They know what they want.

Three arguments: thank you, moderator. The essence of today's debate is that in the face of the value of life, who is born and who is long is more meaningful. In order to be more conducive to their own argument, the other party may downplay the value of human beings and their upbringing, while ignoring the birth and upbringing of human beings. The other party may first cover up the meaning of life and increase the role of maintaining life conditions, thinking that life only provides a starting point, and only by improving it can life continue. Second, from the nature of human beings, the other person will ignore life. The basic function is that only nurturing can affect people's sociality and make people truly become real people. The third party may dilute human life, which is the most brilliant achievement condensed by countless years in nature. It regards life as a moment and ignores the great significance of creation. People think that parenting is far more important than life. Finally, it is demonstrated that the other party may take advantage of China's traditional thought that caring for kindness is not as important as caring for kindness, and publicize the positive social significance brought by caring for kindness to further support their views. Guess it's over. Thank you.

Three arguments against it: thank you, moderator. I will guess the other side's argument from four aspects. First, the other party may engage in argumentation innovation and reinterpret the word "bearing" instead of "bearing" and "nurturing". Second, if the other party knows "bearing" and "nurturing", then the other party will demonstrate that the grace of life is more important than the grace of nurturing by providing the foundation of life and the priceless value of life. Third, the other side will prove that the grace of life is irreplaceable and unrequited. Expand the scope of grace, bring the blood relationship of family ties into the scope of grace, and avoid the true meaning of grace. Fourth, separate the subject or process of support, compare the whole process of life with the separated part of support, then deny that it is social support, and avoid disputes, which must be based on the fact that life and support are a complete process. We will wait and see. Thank you.

Positive debate: thank you, moderator. Hello, everyone. In the vast galaxy, the earth gave birth to its first life in the throes of magma pouring 3.8 billion years ago. This is great. It's amazing. As the cleverest creature, man's highest value lies in his ability to respect life. Is it a means to cultivate and maintain the continuation of life? This is a favor, but it is more important to look at it. As a value judgment, which is more important is to see which is the first, the purpose is more important, and which is more critical, which plays a decisive role. We believe that the grace of life is more important than the grace of cultivation. First, in terms of importance, the grace of life plays a key role. First, without birth, there is no cultivation. Life determines all the meaning of practice, so life is the first and most important. Second life is a process of continuous development and transcendence. The process of a person's life is a process of discontinuous creation, which enables species to continue, so that the genes of organisms are passed from parents to offspring. The process of maintaining life is meaningless under any circumstances, and the birth of a second child is not just the moment when the embryo of life is formed in water. It represents a microcosm of the exploration process of life in the primitive ocean, so the value of life is a crystallization reason of the evolution of nature for tens of millions of years. Therefore, life is the material basis, which provides the conditions for flowering and fruiting, while nurturing only determines the spiritual standard and direction of spiritual cultivation. Finally, from the perspective of social value, life is irreplaceable, and blood is thicker than water, which is an innate right and responsibility. So it can't be replaced, so no return is required. How many overseas Chinese have returned to China to find their roots? It can be seen that the grace of life is indeed more important than the grace of cultivation. What makes the glory of that moment condense into eternity? What makes people worship is like a pilgrimage. It is the shouting and the praise of life that echoes through time and space in the universe. Feuerbach said that life itself is the greatest happiness.

Counterparty: Thank you, moderator. Hello, everyone. Today, although we are discussing a seemingly emotional topic like grace, we still need to clarify several rigorous concepts. First, grace refers to the grace of life, that is, the grace that parents give us life, and the grace of parenting includes the grace of parents and society, because in the process of parenting, we can't separate the relationship between parents and society at all, which should be understood as more important. Since demeanor is an emotional word that cannot be quantified at all, we think that today's judgment standard should be based on both, and whose meaning is more important. Next, I will demonstrate our point of view from two levels and three points. First, from the perspective of children's benefactors, it is of course a great kindness for parents to give us life, but only through the process of parenting can we truly reflect the significance of life. Why is it like a rough jade that can only pass the day after tomorrow? Only by continuous carving can we form truly valuable jade, which is exactly what the so-called jade can not be cut without cutting, which is exactly what the living can not do. Otherwise, people are different from animals, just like wolves and children, because no one keeps them, so they can't be real people. Secondly, from a social point of view, the kindness of raising them is more important than the kindness of life. People form society, lead society and develop society. So we can only stand at the height of society and attach importance to them. It is more important to judge why human society needs to continue like other biological groups, but the difference between human society and other biological groups is that it needs more development, and development needs not only people, but also talents, and we rely on the cultivation of parents and society to become a useful person. Secondly, from the perspective of value, we not only say that the grace of cultivation is more important than the grace of birth, but also that the grace of cultivation should be reborn. Well, from the negative lessons of young people who have lost their foothold, we see the importance of parenting. We should call on parents and society to pay more attention to the process of raising, because only in this way can children truly realize their self-worth and then repay the society with gratitude. This kind of life is meaningful. Here, I want to thank my parents for giving me life. Here, I want to thank my parents and all walks of life for their training. So I want to say that the grace of parenting is more important than the grace of life. Thank you.

