Kneel down 1995 International University Debate Competition "Is social order maintained by law or morality?" Debate draft, urgent!

I don't think so, but having something similar may be of great help to you.

Protecting social stability mainly depends on law/morality (positive law, demonstration)

Defense statement:

"Hello, judges, chairman and other debaters:

What I want to say is that social stability is mainly maintained by law. My main reasons are as follows:

1. From the characteristics of adapting to the primary stage of socialism today. In the primary stage of socialism, social productive forces are still underdeveloped, and social objects are

Qualitative wealth is not rich enough, and morality, as the superstructure of social economy, is far from ideal. In other words, it is morally impossible.

Independent development has become the main force to maintain the stability of the whole society. Remind the other debater that this may be possible in a capitalist society.

Yes, but that's not what we are going to discuss today.

2. From the class situation and class struggle situation. In our country, although the exploiting classes have been eliminated, class struggle still exists.

All kinds of hostile elements engage in reactionary activities that deliberately destroy and overthrow the socialist system in economic, political, ideological, cultural and social life.

Move it. This is a major factor of social instability. Without strong struggle and sanctions, social stability is out of the question. Moral class

Sex determines that it can do nothing about it. In other words, in class society, the moral concepts and standards of the ruling class have great influence on the ruled class.

Rank does not play any role, and it can only be replaced by legal sanctions of the ruling class!

3. From the perspective of the role and effectiveness of the law. Law is not only a tool to implement the people's democratic dictatorship, but also a sharp weapon to punish hostile elements.

Instruments and laws are an important means to adjust and solve the internal relations and contradictions of the ruling class, making it beneficial to the social relations and cooperatives of the ruling class.

Social order (that is, what we call social stability) can only be truly established and maintained under the coercion of the state.

Social stability. The combination of these two important functions shows that law plays a major role in maintaining social stability.

4. From the comparison of legal and moral binding force. The mandatory and authoritative nature of law is incomparable to moral norms.

The role is mainly maintained by public opinion, personal beliefs, habits, traditions and education. Obviously, this is a soft constraint, which is harmful to the existing offenders.

Crime doesn't work, or the real function of morality is purely prevention, and the law can treat both the symptoms and the root causes. It is two-sided, and it is two-sided.

It has authoritative punishment function and powerful deterrent effect, and plays an effective preventive role. This makes law more important than morality in maintaining social stability.

Some have more important functions.

The emphasis in the debate is on maintaining social stability. Since it is to maintain social stability, it is obvious that the focus of solving problems should be on social problems.

Stable factors, not favorable factors. The original intention of the debate is to deal with a few factors that lead to social instability. Who is better, law or morality?

Effective. Our answer is: law. Because the pertinence, compulsion, seriousness and effectiveness of the law are beyond moral reach.

To sum up, we have every reason to believe that social stability is mainly maintained by law. Thank you. "

Second debate, attack, debate, ask questions

"There was once a man who was highly respected by morality and killed a wicked man who was deeply condemned by morality. He won the hearts of the people and asked the other party to argue with you.

Morality makes the following judgments:

1. Does the murderer have morality?

(Noble)-If you kill someone, your opponent still thinks his morality is noble. What is your morality?

A murderer emphasizes moral contradiction here.

(Not noble)-But why is it so popular? Please explain to your opponent. (that is, the opposing debater and everyone's morality.

It's just not unified, so should I listen to you or everyone? 〕

It is not difficult to see from another debater's answer just now that it is difficult to judge the right and wrong of a thing by moral standards. Can I ask again?

Fang, how to deal with this incident with morality? Please answer clearly!

3. Is moral condemnation enough? If so, people can do similar things, such as killing people and robbing banks.

Just wait for morality to condemn it. In this case, how to maintain social stability?

Many living examples tell people that morality can't really solve problems. The other debater is just guilty of moral powerlessness.

If the responsibility is transferred to the law, is the opponent suspected of being immoral? "

Three debates and questions:

"1. Does the other debater admit that society is composed of the ruling class and the ruled class?

I would like to ask another debater, if social stability is maintained by morality, is it the morality of the ruling class or the morality of the ruled class?

Don't you think your logic is slippery? How can the morality of the ruled class be in the ruling order?

Become a tool to maintain social stability above the level? In this way, the relationship between the two is not the other way around? At the same time, don't contradict your logic any more.

Shield? Obviously, the role of maintaining social stability is not suitable for contradictory morality. Turn 3. ( 1)

(ruling class) turn 3. (2)

(1) From what another debater said just now, I understand that the moral standards and concepts of the ruling class can make the ruled class

Accept recognition, is that right?

The debater's memory is obviously bad. As we have said in our defense, unity and unified morality are fundamentally opposed.

