"Thank you, host." Nan Xiaoniao thanked her briefly and then went straight to the topic.

"The three words "poor means change" are classic criterion for thousands of years. Of course, we will not express different views on philosophical principles. But today's debate topic is "poor means change", and this judgment involves the subjective initiative of human beings.

So, will ‘poverty/end of the road’ greatly prompt people to think about change? Our view is that it may not be necessary, that is, poverty may not necessarily cause people to think about change.

Below, we will explain the specific reasons in detail: First of all, the word "说" in the debate topic should be interpreted as "just", that is, the position of the opponent's debater should be "poor, which will lead to people's desire to change". This "说" represents sufficient conditions. Therefore, as long as a counterexample is found, it proves that some people do not want to change when they are poor, it naturally belongs to "poor may not necessarily think to change."

Secondly, the opponent's debater may say that "thinking" represents a person's subjective inner activities, rather than an objective behavior that has traces outside. Therefore, even if "thinking", it may not be expressed by actions. If this is explained, then "poverty" may only be a "necessary condition" for the opponent's debater - but what we want to say is that even if "poverty" is considered as a "necessary condition" for "change", it is also unfair. We will prove it one by one in the future.

Therefore, our view is summarized as follows: Poverty will neither inevitably lead to change, nor is it a necessary prerequisite for thinking about change. There is no clear general relationship between poverty and change. In many cases where poverty is considered to be the change, the real reason for change is not poverty..."

"In India, there are hundreds of millions of poor people who live far below the food and clothing line. Their daily nutritional intake cannot reach the calorie threshold set by the International Health Organization. However, these people have never thought about changing for thousands of years. This is the strong evidence that poverty will not change..."

"In China, or in all countries with strong atmosphere of progress, progress and opportunism, countless great men who have achieved success and fame have gone further and seek endless changes in order to realize their personal self-worth. They are not because of poverty and scarcity..."

Later, Nan Xiaoniao also gave some specific examples in her comments, without further explanation. In general, because the opponent has not yet launched an attack, the opponent cannot say it too carefully, so as not to give the judges the impression that "I guess how the opponent will attack."

The writing is naturally full of flowers, with a good expression and speaking speed. In three minutes, the reminder just passed by 30 seconds, and the example part was just finished. Then, after stepping on the reminder for 15 seconds, two short sentences were closed.

"The off-field skills are good, and this Chen Ci is not inferior." Hu Biao, the main player of the prosecution, thought to himself, but he didn't expect that the strength of the vases was not as unbearable as he expected.

Although Nan Xiaoniao's talent is not good, this opening statement is really not lost to Yan Ruonan. At worst, Nan Xiaoniao always plays soybean in the subsequent free debate session, and it is worth the price.

Hu Biao had an uncontrollable desire to try, and waited for the host to announce that he had entered the free debate.

"The following is the free debate session, please speak first!"

Hu Biao was the first to stand up.

"First of all, based on the other party's argument, I would like to remind the other party's debaters that what we are talking about today is 'thinking if we are poor', and thinking is of course a subjective psychological activity and does not necessarily have objective behavior. We are not a classroom for criminal law, and we do not pay attention to the "unity of subjective and objective".

Therefore, we believe that as long as poverty has a greater degree of inconsistency, it is enough to prove that "will be changed by action" is to prove that "will be changed by poverty". As for those small groups who have not taken action, they are just lacking in ability, or are limited by their knowledge, and they cannot think about how to change after thinking."

As soon as Hu Biao said this, the judges and the host couldn't help but silently applauded it in their hearts.

This statement is indeed very clever, because it is difficult for a person to prove it in his heart.

According to Hu Biao's logic, those who have become poor but have not changed are of course likely to be unable to change themselves.

I really think about it, but I can't figure out how to do it after thinking about it.

At the same time, these words also gently smeared the first assumption in Nan Xiaoniao's argument aside, and the Ming Che and Ming Ma set out on the battlefield and told the opposition: Just take the battle within the range of the second point!

Of course, the division team could not allow Hu Biao to build a system so comfortably, so he first relied on Tian Haimo to throw a stone to ask for directions:

"But please note that if you think about change or not, it has nothing to do with being poor. Poverty is not the main reason for thinking about change. Otherwise, according to the viewpoint of the opponent, you should agree with the statement that "poor person is a traitor, rich people will become conscience"? Do you think the poorer people are easier to do anything?"

Malaya naturally has to deny this immediately. After all, such remarks are highly discriminatory against the poor, politically incorrect, and need to be cleared and separated.

Hu Biao was thinking, so Ma Jiaxin pushed up: "Of course we do not support the statement that 'poverty is a trick, and wealth is a conscience'. This is typical discrimination! But we should also admit that poverty can stimulate people's potential, so that people can come up with more solutions than when they are rich, and use more means to achieve the goal of 'change'..."

With seven or eight consecutive close contacts, both sides are debating one by one whether it is difficult to be poor can inspire the potential of change than wealth. Or whether the main reason for the extraordinary potential is poverty.

This kind of example is somewhat plausible, and the situation is stalemate for a while.

"Why are you all caught up in a debate about the subjective mentality of people's hearts? This kind of thing cannot be proved. The same example can be used both positive and negative. How can you decide the winner? Even if the last side wins, it will not be decent." CCTV producer Luo Fatty, one of the judges, thought.

He was also a judge in China and is still one of the judges in international competitions.

Feng Jianxiong also made a prelude to the point of being in a tit-for-tat way, and his performance was quite normal, but he could not tell that he was stronger than Hu Biao.

Until he felt the temperature was almost the same.

"Would you like to ask the other debater, how do you explain the poor Indians and the rich Chinese who are of the same level of education. Even though those poor Indians are almost starved to death, their motivation for change is far less than that of them, and they do not face any urgency in the Chinese?" Feng Jianxiong seized this point and began to attack.

Hu Biao didn't even think about it: "Why do you say that they don't want to change? Education does not represent the level of knowledge. They may just lack knowledge."

"Don't 'maybe', I can give you a reasonable explanation - the reason why we think that 'when we are poor, we think of change' is a normal state, common sense is just because we live in the Han cultural circle. We all speak Chinese and accept the cultural atmosphere of "being a farmer in the morning and climbing to the emperor's hall in the evening". So we are used to a society with social-ladder and ascending channels.

But if we were born in a Shudra, we were born as a Shudra, no matter how hard we tried, we could only be a Shudra. Kshatriya was born as a Shudra. No matter how degenerate he fell, he could be a Kshatriya civilization? Is it useful to think about change? Therefore, it is not that poor people think about change. In the final analysis, there is an ascending channel. Only when it becomes useful can people think about change. In a civilization with an ascending channel, even if it is not poor, they will be able to think about change more than in a civilization without an ascending channel."
Chapter completed!