addicted to reading, others are addicted to fishing. Does this tell us that reading and fishing also alienates people? This is not in line with today's rule of thumb! Thank you (applause)
President: OK, thank you two freemen! According to the time used just now, the two free people have 1 minute, 15 seconds and 1 minute, 1 1 second to make it clear. Next, enter the cross-examination session. In the cross-examination, we first invite the opposing party to ask questions about the three arguments of the positive side one by one.
Counterargument: I would like to ask the positive argument, which is characterized by virtual space communication. What's the difference between this and the moon mirror flower in the water?
On the other hand, network communication is a virtual space, but a professor in San Diego told us that Newsweek also told us that network communication provides people with a virtual social interaction, and virtual social interaction abandons life. It is precisely because of this situation that people can contact and get closer through the internet.
Oppose two arguments: I would like to ask the other three arguments. In the online chat space where the devil can pretend to be an ambassador, where can we find the fundamental premise of peace-honesty and trust?
Three arguments: the debater of the other side made a fundamental mistake on this issue, that is, he did not look at it comprehensively, but only looked at it unilaterally. We fully admit that there are some shortcomings in the Internet, but have our opponents neglected that there are actually many networks that promote closer relations between people? I see that there are more than 50,000 parents in the United States, so that parents who have never met can exchange parenting experiences online. Is this a sign of closeness or alienation? We also see that the Asian Federation has promoted people's intercontinental exchanges. No matter whether this relationship is closer or more distant, don't let it slip away! Thank you (applause)
Counterargument: Please defend the positive argument. Why does man-machine dialogue bring people closer than face-to-face communication?
Argument: Is the dialogue between man and machine and the communication between people on the Internet really like what the other party said? We are having a conversation with our friends at the other end. During the conversation, we communicate with each other in a heart-to-heart way. Isn't this kind of communication closer, so what kind of communication is closer? Does the other party say that as for face-to-face communication, there is no false component? Does the other party think that there are false elements in such an exchange meeting through the network? We can't agree! Thank you (applause)
President: OK, now let Zheng, a student in the second debate, ask his opponents in the first, second and third debates one by one.
Argument 2: Excuse me, do you have to communicate face to face if communication is to be more advanced?
The opponent argues that, of course, it is necessary to communicate face to face on the basis of honesty and trust to narrow the distance between people. If there is no honesty and trust, how can there be such a basis for communication? Dr Cai Xiaoji, an expert in communication at South China University of Technology, said that people should pay attention to the word "trust" in communication. How to establish this kind of trust is to establish the word "trust" through time and various body languages. I would like to ask another debater, if you have known your lover for a long time and have a deep friendship, how can you and your lover hug each other through the internet? That will get an electric shock. (Applause)
Argument: Second argument, please. The parents' club for disabled children on the Internet hopes that grieving parents can exchange ideas and encourage each other. How can such support be more alienated?
Counterparty: We don't mean that such support alienates people, but it depends on other circumstances. On the Internet, many people are addicted to various adult websites and pornographic websites. A survey in the United States shows that 20% of adults often visit various pornographic websites. How can such feelings bring people closer? It will only make the couple more disharmonious! (Applause)
Pro and con: I would like to ask, is it closer to the performance of transnational care that people condemn Indonesia's exclusion from China and support Kosovo refugees through the Internet?
Three arguments of the opposing side: Yes, this kind of cross-border caring action certainly brings people closer. But friends from the other side said that we couldn't see Mount Tai. Now I tell you that three-quarters of people in the United States don't know their neighbors, their defense friends, or even their neighbors. Do you have to go to the virtual space to find the so-called online dating object and online dating wife? (Applause)
Chairman: Next, let's enter the cross-examination summary. First, let's invite Xiao Hu, the second debater of the other side, to speak. The time is 1 min 30 seconds.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Zheng! The next step is the dialogue of free people. According to the rules, the dialogue sessions of free people have their own minutes, but the speaking time of each session cannot exceed 30 seconds. First of all, please affirm the free man Chen Ruihua.