Fire and water are incompatible, how can one party accept the morality of the other? If you can, obviously there is no class, but you can face the reality and be unified.

The ruling class will continue to cause social instability. What role can morality play in this?

(No) Since it is not, can morality still play a role in safeguarding the ruling class or hostile elements from plotting rebellion and causing social chaos?

3.(2) Well, whose social stability do you want to maintain with the morality of the ruling class? Is it the ruling class or the ruled class? Please make it clear

Tell me.

It's a joke that the country is a ruling class country and the society is a ruling class society. They will give up their own interests to defend the enemy.

Yes, class? Turn 3. ( 1)

(Ruling class) So, does the other debater admit that the ruled class will definitely do harm to social stability? (Don't admit to turn 4) (admit) that

Can morality work? How does it work? ..... I want to tell the other debater that morality is obviously powerless in the face of class contradictions.

Yes, how can it play a maintenance role?

4. After our induction, the factors of social instability in China are nothing more than: first, contradictions among the people, that is, contradictions within the ruling class; Second,

Represents the demise of a very small number of hostile elements in the ruling class. Excuse me, another debater, is the morality you mentioned suitable for solving these two contradictions?

In a debate, we have clearly pointed out that law is not only an important means to mediate contradictions among the people, but also an important means to sanction hostile elements.

Sharp weapon, only it can better maintain social stability, but morality is far behind. "

Summary of attack and defense: omitted

Arguments for free debate:

"1. Law is the fundamental guarantee for promoting the construction of socialist democracy and realizing that people are masters of their own affairs; Is to ensure national stability and long-term stability.

The point is!

2. Laws provide reasonable, effective and safe solutions to conflicts of interest and social contradictions that are difficult to solve by administrative and moral means.

Law, so law is the main force to maintain social stability.

3. Law is a powerful guarantee for moral, cultural and educational construction, and moral norms should also be guaranteed by law, which is a branch of moral power.

Pillar, maintaining social stability mainly depends on the law.

4. Law is the unity of the party's ideas and the people's will, the crystallization of collective wisdom, and the important content and symbol of human social civilization.

5.* * * Notice clearly points out that governing the country according to law is an important symbol of social civilization and progress and an important guarantee for the long-term stability of the country. correct

Don't Fang Debate Friends know?

6. The law not only regulates individual behavior, but also has the function of regulating overall social relations (such as class relations). Law is to realize the country.

Functional construction is the most important, frequent and indispensable means of social stability. Compared with morality, law is bound to play a leading role!

7. In the social and historical stage of class struggle, the opposition of moral value system and the needs of the state and law, law can't be dominant.

Status?

The Sixth Plenary Session of the 14th CPC Central Committee pointed out that we should attach great importance to the dependence of moral construction on the rule of law and the decisive role of the rule of law in moral construction.

Use!

9. Law is an irreplaceable educational method, which enables criminals to plead guilty and obey the law.

Save, turn over a new leaf, pull back from the brink, abandon the old and welcome the new.

10. The law has the characteristics of clarity, certainty and universality, so that members of the whole society can clearly know through the law that the state advocates and protects.

What to do, what to oppose and what to prohibit, in order to maintain the stability and prosperity of the whole society.

1 1. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the value and function of socialist rule of law have been neglected or even denied for a period of time, so that it is impossible to prevent and control it.

Stop the "cultural revolution", such vivid historical experience and lessons, other debaters still failed to learn from horses? This makes me deeply sorry!

12. Driven by the interests and desires of the market economy, people's moral concepts and moral behaviors are easily out of touch, which is what we often say.

"The giant of language, the dwarf of action". Isn't it ridiculous that the other debater should have a soft spot for morality?

13. Marx has a passage in Das Kapital: "If there is 20% profit, capitalists will take risks; Profit 100%,

Willing to risk going to jail; 200% profit is willing to take the risk of decapitation. "China also has a saying called' avarice', among which

This situation is no exception in today's market-oriented interest distribution, which is brought about by the alienation of commodity society, not by ideological and moral education.

What a change!

14. A survey shows that people's moral consciousness level has improved significantly today, but there are phenomena of high consciousness, low action, high expectation and low participation.

Besides, this is enough to show that the idealized thing of morality is too unrealistic.

15. Morality is "righteousness without benefit", which is a very high standard for "saints" and lacks the guidelines that most people in society follow.

In the pre-market economy environment, this pure moral standard is often avoided by most people because of the lack of concern for rights, so it is impossible.

Can become the main force to maintain social stability.

16. Here, I advise the other debater to learn the spirit of civil law, give consideration to justice and interests, and get out of the traditional moralism (nao).

17. Here, I want to remind my opponent that the scope of legal services is the most important and core part of social order. 2. Law

Law has the coercive power of the state and is conducive to restraining people's behavior. 3. The role of morality is limited to educating people, while the law has punishment.