Close combat:

Three arguments against it: thank you, moderator. Hello, everyone. Just now, another debater told us at the first point that it is more important to give kindness than to nurture kindness because life is priceless and nurturing kindness provides a continuation of life. I would like to ask another debater, if you are born and abandoned, where does your kindness come from? That is to say, life provides a starting point for life, and nurturing provides this thing for the maintenance and continuation of life. Born without raising, there is no debate. Tell us that kindness is more important than kindness, because life provides a material basis for people, and parenting only gives people parenting. I want to ask each other, why is a wolf child called a wolf child because he is born with natural attributes, and his social attributes are realized through the process of raising? We don't call him a real person because he is endowed with a social attribute after giving others this natural attribute.

One more thing: another debater just told us that the use of tools can be continued through genetic methods. Is it more reasonable for another debater to think that you can learn to fly a plane by birth? Then you don't have to argue here today, because you were born with genes. Is life more reasonable for the opposing debater to drag out an ignoble existence? He told me that life is more important than the means to maintain it, just as he told me that people are more important than eating? Whether it is physical life or today's upbringing, it is a way to maintain the continuation of life pedigree.

Positive debate: Thank you. I answered each other's questions. The first question put forward by the other party said that life and support are indispensable. We totally agree with this, because today we are talking about parenting, and the grace of birth is greater than the grace of parenting, and the grace of parenting is more important than the grace of parenting. Then another debater said that he gave an example of flying a plane. I told another debater that he was destined to fly a plane after he was born. You can imagine a monkey, which has been systematically cultivated. After studying in Guanghan Aircraft Academy for two years, does it dare to fly a plane? Impossible, so another debater mentioned the problem of a wolf child again. I want you to think it over. We all know that Tarzan has been brought back to this city. With a little training, he can walk around in a suit and tie. But if you take a wolf to the city to train it, can it become a man? Of course not, it can only become a big wolf dog, and I, since I'm talking about people today, it's of course a complicated system. We human beings include material natural life, individual spiritual life and ideological value life. My teacher educated me, he gave me the possibility to realize my personality, and of course gave me a spiritual life. I created conditions for the society to create wealth and I had a valuable life. This is the greatest gratitude of mankind. Thank you.

Three affirmative arguments: thank you, host, good friends, for telling us that a jade must be cut to pieces. However, can stones be carved into beautiful jade in any way? What determines the difference between stone and jade is the merit of life. Another classmate also told us that people's sociality can only be cultivated by raising. However, can a person be socialized without the spiritual foundation provided by life? Scientists tried to cultivate his sociality in ape training, but ultimately failed. In fact, his mother created life. At that moment, you gave you the crystallization accumulated by human beings for thousands of years and gave you the spiritual foundation as a human being. Another debater also said that everything is above life, as if it were above life. However, why does every country regard the most basic and important right of citizens as the right to life, and the biggest punishment for criminals is deprivation of the right to life? After all, everything else is deduced, and the other party will put the cart before the horse. The conclusion is not convincing. Let's ask Li Wei to explain the logic problem for everyone.

Positive debate: OK, thank you. Let's look at logic. The logic that the other debater told us today is that we can't draw a correct conclusion because we don't have a quantitative standard. Another debater believes that life is only an instant activity, and nurturing is everything in the future. I want to ask another debater a very simple question: Is nurturing and teaching and learning the same concept? Of course not, so today we should look at the source and see which is the cause and which is the effect. So we should look at this problem systematically.

Counterargument: Thank you for telling me that jade itself is very important, not carving. Why do we often say that jade cannot be cut into tools? Secondly, the argument against it tells me that the basic rights of citizens are actually changing their ideas. He equates life with life, which is a purely physiological delivery process, and we say that raising is a process of cultivation. They all measure ways to prolong life. The opposite view is not. If we want to steal the concept here, the third opponent debater told us that raising does not include a process of teaching and a process of learning, then I don't understand why the ancients in China asked us to raise instead of the godfather's over-teaching, and not to be lazy. Can't preaching and learning be integrated? One more thing, when it comes to the debater of legal opponents, I study law. I'm telling you, in fact, legally, foster parents should be supported regardless of whether they are born or not. For his biological parents, if he doesn't support us, we don't need to support him, which shows that as the mainstream value judgment standard of society in law, the kindness of support is more important than the kindness of life. Why are other debaters so stubborn?

