Higher education in debating competition should combine leniency with severity.

Combining leniency with severity in universities is more advantageous than combining leniency with severity.

University leniency is more favorable than leniency (2002 National Debate Competition for College Students)

[Debate with each other]

An affirmative debate: Thank you, Madam President, and hello! In our opinion, it is more advantageous to combine leniency with severity in universities than to combine leniency with severity. Let's look at the width first, that is, relax the admission standards in quality and expand the number of students enrolled in quantity. It is the only way for the popularization of higher education and the institutional guarantee for the practical implementation of quality education. As far as popularization is concerned, modern universities are no longer elite universities, but popular universities. Strict progress makes higher education a feast for a few people. Leniency is the right of most people. Strict promotion makes the function of universities limited to screening; However, leniency has turned it into cultivation. Then the popularization of modern universities is a broad philosophy, and it is also the modern significance of universities as universities. As far as quality education is concerned, examination is not an end, but a means, while strictness makes basic education a slave to the college entrance examination, which strangles quality education and hinders the free growth of talents. However, leniency can make the college entrance examination a wooden bridge, make the moat a thoroughfare, and truly liberate basic education. Let quality education become a fertile ground for cultivating talents. Secondly, let's look at strictness. The so-called strictness refers to the strict requirements of colleges and universities on students in the process of cultivating talents to the society. Including a strict curriculum system, a strict credit system and a strict professional examination. In today's situation, strictness is an inevitable requirement for universities to undertake social responsibilities. Universities are not printing presses for diplomas, but nursing talents. In this case, only by adopting strict discipline instead of loose discipline can we truly cherish and care for talents and truly make universities the driving force of social progress. Thirdly, we believe that combining leniency with severity is not only beneficial, but also feasible for two reasons: First, China's economy has developed rapidly in the past 20 years, but the investment in higher education has never exceeded 0.65% of GNP, which is far behind the world average, and there is definitely huge room and potential for expansion; Second, we believe that the so-called problem of insufficient resources is ostensibly a problem of money, but in essence a problem of system and concept. In reality, on the one hand, the university's demand for huge funds is endless, while a large number of private capital's investment in higher education "still hides half of her face from us behind her guitar". Faced with such a situation, the crux lies in the system and concept. As long as we straighten out the relationship in the system and emancipate our minds in concept, the diversified mode of running higher education can achieve a virtuous circle. Finally, we are soberly aware that Rome was not built in a day, and it is impossible to combine leniency with severity, but as long as we closely combine leniency with all aspects of higher education reform, we will certainly be able to embark on a stable, coordinated and healthy development path.

[One-on-one debate]

Two arguments for and three arguments against.

Two arguments: We have three arguments. Since 1970s, the popularization of higher education has become an international trend. Should China conform to this trend or go against it?

Three objections: Of course, it conforms to the trend of popularization, but under the trend of popularization, there are still excellent varieties of higher education running mode, one is strict entry and wide exit, the other is wide entry and strict exit. Today, we are in a more popular mode. Which of these two modes is more conducive to training and educating talents? What is the theme of higher education in China?

Argument: The other side speaks very well. You told me to follow this trend. Please tell me in short words why you should obey.

Three arguments against the side: because this trend is the general trend, my opponent told me, but I don't understand, is popularization lenient and strict? So what is Yan Jinkuan? Is it elitism? You put popularization and elitism in opposition, but Martin Luther told us that "elite education not only exists in the stage of popularization, but also is more brilliant and prosperous." The other side thinks that the two cannot be opposed.

Argument: This just shows that in the era of popularization, combining leniency with severity can still cultivate and educate elites. In contrast, who has a higher gross enrollment rate by combining leniency with severity?

Three opposing arguments: my opponent, what does the gross enrollment rate mean, as long as quantity is not quality? We said that we must pay attention to quality control, and any admission must have a standard. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights tells us that higher education should be open to all equally on the basis of achievements, and the achievements should ensure the quality. This is Yan Jin.

Two arguments: The United Nations Declaration also tells us that the right to education is a basic human right, but now many high school students of school age in China can't go to college, and the score in Hubei Province is 560, so is it fair that they can't even go to college at 550?

Three opposing arguments: Do you mean that it is fair for all high school students to go to college? The United Nations Declaration also tells us that absolute education itself is unfair, and it is only fair if we don't judge the results.

Opposing dichotomy chooses positive dichotomy.