Three characteristics of protection and prevention.

18. We don't deny that morality is the foundation of law, but for a high-quality building, will people choose the foundation or the beautiful buildings on it?

Layer, tangible and intangible significance is obvious!

If this question makes the other debater more confused and fall into a dead end, then I want to make another analogy. Did the cat draw it for the mouse?

Is it more threatening like a cat that comes or really catches mice? Similarly, intangible and subjective morality and real law.

Which is more repressive to social unrest? I think the other debater and everyone here can see this contrast clearly, right?

On June 65438+1October 1 1 this year, a major case of citizens looting 500,000 cash occurred in Taizhou. After the incident, the public security department tried to make the looters suffer.

Fred regretted it at once, and no one paid back the stolen money. As a last resort, the public security department can only use legal means to force detection and punishment before recovering it.

365,438+0.73 million yuan in cash. Another debater also saw that in the face of such social problems, morality has no effect at all, let alone maintaining social order.

Obviously, the law can solve this contradiction well.

There is such an example: Mo Zhuanglong, the main person in charge of the flooding accident in Nandan mine, was sentenced to prison on suspicion of corruption. Mo's father always trusted him before.

Son, and tell his son not to take bribes. However, who can save corrupt officials when family, conscience and morality are still unreliable? In addition to the ruthless system

Degree, in addition to severe punishment, no one can stop corrupt officials from moving on.

(When the defense friend of the other side said that the law is just "better late than never")

The other debater will definitely deny the preventive function of the law, and I can only go with you and take 10 thousand steps back. The law can at least make up for it.

Prison ",and morality can't even make up for it!

2. How many corrupt officials are severely punished by law for taking bribes? Why do they take bribes? It is driven by interests and the expansion of selfish desires.

Ah. Therefore, morality does not play a preventive role at all, and it still does not work after the incident. At this time, Fa stepped forward and fell down.

Demon. Do you think morality or law?

Many facts can show that morality is very fragile in the face of interests. Without the severe punishment and deterrence of law, morality can only exist in name only.

In position.

Anyone who plays with fire in front of the law will get burned, will be severely punished by the law, and will eventually die.

It is precisely because of moral weakness that many people have no fear and eventually go to the abyss of evil.

6. Morality is the basis of making laws, but why should morality be legalized? This is precisely because law is more important than morality!

7. When judging good and evil, morality has individual differences, variability and fuzziness, which often leads to a dilemma, not to mention.

On dealing with problems with morality. "

Closing remarks:

"Dear judges, chairman and other debaters, hello everyone!

After several heated arguments, I wonder what you have gained here. Maybe everyone, including the audience in front of the TV, has had it.

You must be very touched. I don't deny that today's opponent left a deep impression on me, that is, although our friend passed a great

Efforts, based on sufficient theoretical and factual basis, from the current situation of social development and the national conditions of China, to analyze class society and class contradictions.

Foundation, take the profound analysis of debate as life and debate as confrontation.

Accurately understanding the original intention of the topic is fundamental, taking the comprehensive comparison between law and morality as the fact, taking the scope of argument as the battlefield, and taking

The opponent's short board is the breakthrough. We have been tireless, patient and meticulous. We put ourselves in the other's shoes and are friendly and kind. We used to

Several times, the opposing debater was pulled back from the distant ideal to the reality of the debate. We have repeatedly asked each other to be vigilant. We use analogy and examples.

For example, when we ask questions, we try to be persuasive, but the other debater doesn't appreciate it, which really makes me admire. It's so ungrateful.

Normal, because the views of both sides are fundamentally opposite, how can they be imposed on each other? Just like the morality of the ruling class and the ruled class.

Reading is fundamentally opposed and cannot be imposed. If it can be imposed on the other side, then today's debate will automatically produce results, not at all.

Has something to do with the old judge's driving?

The opponent's debater may have been expecting to stand tall and see far, but today's game is like a seesaw, which will always follow.

Law, the other debater stood in the wrong place, you know, although standing.

Look far, but standing at one end of the seesaw, the higher you rise, it just reflects its lighter weight. In this debate, another debater is

Unfortunately, a misunderstood view is guided by a correct theory. The other debater is brilliant in literary talent, and the Lord

The time is clear, the context is clear, and their debate just now dedicated a rare "propositional composition", but, unexpectedly, in the end.

This is just a digression, and I am deeply sorry again! So, can you forgive the mistakes made by the opposing debater? Morally, maybe not.

Accuse, because they didn't mean it, and the other debater has made too much effort for it, but in the legal competition.

Generally speaking, they can't shirk their responsibilities. They must take responsibility for it. Rational and ruthless laws, you really make them angry and dare not speak,

Reason and inner morality, but you are so helpless.

Thank you. "