People who study the Fa and those who study the media can see a big difference in their thinking patterns and brain perspectives even if they have only been in college for a month.

People who study the Fa are meticulous, carefully scrutinized, and will not speak randomly.

People who study media are concerned about broad-mindedness. They cited a lot of things. Even if they found a loophole, they immediately pulled the topic away and found a new offensive point. Finally, they tried to make breakthroughs from angles that others had never heard of.

To make an inappropriate analogy, it is "You talk about reason with me, I talk about law with you. If you talk about law with me, I talk about hooligans. When you talk about hooligans with me, I will talk about reason with you."

It will also make people dizzy when circling.

Compared with the opening statements of the Xinchuan Academy, Snicker's perspectives are obviously much less, and it lacks the rigor of refuting every point mentioned by Liu Jinhui-

There is no way, after all, her opening statements were prepared before the game, and it was very difficult to change on the spot. Many angles that were not expected before the game could only say a few words temporarily.

"Our view is that the free strategy is not only unfavorable to the prosperity of Internet content, but also the dissemination of content.

Let’s first look at the point of ‘prosperity’ - first of all, our definition of ‘prosperity’ must include cultural diversity, we cannot just look at the output value indicators of a content industry, and we cannot only take the theory of money.

Under this premise, the reason why we think that free strategies are harmful is that they will first hurt the creative enthusiasm of a considerable number of creators, making many creators with no economic source give up on content creation. This is obvious.

Even if, as the opponent's debater said, "the operating platform can pay for content and provide free access to consumers to gain traffic," because this model cares about the click rate of consumers, and during the operation process, it is definitely 100% based on clicks, which is destined to be unable to apply to most narrow and niche content that is narrow and heavy, and can only be used for popular and cool content that is "large in quantity and full".

At the same time, because the "small but strong demand" and "popular but weak demand" cannot be distinguished, the content platform will only have data theory when purchasing content, which will lead to various data fraud, including SEO, and even targeted data brushing. In summary, we believe that the free strategy is definitely not conducive to the overall prosperity of Internet content.

Let’s look at the communication field. Whether the free strategy of the Internet is conducive to the dissemination of content, we cannot only look at the breadth and quantity of the communication, but also take into account the ‘quality’ of the communication. This quality can also include multiple indicators, such as whether the time and energy required for users to find their own content is less than in another mode? Is there less time for users to be disturbed by spam content and cause unhappiness? We will discuss this in detail later..."

Snicker spent three minutes perfectly setting off the main attack point of the Law School.

Regarding the fragments mentioned by Xinchuan Academy, at least I have done all the questions and answers on the spot, although the theory may not be solid.

Unfortunately, because she has been poor since childhood, she has never been to KTV in Dalian once, and has never talked about the recorded microphone, so she has not had a good voice control when speaking.

There are several improper breath controls that are not easy to detect in normal times. They sound a little trembling after being dubbed by the microphone, giving people a pitiful feeling.

Several times, I made a sharp whistle because the microphone was facing wrong.

But no matter what, in the eyes of the melon-eating crowd, these are not a great mistake. The two girls' soft and cute spitting together is enough to make the adrenaline of more than one-third of the boys in the audience soar, and they shouted that today's game is really worth watching.

"It's considered a good match, and the New School of Transmission is a bit more defensive. After all, the aura connection is very stable, and the body and tone are good, but the reasoning part is almost the same. The girl from the Law School is so typhoon, and she is petty." Teacher Liang, who was the leader of the competition, was judged in his heart. His views also somewhat represent the attitude of the group of judges of the school team.

Snicker also roughly figured out the psychology of the host and the jury, and almost cried when she sat down.

Feng Jianxiong comforted him just right: "Don't worry, isn't it just that you haven't used the recording and broadcast equipment? It's not that you are not capable. If you don't dislike it, please ask you to sing two KTVs next time to practice, and you will be familiar with it."

"Well..." Sniker wiped his eyes, his face turned slightly red, and he smiled shyly, his voice very light and thin.

In his heart, Feng Jianxiong was even more despised by the Xinchuan Academy team's painstaking arrangements for the school broadcast.

What is the ability to win some small advantages with these off-field technical means?

He was disdainful and could not help but be distracted for a few seconds. He didn't hear the host's teacher, Mr. Liang, had already announced that he had entered the cross-question session.

It was only after the second debater of the Xinchi Academy that he woke him up.

"Class of the Second Opposition, you just emphasized in your opening statement that "not giving creators money will hurt creative enthusiasm." So do you think 'money reward' is a normal state in the history of human creation?"