Counterparty view: Thank you, Chairman, and hello! I'd like to invite the other side to discuss today's topic with me. Could you please give an example to explain what kind of universities in China combine leniency with severity?

Argument: Universities that combine leniency with severity are developing. If my opponent must give me an example, don't online universities, open universities, self-taught universities and private universities all combine leniency with severity?

Argument of the opposing side: Private universities recognized by the opposing side are liberal universities, so is the quality of your university the foundation of the university?

Two arguments: the quality of the university is of course the foundation of the university.

Debate against: So, do private universities guarantee good quality, or do universities like Peking University and Renmin University guarantee good quality of students?

Two arguments: I'm afraid another debater has a hierarchical view of universities. Peking University is a university, so isn't a private university a university? Society needs talents at all levels, and the other debater must not think that "wisdom" and "stupidity" can not be surpassed like Confucius.

Opposing point of view: We don't mean to discriminate here. We just compare the two objectively from a realistic point of view. Which private university trains more talents than politics and law?

Argument: This is not necessarily true. There are many levels of talents. The University of Political Science and Law never dares to say that the trained talents are definitely better than those of private universities. I know a professor at China Youth University for Politics who graduated from the self-taught examination and is very popular.

The opponent argues: So today we say that the two modes should coexist, but why does the opponent advocate that people should combine leniency with severity instead of leniency with severity?

Argument: We have never said that we should replace strict entry and strict exit with private enterprises, but we want the whole higher education to be lenient.

Three arguments for and two arguments against.

Three arguments in the affirmative: it is impolite to come and not go, and I also choose the other side to argue. May I ask the opposing debater that you advocate leniency? How can this low demand for talents meet the high standard of talents in contemporary society?

Opposing point of view: First of all, the other side defines leniency as low requirement. We have pointed out in the argument that leniency means that students graduate after passing the proficiency test and the society selects talents. We see that today, our school and other people's schools are strict and lenient. The University of Political Science and Law has trained about 65,438+10,000 political and legal cadres in the past 50 years, which is called the cradle of political and legal cadres.

Three arguments: the other debater thinks that leniency can also meet the standard. Excuse me, another debater, if a chemistry major is not good at chemistry, but good at drawing, can he graduate

Counterparty: If a student doesn't get an A in chemistry, but he passes chemistry, don't you think he can't graduate? He can pass the exam and meet the basic requirements of society. He can also paint. Painting can cultivate sentiment, and even his girlfriend likes it. What's wrong with that?

Three arguments: the other debater told me that a student studying chemistry is not only good at chemistry, but also can draw pictures. Is this a strict requirement or a wide requirement?

Objection: There is little chemistry. Is it strict or low? If we can't even pass the professional grades, then this is breadth. What is the definition of this breadth? As we have said, tolerance is conditional. It is not infinite. Doesn't mean you can go out without passing anything. Our tolerance means that you can graduate by level measurement. What does the other person mean today? Being strict is very demanding. Today, my chemistry score. ...

Three arguments: I also want to ask my opponent to answer a question. We often say that strict teachers make excellent students. Why didn't anyone say that generous teachers make excellent students? (Time is up)

There are three arguments against it and three arguments for it.

Three arguments against it: I want to choose three arguments against it. Are there any specific requirements for candidates? Please tell us if you have.

Three arguments: tolerance certainly has specific requirements for candidates, which is like saying that my criteria for choosing a spouse are very broad, but it does not mean that I am hungry, regardless of gender.

The three arguments contradict each other: your opponent, your request is not to be eliminated through publicity and selection. Please tell us yes or no?

Three arguments: elimination is the strict progress of the other side, and our lenient progress is to select talents from multiple angles and diversification.

Three arguments against it: enter if you want. Then the European and American Committee pointed out that high schools in British higher education have been popularized, and higher education resources are not scarce. Why don't British high school students go to college?

Three arguments: I'm afraid not all senior high school students in Britain want to go to college. Now many people want to go to college, but they can't, but the other debater wants to shut them out. Is this reasonable? There is a saying that "there are nine birds in the sky, but the Hubei guy is underground", and there are still 60% to 70% smart villagers in Hubei who can't go to college. How can you stand your opponent's argument?

Objection 3: British high school students don't all want to go to college, but they think he has no money because of Yan's poor grades. Which do you think is fairer?

Three arguments: in fact, we should not think that the expansion of enrollment in universities will inevitably lead to a decline in quality. The role of our university is to cultivate talents, not to make people who enter the university become talents.