Freeman: I'm surprised that the other party told us that we had to face each other to get close, and there was no face-to-face communication. So did the other debater tell us that communication also makes people more alienated? (Applause)
Anti-Freeman: Communication is just a means to bring people closer. But I want to ask the other party to remember that one of the main side effects of the Internet is that people ignore face-to-face emotional communication in real life. Why is there a very popular song that says, "Go home often, go home often ..." (Applause) This is because the convenience of the Internet makes us think that it is enough to communicate with our family, but we don't know how to help our mother wash the dishes and help our father rub his shoulders. That's the true meaning of true feelings. Be a free man: so the other party just told us that there is no need to face each other today. This is just like the argument put forward by the other party, which is absolutely contradictory. On the other hand, having online contact does not necessarily reduce face-to-face communication. The whole town of Parsley in France is connected by optical fiber, but people still have to go shopping or go to the market. Why? They just want to give you a chance to socialize, opponent.
Anti-Freeman: Please don't fall into a maze that doesn't require face-to-face communication. Let's have a look. If there is no need for face-to-face communication, as another debater said, we have a good example here. A professor at Columbia University has been addicted to the Internet for a long time. He can't even smile, even when talking to people. Do you know why? He has lost the ability to communicate, so how can he be said to be closer to others? Zheng Freeman: We are not saying that face-to-face communication is not needed today, but we want to clarify that the Internet has not affected face-to-face communication between people. The other party just said that professors at Columbia University are addicted to the Internet, but today many people are addicted to reading. Please tell us that reading and reading also alienate people.
Anti-Freeman: Please don't dwell on whether the network is online or not, and whether there is real communication. As we said just now, there is no foundation of honesty on the internet, and people lack mutual trust in communication, which makes people wary. How many people in the network have N online wives and M online lovers, and both N and M are greater than or equal to three, then this kind of "don't ask who I am, please fall in love with me." (Applause)
Justice and freedom: On the contrary, the first step to increase people's trust today is to have a space and opportunity for communication? And the network is to provide a space for communication, opportunities for communication, so that many of us have never known each other, from communication to communication, which is the whole process of intimacy. Why does the other party have to look at trust? You know, the foundation of trust is to have contacts. Anti-Freeman: The opposing debater doesn't even trust him. I really don't know what the other debater wants. (Applause) Finally, I really appreciate the theme song of the TV series Water Margin: shoot Kyushu when it's time to shoot. I just want to say here that it's time to get off the net and be quiet, hoping that the other debater can escape from the network siege as soon as possible. Thank you! Freeman: Yes, you should get off when it's time to get off. Today, we are not saying that everyone should be addicted to the Internet. Moreover, addiction is not brought by the internet. Another Freeman told us that to make people closer today, there must be distance, and only with interaction can there be trust. This is the basis of communication. But the other debater doesn't want this foundation. He just told us that we should trust immediately. However, this experience of peaceful communication with ordinary people is in conflict. "Because we want to trust and deepen friendship, we must first have an opportunity to communicate, but the other party completely ignored this opportunity today, completely ignoring this opportunity for communication and closeness. Therefore, today is closer ... (Time is up) President: Thank you for the dialogue, thank you. Well, it's more exciting to enter the debate session.
Three arguments: Ladies and gentlemen, if letters can also promote the relationship between people, why can't e-mail make the relationship between people closer?
Counterargument: Excuse me, do you like an imaginary rose in your girlfriend's email, or a sweaty love letter and a fresh rose from your beloved girlfriend?
Argument 2: But I can't be with my boyfriend all the time. If I want to come to Beijing to participate in the debate, I must leave him for some time. During this time, if I want to communicate with him, it will be faster and sweeter to use email. (Applause)
The other side argues: So, email only provides you with a means to communicate with your boyfriend, but you have to go back to Malaysia to hug your boyfriend before you feel close. (Applause)
Argument: Today we didn't say that face-to-face conversation won't bring people closer. What we mean is that the Internet has brought people closer. Therefore, the other party also admits that because of the contact method such as email, we can really get in touch with people far away through the network.
Opponents: So today, our question is how to use the Internet correctly. Now the facts are before us. In America, you don't even know your neighbors. When you walk out of the door of this apartment, all you see is cold eyes. How close do you feel?