This question is obviously aimed at the debate between the two sides on the previous debate on whether the royalties should exist forever or only exist at a certain stage in human history.

By clarifying this issue, it can greatly prove whether the stimulating effect of money on cultural diversity is the same as the world. It is very important.

After listening to it, all the reviewers could basically determine that this problem was 100% prepared before the opening and there was no adaptable element.

What is tested is the degree of broad knowledge of the opposition. The difficulty mainly lies in whether you know the relevant historical materials for factual judgments. If you can tell the historical materials and interpret them in your own way, you will not be afraid in theory.

"The knowledge points are very rare. People who study law should not be so detailed about human cultural history knowledge reserves." The host Mr. Liang thought so, and was not optimistic about Feng Jianxiong.

Sniker and Chen Sicong were also a little confused because they did not have such sufficient argument materials in their preparations before the game.

In fact, it is unlikely that someone will cover all the historical background knowledge that the other party may have when preparing for a debate.

Because humans can only guess what theoretical system the other party may use to argue, but they cannot guess what specific examples the other party will give.

Therefore, the audience's reaction to this question was even more confused, and they couldn't understand what the questioner wanted to ask.

"I don't know what the official is asking, but I feel so amazing." Some of the girls whispered.

Feng Jianxiong was very stable. After the other party finished talking about the problem, he thought for five seconds, and asked the people who were whispering and reacting for five seconds before speaking.

"If you guess correctly, the opponent's debater hopes to hear me answer that 'Intellectual property should be protected is both ancient and modern times, both in China and abroad'. But unfortunately, I would not answer this - I admit that intellectual property is not, nor should it be a concept that runs through human history. Similarly, giving content creators a royalty, royalty or other form of remuneration is not and should not be an eternal rule.

But this cannot be naturally confused with the first part of today's debate. Even if there is no such form of royalties, the business model of 'charging consumers' can still positively promote the prosperity of content."

Feng Jianxiong's answer was very detailed and accurate, and he could not be said to be free from water.

The second debater in the prosecution side was slightly suffocated, not knowing how to deal with it, or not knowing how to ask the next question.

"I... Damn! Why don't you play according to the routine? Aren't you studying law? Shouldn't you stick to the sacred intellectual property protection view from the perspective of law students' thinking?"

This is the inner activity of the second debater at the moment.

This boy was originally the weakest link among the four members of the Xinchuan Academy - generally speaking, the weakest link of the positive debate team will be placed in the first debate or the second debate.

The reason is very simple, that is, the first and second debaters of the positive side can easily prepare routines in advance, and the adaptability required is relatively low. The positive side's opening statements can be written 100% before the game, and the three questions asked first can also be arranged in advance.

The first debater at the Xinchuan Academy was a girl with the best quality in the team's manner, image, voice and body language, so she put the weakest in the second debater.

Originally, according to his teammates' analysis, he just needed to set up a trap and ask three consecutive questions, and he chose the most difficult questions in the law school because of the breadth of thinking.

He was also ready to immediately ask "How do you explain these XXX counterexamples..."

Unexpectedly, Feng Jianxiong chose to admit directly from the perspective they felt that it was the most impossible to admit - of course, it was an admission that was explained and explained in a second way.

This is very uncomfortable.

The second question you prepared is not useful at all.

"What should I do? Or let him explain why he admits it? It seems that he can only gamble like this. He should just cheat us, but in fact he can't do it 'know both the truth and the reason', right?"

Well, after a few seconds, the second debater of the Prosecution made this decision hastily.

"Since the opponent's debater believes that 'intellectual property and copyright remuneration' is just a product of a certain stage of human society, then, what stages do you think they should exist in specifically in human history?"

As soon as this question was asked, the Protestant Liu Jinhui and the Fourth Debate Lu Feng both shook their heads secretly, thinking that the weakest link of our team really lacked the ability to adapt to changes.

This kind of questioning is purely about examining the other party's knowledge and thinking ability. At most, if the other party is inconsistent with the other party's preface and cannot justify himself, he will make the other party ugly.

But the problem is that even if Feng Jianxiong's detailed explanation of the second answer cannot match the conclusion of the first answer, this question cannot cause any attack on the core arguments of the law school.

This kind of play is a waste of valuable cross-question opportunities - in a debate match, each side only has two cross-questions, a total of 6 questions.

However, compared with the tension of professionals, the status of the melon-eating crowd is still unclear.

They didn't see so far, nor did they care about the proof relationship between the question and answer and the core argument. They only knew that this question seemed to be easy to ask, but the answer was very complicated, and it would be easy to get rid of it if they were not careful.
Chapter completed!