Three objections: you didn't answer my question. Which is fairer, money or grades?

Three arguments: it is unfair to rely on money and grades, because it is really fair to let everyone have the opportunity to receive higher education.

Three opposing arguments; In other words, there is no standard higher education, is there?

Three arguments: not without standards, but lowering standards. (Time is up)

[Attack and debate]

An affirmative debate: Thank you, Madam President, and hello! After several rounds of debates just now, you will find that the contradiction between us lies in quality. In other words, strict entry and lenient exit can guarantee quality, while lenient entry and strict exit may not guarantee quality.

We think we should look at this problem from the definition of everyone first. Another debater talked about leniency, saying that we can be lenient as long as we meet the foreign level test. Then I don't understand: why can't I go to college as long as I meet an ability test? Why can't my quality be guaranteed when I pass this qualification examination and enter the university? Isn't this the contradiction between opposing defense friends? The other debater asked us again: China University of Political Science and Law and China Youth University for Politics are both schools with strict access to education. I don't think the quality of our University of Political Science and Law seems to have declined after three years of enrollment expansion, unlike what the other debater said. As for China Youth Political College, you can take a look. What did Guangming Daily say in April 2006 1No. 19? Chuping, their vice president, told everyone that after the continuous expansion of enrollment, they set up a teaching evaluation department and an expert supervision team, which effectively strengthened monitoring and greatly improved the quality of education, teaching and personnel training. May I ask your opponent, has the quality declined after the expansion of enrollment? After you temper justice with mercy, is your quality a problem? I think another debater will definitely tell you later. Another debater said that when strict, we should implement foreign diversified standards. Then I don't understand: if a college student plays landlords well today, should he also be awarded a bachelor's degree in biology?

The opposing side argues: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and hello everyone! The first thing I want to tell each other is: your tolerance is wide, so introducing tolerance is your logic, and we never agree with it; Secondly, the other party just said that private universities correspond to lenient entry and strict exit, so let's take a look at "who is a hero, who is a hero, and the talent market is compared". Is it so perfect that the other party is lenient and strict? Compared with Yan Jin's leniency, the success rate of scale and quality is much lower, but it should be noted that Yan Jin's leniency embodies the unity of the three principles of talent quality, efficiency and fairness. The logic of the other side is: we say that combining leniency with severity is the trend, and private universities combine leniency with severity, so all our universities should develop into private universities now. Can the university leaders present agree with this view? In addition, we asked if there are any specific standards for leniency, and we should select talents in various ways. The invigilator should pay more attention to you. Is this wide or strict? He also said that to eliminate some of them, it is also necessary to rely on quality. Is your generosity generous compared with the private universities that the other party does not eliminate or select? Your generosity is like the skin of a monkey, sudden and wide, sudden and strict, so it is either different from your argument or equivalent to our strictness. Do you agree with us? When the other side debated just now, the concept was always unclear and the logic was always chaotic. The reason is that they made a mistake about the difference between the means and purpose of today's debate and the premise of the debate. We put forward our views on the opportunity and unity of these three principles, so we think ...

[Free debate]

Argument 4: The other party told us that Yan also increased the number of students enrolled. Is Yan Jin just a slow and small width? Is Yan Jin just a little more lenient? There are only two issues discussed: one is whether to do it or not, and the other is feasibility. I would like to ask my opponent: under the condition of sufficient resources, should every qualified high school graduate receive a university education?

Four arguments against it: of course we are willing to do so, but he also goes to two types of universities, one is strict entry and wide exit, the other is strict entry and strict exit. This point has been explained in our third argument. I want to ask my opponent: I know an American in his fifties who told me that he was a candidate for a master's degree. Do you know why?

Two arguments: please explain.

The other side's argument: The other side didn't answer our question. Let me tell you, that is, master candidates are caused by the model of lenient entry and strict exit in American community colleges. It took more than 20 years to mix up a candidate. What does the other party think of the efficiency of this kind of talent training?

Two statements: My opponent, if he didn't have this alternate master's degree, I might go to Zhongguancun to buy a master's degree in politics from China Youth University. Who is more conducive to my quality?

Objection: Do opponents think that the problem of his buying a fake master's degree is caused by our strict entry and exit today? American community colleges can enter if they want, but the graduation rate is only 1/5, which is typical of lenient entry and strict exit. It is this kind of lenient entry and strict exit that has caused a large number of talents to emerge. Let's ask each other again, what is the efficiency of cultivating talents?