Three arguments: If my opponent wants to demonstrate this argument, he must first explain to everyone how the Internet makes me not want to know my neighbors. If I can't come up with a practical theory, does it mean that this argument has no basis for argument? (Applause)
Counterparty's statement: According to the investigation by the investigation agency, he doesn't know his neighbors because they spend too much time in contact with online media at home.
Argument: Is the other side's argument groundless? A professor at the University of San Diego told us that people should have an attitude of communication, because people should make friends, but the other side said that people should not make friends because of the Internet. We can't believe it.
Three arguments are against each other: the internet can be full of nonsense, so the internet has become a sticky network. In this truth debate forum, may I ask another debater, who said not to associate with friends? Also, what the other debater just said is information exchange, is it equal to emotional exchange?
A positive argument: Can you draw an absolute division number between information exchange and emotional exchange? We know that people can communicate their feelings only when they have information to communicate! (Applause)
Counterargument: We didn't say to draw an absolute emotional number, but would your old mother like you to go home and hit her back and rub her waist, or would you rather send her an email occasionally?
Three arguments: If opponents think that this network makes people more alienated, please show me the arguments first. Today, when I surf the Internet, I will stay in Beijing from now on. I will never go back to my hometown to rub my back and beat my shoulders again. If you can say this, then the opponent's argument is established! (Applause)
The opponent thinks: We have made it clear many times just now that you will eventually have to rub your mother's shoulder before you can get close to her. (Applause)
Two arguments: another debater, now my mother and I are separated. Through the internet, we will communicate with each other and tell her that we are safe. This is also the way for the Internet to bring my mother and me closer. According to another debater, I have to stay at home all my life to be closer to my mother. (Applause)
Opposing point of view: Can networks really care about each other? At present, there are many online obscene cases in Hong Kong and Taiwan. My opponent, when some perverts appear on the internet, I'm afraid my fair lady can't protect herself! (Applause)
Three arguments: we don't seem to understand this. How can more than 50 thousand parents in the United States interfere with these parents today? Today, there is a transcontinental understanding on the Internet in Asia. How did you get these perverts out in a hurry?
Contrary: However, according to a survey conducted by China Internet Network Center, 60% of parents are worried that their children are too addicted to the Internet, on the one hand, because they lack communication with their parents, on the other hand, because they can't control their feelings and often do some regrettable things.
Positive argument: The other side says that people can't care about each other by communicating online, so I want to ask the other students how the love line communication network established in China makes people more alienated. (Applause)
Counterargument: we love online communication network, which we don't understand, but it depends on the actual situation. How many people put their love into this network?
Argument 2: the other party actually said that there was no such network, so please ask the other party to check it on the network. I want to ask another debater, is it necessary to communicate face to face to get closer?
Three opposing arguments: does emotion originate from real space or network? Excuse me, my friend, today we are in Beijing, which is famous for its pleasant quadrangle culture, but according to a survey conducted by Beijing Zero Company, 60% of people in Beijing only have a nodding acquaintance with their neighbors. Excuse me, my friend, does human technological progress inevitably lead to the progress of human spiritual civilization?
Argument: Is this nodding acquaintance brought by the Internet? Please get to the point.
Three objections: each generation has its own background. As the Chairman said just now, the information age has arrived. What are the tools in the information age? This is a computer. Wow, it's the internet!
Argument: In the past, some people worried that the appearance of telephone would alienate people, but did this preference arise? Excuse me, under such circumstances, how can the network follow the footsteps of the telephone?
The opponent thinks that telephone is just a means of communication. Nowadays, many people in Hong Kong and Macao no longer communicate face to face during the Spring Festival, but greet each other by telephone. How can this bring people closer?
Argument: The other party said that the telephone is a means for people to communicate, so today we say that the Internet is also a means for people to communicate. We don't encourage other students to use the internet to make you close to your family, so don't go home. (Applause)
Three opposing arguments: even the body language of real space on the Internet-hugs and anger-can't be used in virtual space. I don't know how other debaters can close the distance.
Argument 2: I really want to hug my mother, but due to the limitation of time and space, I can't actually do this, but the internet has solved this problem for me. If I don't appreciate the internet, who should I thank? (Applause)
Objection: Please don't always indulge in your personal affairs. Today, we refer to some problems encountered by the broad masses of people in learning the Internet. Can these intimate body language be realized on the Internet?