The other party told me today that we only raise spiritual life, which is our material foundation. If it's just spiritual life, I ask you to think about it. I was only a few kilograms when I was born. Is this natural or raised? The other party told me today, as we said in the second debate just now, that raising includes teaching and learning. Then I want you to think about it. If raising does not include teaching and learning, we will arrive. At the bottom, did we shed more blood than when my mother gave birth to us, or did my father buy more rice when he raised me? This is not the standard we compare today, is it?

Close combat

Four arguments: Thank you. I heard the other side's point of view just now. They said that raising includes teaching, and listed the fault of raising without teaching your father. But we all know that if raising includes teaching, why is there raising and not teaching? Should the fault of raising without teaching your father be changed to the fault of raising without teaching your father?

Four arguments against it: What does this support mean? This support means life. Please think about it. Will the other party argue that we are born or gifted?

Affirmative argument: If parenting includes life, what's the point of today's debate? Should a labor camp be called a labor camp? Then why is there no continuous improvement of life?

Counterargument: it's simple, that is, you have to raise him when you are born. Doesn't this mean that raising grace is more important than giving birth to grace? I want to ask you, you just said that raising is to have children. My mother gave birth to me more than 20 years ago. According to your point of view, she raised me up to now, but she hasn't given birth to me for more than 20 years. When will mother give birth to us?

Two arguments: Today we are going to talk about jade. Jade needs cutting to make products. If it is not jade, it is stone. Can you stop?

Debate on the other side: Does the other debater know how Cui came out? I didn't give it three times, I cut off my foot. It was the giver, and it was finally carved by the king before it was accepted. Doesn't this mean that the process of carving is more important than the process of raising?

Argument: So we say that giving one's life for righteousness is the best righteousness, and the other debater, can you tell me if giving one's life for righteousness is the best righteousness?

Four arguments against it: What is life? Life is for our bodies, and what is nutrition can give us personality and make us real social people. We know that to be masters of society and nature, we must have experience and ability. Is this experience and ability born or acquired?

The other party said that experience and ability are acquired. Today we only divide people into two parts. The first is the moment of birth, and the others are cultivated. So when I went out today, someone gave me a sap, which made me realize that there are not only good people and bad people in the world. Do you think this man gave birth to me or raised me?

Another argument: I finally understand my opponent's logic. He told me that life is more important, because life comes first. According to this logic, I want to ask my opponent to show me how spring is more important than summer.

Argument: We didn't say it was more important to move forward. We say that life is the foundation and the essence. Why is man the spirit of all things? Then why can't other animals cultivate this spirit because he is a man? This is determined by life.

The three arguments contradict each other: the opponent finally talked to us about the essence. We say that people's essential attribute is social attribute, while students only provide you with natural attribute. Opponents think that social attributes are nurturing and providing. Isn't that important enough?

Three arguments: life gives you a brain and a spiritual foundation for being a man. Who has the sociality of so many small pets?

Objection: The other debater didn't answer our question. Excuse me, can you raise or live to better promote your socialization and the completion of social essential attributes?

Argument 2: Have you answered? If he is unclear, how can he become like that through the argument of the other side? The other debater asked us how he could be shaped like that. I want to tell each other that today, I want to say an original question. All other nutrients are derived and should serve life. Is origin more important or derivation more important? Thank you.

Four arguments against it: the other party told me that clean people are self-cleaning, while turbid people are self-cleaning. Are you telling us that we are a world where dragons, dragons, phoenixes, chickens and mice are born with holes?

Another classmate just told us the importance of raising him. He said how old he was when he was born, and now he weighs 100 kilograms. We can watch a child grow sturdily, but how to cultivate this pen? Can it turn into a golden beam? Are you talking about the golden hoop?

Objection: Why can people have such a strong ability to make tools? Isn't it formed in the process of evolution for millions of years? It was not born in millions of years of evolution, but was raised.

A positive statement: yes, this is what life gives him. Why are people raised by wolves smarter than wolves, because they are human?

Four arguments against it: please tell me an example of using a pen just now. Who are the parents of this pen?

Argument: We tell this example to say that everything depends on the essence. Just like this microphone, we have to maintain it, and I have to maintain it, but my voice can pronounce, but the microphone can't.