Positive argument: the other debater said that American community colleges can enter if they want, and our private colleges can enter if they want. I don't understand. Why is there a high school diploma in the China Youth University for Political Science? Ask the other debater to explain it to everyone.

Opposing view: The opposing view holds that our night university is an adult higher education, not a private university. Private universities can enter if they want, which is what the enrollment brochure of Beijing Yuanmingyuan College tells us. Do you think the other party has enough resources to enter all of them? I asked you about the example of Britain just now, but you didn't answer me. You evaded our efficiency twice. In fact, efficiency is just three words-old boys. Let me ask you again: Is it reasonable for talents to waste resources?

Three arguments: I never think that going to night college or other universities is a waste of resources. If a person has not received higher education before, which one has made greater contribution to society now? Ask another defense friend to tell me.

Four arguments against it: of course, receiving higher education contributes a lot, but he also receives higher education in two modes. I don't want to repeat it here. Do you know what one of the goals of French higher education reform is?

Four arguments: since there are two modes, it is necessary to explore two modes, which are most conducive to the goal of popularization. Wide as the front door, strict as the back door. If many people take the front door, can we say that the front door is not more favorable than the back door?

Opposing debate: The opposing debater did not answer the questions raised in our fourth debate. What is the primary goal of French higher education? Is to enable all those who receive higher education to graduate. We said that regardless of combining leniency with severity, we all hope that they can graduate. If you can get this diploma, you can be lenient. But what do you say is the goal of France?

Positive argument: the other debater said that he should be graduated. Let the other debater graduate if he doesn't do his job in college, and let him graduate if he doesn't study hard in college. How tolerant are you?

Three arguments of opponents: My opponents, we have repeatedly stated that our standard is Article 58 of the Higher Education Law. If he can't meet the standard, can he graduate? You didn't answer our question. We say not only French, but also China. The Outline for the Development of the 20th Century (265438+) says that the goal of education development in China is to run some first-class universities with strict quality and openness.

Three arguments in front: the other debater only said half, but didn't say the second half. The development goal of China University is to let more people receive higher education. Just now, the other party repeatedly said that our strict progress has led to unreasonable and inefficient education of talents. But now there is such a phenomenon in school. Some people get up at 9 o'clock every morning and go to bed at 3 o'clock every night. They are dubbed "Jiu San Society".

Debate on the opposing side: The opposing side said that I was a "Jiu San Society" and that "Jiu San Society" was the inevitable result of the current model of strict entry and wide exit in colleges and universities? As we said, under the premise of developing higher education in China today, we are discussing which mode is more favorable, not who will replace who.

Argument: Of course, it's not who replaces who. Can you compare who has the advantage? If he is not lenient, is he strict? Guangming Daily 20065438+0 August 1 It was reported that there were two suicides in fuding city and Ningze, Fujian, and the other party had to deal with this human tragedy strictly. How can you stand it?

The three arguments contradict each other: the opponents say that it is all Yan Jinkuan's fault, but it is actually the fault of the curriculum. For example, Professor Jiang Jun came here to give a lecture and the venue was full. Isn't this the teacher style that attracts students? Another debater said that there were suicides in the college entrance examination, so I'll tell you, there is a classmate in a liberal arts university in the United States. His name is Linde, because his value is not recognized. Where did he go? He followed the Taliban ...

Four arguments: Why is this? Does the curriculum affect high school education instead? Of course. Because the course is the result of Yan Jin, if the model of Yan Jin is not changed, then if 33% of the students want to commit suicide, I'm afraid Yan Jin is torturing people and killing humanity, which is exactly the statistical result of the situation table of the opposing Debate Friends College and middle school students.

Four arguments against it: by the way, let your opponent tell everyone loudly. He just said that 33% people will commit suicide because of the college entrance examination. Please discuss specifically where your data comes from.

Argument: According to Beijing Youth Daily 1998, China Youth University for Politics and Beijing Middle School Students' Situation Table conducted a joint survey. The survey results show that 32% of senior high school students tried to commit suicide because of the unbearable academic pressure, of which 10% tried to commit suicide many times. Facing the data of your school survey, do you still want to tell me that this is a special case?

