"He was so cool and so unique, but he was so despicable and shameless! Unforgivable!" As Feng Jianxiong finished his speech, Qiao Zhiya, the most brainless debater of the Jinling team, was angry in her heart. It's a pity that she had no chance to speak as a debater.

"What a uncomfortable way to play! How could this guy say that the details are so righteous, as if every detail is so harmful? But I can't find an attack point to refute it. It's so frustrating!" The number one main force Meng Dana felt depressed and wanted to find a sandbag to vent it with great pleasure, but he had no place to use it.

Subsequently, the cross-debating and defensive confrontation between the three debaters of the two sides, Lorida and Tian Haimo, was completed under the similar tactical atmosphere.

Although Tian Haimo's eloquence is weaker than Feng Jianxiong, he was unable to continue to widen the score difference in this link. However, Jinling University was feeling unsatisfied and did not reduce at all.

After 7 or 8 minutes of pain, the game finally entered the free debate stage. According to the rules, after entering the free debate stage, there is no need to answer the other party’s difficult questions one-on-one.

Many times, those teams that are not broad enough and dare to confront each other head-on will like to use the tactic of "you hit yours, I hit mine" after entering the free debate. When they encounter the other party's questions, they can't answer them, and immediately change the topic.

After holding it in for a long time, the first debater Qiao Zhiya and the fourth debater Tian Naxi, who were best at singing high-profile debaters, seemed to be still thinking, could not wait to speak up with the name of Dayi to support the scene first, so as not to be discontinued.

It’s not their impulsiveness. Feng Jianxiong’s playing style really ruined their arguments of “the benefits of smartphones” prepared before the game. If they didn’t say these, they would have nothing to say and would not be able to hold on to the time of the game.

Why do you have to fight at the enemy's home court? Of course, you have to bring the stadium back.

This is the simple idea of ​​these girls from Jinling University.

"Today, the opponent's debaters have always talked about the technical details of smartphones in a vague way. What is the high demand for batteries that may force manufacturers to take risks in designing, leaving safety hazards. What is the risk of security and privacy leakage because it is smarter - see what are the minor problems that are not good at?

What we are going to talk about today is that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages! Instead of having no disadvantages at all! The opponent's debater kept talking about risks. Can you give some examples to prove that there was a person killed or fire due to the explosion of a smartphone battery? Or how much damage was caused by a safety leakage?"

"Compared with so many functions, uses and convenience that smartphones can achieve. Compared with these benefits that make the whole society more efficient, the minor disadvantages mentioned by the opponent's debater are simply insignificant! So, can the opponent's debater be more generous, talk about the overall situation, talk about the macro, don't bark at the sun, look at the sky in a well!"

The two girls sang and reconciled, mixed with Yu Meiqin from the division brigade, giving Feng Jianxiong a time difference to relieve his breath. Within two minutes, the lay people who did not know the truth were almost shaken by the "macro atmosphere" of Jinling University.

Of course, professional judges are not listed here.

Among all the five judges, at least four clearly realized the strictness and excellence of Feng Jianxiong's playing style.

"The key to Feng's playing style is that the four words "comparative advantage" are really wonderful and difficult to refute. I guess he will fight back sharply soon." The poet Yu Qiuyu and other judges thought so.

Sure enough, after winning some time through Yu Meiqin, Feng Jianxiong, who had clarified the opponent's attack point, opened fire again:

"I have to warn the opponent: Everything that does not focus on comparative advantages and talks about the benefits of something is a hooligan. Therefore, the opponent's opponent's repeated and emotional expressions just now seems meaningless to me.

A greedy criminal may have done practical things for the people at work, although his motivation may be just a great success.

A criminal may also be particularly righteous to his friends. He is a guy with a sense of "brothers are like brothers and feet, and women are like clothes" in life, so he does such a rash beastly behavior.

A robber or thief may be a filial son at the same time, but he has to support his parents, wife and children before committing the crime.

But, all of this means that these people are not bad people? Are they not "doing more harm than good" to society? Obviously not!

Then why can we make such a judgment?

It is precisely because of the small favors and benefits these prisoners have made, perhaps in terms of quantity, but in terms of quality, we have to admit that these contributions can also be achieved by most other people in society, so these meager advantages are not unique to them.

However, the social harm they bring is something that only a very small number of people will do. Therefore, these talents are judged to be more harmful than good and must be severely punished.

Today, the opponent's debater kept holding the outline prepared before the game, hoping to draw a big pie for us, draw a beautiful prospect and a broad blueprint.