The opponent argues: since life is so important, why is there such a clause in the law that deprives people of their right to exist?

Argument: So this is the greatest punishment for people, so we say that life is more important than parenting.

Counterargument: Counterargument is nothing more than an essential problem. We know that if there is a piece of wood here today, we will cut it from the wood and make it into a handicraft. Is it important to cut wood or carve wood?

Argument: So we call it root carving, which is carved out of wood.

Opposing point of view: Is the root carving carved by wood or by an artist?

Four arguments: please don't forget a sentence, it is called rotten wood can't be carved.

Counterargument: then why is our artist called turning decay into magic?

Four arguments: to turn decay into magic, there must be magical bloodline and magical origin. If not, no matter how hard you carve a piece of mud, you can't help the wall.

Argument of the other side: The other debater is still talking about such a problem after all. Dragon begets dragon, phoenix begets phoenix, mouse begets hole, so how did the other debater fly out of golden phoenix from the henhouse?

Four arguments: It is the credit of raising, raising and teaching to fly out of golden phoenix in the henhouse. Therefore, we say that it is kind to raise it today, but we are not comparing which one is kind and which one is not, but which one is more important. What is the significance of today's debate?

Objection 4: For such a chicken, if someone can turn it into a phoenix, do you think it is more grateful to turn it into a phoenix or a chicken?

Affirmative statement: then it is decided that it is a turbid chicken, not a phoenix. Why should we teach students in accordance with their aptitude? Some people are good at logical thinking, while others are good at thinking in images. Can the left hemisphere be cultivated into the right hemisphere?

Opposing point of view: We all say that farmers are great and hard. Who knows that every grain on the plate is hard? What is the hard process of farmers watering and fertilizing? It's not that he said it's hard to buy a bag of fertilizer or seeds at the consignment station. Of course, the grace of parenting is more important than the grace of life.

Argument: But if a farmer doesn't love his children and his land, how can he let it produce Chinese food on the plate? (It's time for the square)

Counterargument: The other debater told us that he loved his daughter and his son, and that he would soon give birth to Chinese food.

On the other hand, the opponent thinks that being born without raising is equal to not being born, although we can raise it even if it is not our own, which means that our life grace can truly reflect its value only in the process of raising it.

Argument against four arguments: The argument against four only tells us in his last speech that we can't repay the kindness of our birth. He just told us that in fact, we give back to our parents and honor them, just in return for the kindness of raising them. Are we just repaying them for raising them? According to your logic, do you want to tell us that you don't have to honor your parents if you only have children but don't raise them? (It's time for the opposition)

Set the tone with a beat of the gong-say the last sentence

Lei Yu: It seems that life can't just be equated with childbirth. Education and teaching are related, as everyone knows. But is there a difference between raising without teaching and teaching? If so, what's the difference? On the basis of explaining this concept, please tell everyone that the social attribute of human beings is a process of continuous accumulation and a long process of reaching today's civilization through the evolution of countless generations. Which is more important in this long accumulation process?

Jiang Changjian: If our self-cultivation cultivates the value of pursuing self-interest, it will vilify the overall value of human beings. Do you think this improved self-worth is beneficial to the survival of all mankind? Thank you.

Four arguments against it: Thank you for your questions. In response to the first question, I talked about raising but not teaching. In fact, I just heard this word in the confrontation. This is what it says. For example, what does it mean to raise without teaching this? This is not the ascension we define today. You can refer to the reference book to add notes, and you don't have to teach this to add notes. In fact, this support refers to the meaning of life. It wants to express my fertility. It's my dad's fault for not teaching, so I pointed out from the beginning that the other debater was stealing concepts today. He said we were stealing concepts. In fact, they didn't use reference books to let everyone know such a final result. When it comes to the specific problem of developing a social development, we should know that it is indeed a very long process for our human development, but during this period, the inheritance of our genes is very important, but we should know that what we are born with is only a basic thing, that is, before we have talent, we have demonstrated that the basic thing is not the most important thing, so we have been saying that there is a very good saying, that is, the French educator lengrand said. Without ability, there is no ambition, and the energy of any nation cannot be mobilized and organized. So this problem can be solved just now, and the second problem is left to us for the second debate.

Counterparty: One more thing: Mr. Lei Yu just asked me a question. He said that society belongs to this process of precipitation, but let's think about how the first generation precipitated some social attributes and passed them on to the second generation. Isn't it inherited from his genes? I'm afraid to have a baby and teach him from an early age that you should use tools, chopsticks and bowls. The premise of such a precipitation attribute is to teach him to achieve a learning goal by promoting for the second. Q: Is it possible that the family support and social support proposed by Mr. Jiang Changjian will be in a bad situation? We say that there may be some parents in the world who are not so full of expectations for their children, but are there any parents in the world who don't want their children to be good? Is it necessary to grasp the essence and mainstream of the problem? Then why is the environment so important, because we realize that it is just. It provides a possibility, and the day after tomorrow can cultivate us into countless possibilities and infinite possibilities for development. In this sense, we say that if the children raised by your bad family and bad environment are not so good, it actually shows from the opposite side that today's topic is that parenting is more important than life. I wonder if my answer can satisfy the two guests. Thank you.

Four arguments against it: Today, when we say that the kindness of foster care is more important than the kindness of life, we don't want everyone to think about whether the biological parents are closer or the adoptive parents are closer. Today, we want you to make it clear that we must invest more resources in the process of cultivation, otherwise, many of our grand plans, such as social development goals, will not be realized. I stand here to speak, not only for my parents, but also for the whole society, because of us. Only when society assumes the social responsibility of raising us can we realize our values. This is what our debate today wants us to really think about (time is up).

Jiang Changjian: I'm very touched. Zheng Fang expressed their love for life. We know that we know a little about the history of natural development.

Then I think every species cherishes its own life, but with the development of nature, we find that some species have been eliminated or even disappeared, and some species have indeed survived. How to cause a very important theory called survival of the fittest, how to adapt to environmental changes and how to realize the sustainable development of species? We can develop a very important thing that determines the sustainable development of species, that is, in the process of coping with environmental changes. What you learned, or what the other person likes to say, is how to raise this species with appropriate food to cope with environmental changes? I think it needs a learning process, so in this sense, can you prove that keeping is more important than living? Thank you.

Lei Yu: There is such a problem. I heard a strange saying that life is the purpose and cultivation is the means, so life is more important than cultivation. As we all know, ends and means belong to different categories. How do you compare them and come to your conclusion? On the basis of this topic, let's think again. Life does provide countless possibilities for human development, but practice has turned this possibility into countless realistic means and methods. Why is the first half more important than the second half? Thank you, two questioners.

Four arguments: First, answer the guest's first question. He asked that there is a most natural principle of natural development, that is, the survival of the fittest has a learning process, or the process of raising is good. We don't study whether learning is included, but we know that the fittest survive. How can we pass on the accumulated experience to the next generation? By living, we can't make every child re-adapt to this environment after birth, that is, live by this gene. The result of adaptation is passed on to the child, so life also determines his sociality. For the second point, we say that life is the purpose and cultivation is the means, because life is the birth of life, which is the most fundamental purpose of our inheritance of human civilization. Then practice is to serve this means. These two things may not seem to be a category, but they are the relationship between ends and means for the overall value of life. So we said that the grace of life is more important than the grace of cultivation, and the other party said on the 3 rd that cultivation continued. We recognize life, but does this mean that raising only serves life? What we pursue is a complete life. The other number two also said that it was useless without health care, but where did it come from without health care? Life is the premise and foundation of everything. For raising, it determines whether the object of life is this, the end, quality, quantity, leap and accumulation. Which grace is more important? The first classmate of the other side said that life only makes natural people. For a more important social attribute, it is to cultivate and educate talents. We don't say whether parenting includes teaching or whether the formation of society has a useful role. Just to see if this investment can have a return, depends on life, because first of all, we must ensure that it is a person. The third classmate said that life is a natural behavior, which denied its social attribute. However, regardless of spiritual life, we can be sure that human personality value can be realized. The sublimation of human value is only that the blood brought by natural life is thicker than water. What can be replaced? The water in Hu Aishan must have its source, and the towering trees must have their roots. When we see countless vagrants who wear dresses but are pregnant with a China heart, and when we see countless overseas Chinese who are over 80 years old returning to China to seek their roots, we know the meaning of being born in people's hearts. Today, other students talk about life and parenting only personally, but we say that we should build it. This is a new outlook on life. Today we see that there are already billions of people in society, so we often ignore the importance of life. We see that raising these billions of people will bring us great pressure, so some people will ignore their own lives and even deprive others of their lives in order to meet their own conditions. However, princes will prefer to live a kind life, which is a god-given right. The dignity of life will not be different because of the changes of the day after tomorrow, so it is the responsibility of each of us to be kind to life. The responsibility of human beings is only to create infinite value with limited life, which is the greatest reward for the grace of life (time is up) and the best explanation for life.