But we have repeatedly emphasized that although smartphones can do so many things and provide so many conveniences, if you ask yourself that these things are "only" smartphones can do, but this one has no branches? If traditional mobile phones and computers can do most of them, then these overlapping parts should not be considered as the "benefit" of smartphones to society.

Of course, we are all reasonable and put our hearts in mind. If there are one or a few points in the "smartphone harm" we just mentioned, the opponent's debater can say, "This is not only the harm of smartphones, but also traditional mobile phones, or personal computers, then we will accept it humbly" - but, is that? So far, I haven't seen any of the opponent's debates give this situation. I have always looked forward to you to find out so that the truth can become clearer and clearer the more you argue."

He slapped hard in the face, knocking all the tactics of high-profile and mixed singing back to their original shapes, as if they were naked.

The four team members of Jinling University were suddenly in a short while.

This debate topic suddenly changed from a parallel-style shooting and placing cannons and singing in a high-profile manner to a close-fitting and scalpel-like precise blow.

This is exactly the weakness of the Jinling University team in the past fifteen years. Those who have seen the style of Jinling University know that this team likes to shoot platoons in layers, pretend to be grand, and stand on the commanding heights of Hongguan to look down at the enemy.

But Feng Jianxiong's tactics used a precise and terrifying trick to bring the battle back to the detailed account of "comparative advantage" -

Do you want to sing a high-profile and talk about the general trend? That's all! I have admitted the benefits of smartphones you mentioned! But these arguments have no direct causal relationship with the judgment that the harm is greater than the benefits or the harm is greater than the disadvantages!

I only bite to death: that is, these benefits are not unique to smartphones, but the disadvantages that I have carefully considered and prepared just now can be guaranteed to be exclusive to smartphones.

As a law student, I have always had a kind of literacy.

That is, when looking at the problem, we must rigorously deduce the four syllogism "first, there is subjective motivation for xxx. Secondly, we objectively implement xxx's behavior. Third, we have caused xxx's harmful facts. Finally, there is a direct causal relationship between xxx's behavior and xxx's harmful facts."

To kill your opponent, you never need to make a breakthrough evenly at all four points.

Just identify the key points from one point, hit it quickly, and kill it completely, and never turn over.

It's like a lancet that hits the gate of the life gate. The blood is not seen and the enemy is dead.

This makes Jinling University very uncomfortable.

Of course, if someone can look down on all living beings from the perspective of God, he can also see that there is still potential for the outcome of this game.

Because smartphones do have many unique benefits that cannot be achieved in terms of "profits".

Even those who know the knowledge can mention the benefits of "because smartphones use smart terminals with personal identity to do operations originally done by PCs, smartphones can help humans develop content push-based artificial intelligence technology based on personal preferences, which is of great significance to human technological progress."

If this point can be proposed, it is definitely considered "the benefits of the only smartphone at this stage cannot be replaced by any other hardware model."

With the same example, at least a dozen can be said. If you take it all for the sake of the matter, you can completely turn the game back.

Unfortunately, the problem is that the four members of Jinling Normal University are all liberal arts students.

Their mastery of cutting-edge technology is so pitiful.

Before the competition, these people made up their minds to sing high-profile photos, and they had never thought about the details of the path of technological development.

They could only whine in vain when they asked them to talk about the hard science fiction debate "Why can some artificial intelligence develop rapidly only by relying on intelligent mobile phones?"

Therefore, the offensive battlefield of "the unique benefits of smartphones" was almost completely abandoned by the Jinling University team.

The rest can only resist the points raised by the division brigade in the defensive battlefield of "the unique disadvantages of smartphones", trying to find out that "these disadvantages are not unique enough."

The four members of Jinling University are all looking forward to the number one main force, Meng Dana, who is known as the most urgent, intelligent and adaptable to the school, has made some shocking rebuttals.

Unfortunately, he couldn't do it either.

The opponent's layout is too much for leaks.

"The technical security risks brought by the battery technology bottleneck? It seems that traditional mobile phones and PC computers do not have this problem..."

"It is impossible to assemble and upgrade in a modular way, resulting in the fact that once it is outdated, it is necessary to replace the phone every year, and it is wasted quickly. It seems that this problem does not exist between PC and traditional phones..."

Points after point are abandoned after a brief resistance, and no point can be crossed to three rounds.

On the scoreboard of the judges, they used their pens to fly, recording the score points of the division team and the loss points of the Jinling University team.
Chapter completed!