The three refute each other: Is it Yan Jinkuan's fault or is there something wrong at home? Another debater, China Education News, conducted a three-day questionnaire survey on July 13, 20065438, and 88.3% people thought the college entrance examination system was reasonable.

Argument in favor: My opponent, the college entrance examination system is reasonable, but the strictness after the college entrance examination is unreasonable. Everyone is running around under the baton of the college entrance examination. Some people want to commit suicide, but you don't admit it. Let me ask you the simplest question. Do you know when the Ministry of Education first issued the document on reducing the burden?

Argument against the other party: The other party is just saying that today's college entrance examination is unreasonable, so it is concluded that Yan Jin is unreasonable. We say that Yan Jin is a model, and the college entrance examination is the specific operation of the model, but the other party refuses to admit the specific problems of the model operation. The other side attacked the problem. Is a monk's crooked mouth a good scripture or a crooked scripture?

Three arguments: the other debater didn't answer our question. China first proposed to reduce the burden in 1950, and appealed for more than 50 years, but why is it that "the train always roars into the mountains and goes slowly"?

Objection 4: It has been 50 years since the burden was reduced, but your school has been a model of strict entry and lenient exit for 50 years, and is known as the cradle of political and legal cadres in China. Why?

There are two arguments: why not enlarge the cradle and train more political and legal cadres? It is precisely because of 50 years of strict progress that I call for 50 years of burden reduction. My parents went to college with their schoolbags on their backs. When I arrived, I dragged my schoolbag to college. How does the other side argue?

Objection: My opponent, the development of higher education today is our premise. I think your school will continue to expand its enrollment, but is it strict after the expansion? 200 1, the number of graduate students in your university of political science and law increased by 88.8%. Is your graduate student broad or strict?

Positive argument: Of course, the opponent's debater is not strict, but lenient after the enrollment expansion, and the opponent's debater should not make a slip of the tongue. Then, I want to ask another debater a simple question: Do you think the quality of higher education should be grasped in the final result of cultivating talents or in the initial stage of talent selection?

Three arguments against the other party: The other party argued that it was not us who said Yan Jin, but Mr. Xu Xianming, the president of your school. He told us that China University of Political Science and Law was still Yanjin after the enrollment expansion. How is the quality? In terms of talent market, the employment rate of 200 1 undergraduate is 92.08%. Does it reflect the high quality of our Yan Jinkuan?

Three arguments: Yan Jin alone is not enough to meet the current talent demand. As far as I know, Zhongguancun has 20,000 IT talents a year, which is equivalent to the total number of graduates in this major. How can you meet this requirement of my opponent Yan Jin?

Four arguments against you: Did you hear that? My opponent told me that your talent market cannot be solved by strict progress. What does that mean? Does it tell us that relying on strict progress has become a more favorable, most favorable and most important means? Thank you for your argument.

Argument: This is the other party's own understanding of our views, not our views. May I ask the other side's argument, if allowed, can most high school students receive college education?

The other side's argument: the other side's argument is that more people should receive higher education, but just now, some people thought that our expansion of enrollment meant lenient entry and strict exit. So if there is no enrollment expansion in your school tomorrow, will it be changed to strict entry and wide exit? According to each other's logic, have China's modern universities all become universities with lenient entry and strict exit?

Positive argument: the other debater can't blindly expand enrollment, and resources should keep up, but the problem of resources is like pursuing a girl, don't just wait, but strive for it.

Argument against the other side: That's true, because enrollment expansion can't be expanded casually, but the quality of enrollment expansion should be strictly controlled. As pointed out in the document of the Ministry of Education, the level of enrollment expansion and the level of college students must not be lowered. What is this? Isn't this a kind of strictness? We say that Yan Jinkuan is more conducive to the efficiency of personnel training. Strictly speaking, does this Yan graduate 10 or one person? Another debater turned a blind eye to efficiency. Let's take a look at an example: brubeck said that the quality of college students in American community colleges is not as good as that of some German and French high school students. How does the opposing debater explain this?

Four arguments: I finally heard the arguments of other debaters. Their so-called strict progress means that they can enter if they meet the quality standards, and the loose progress is definitely not in line with the quality. So, does the same concept completely fail to meet the graduation criteria?

Counterargument: this is not what we said, but the other side argued that he wanted to relax in quality. What is relaxation? Reducing quality is a way to tell us. The opposing debater, the president of Harvard University, told us that universities can only be judged by quality. What is your quality of combining leniency with severity?

Two statements: because the passion is unbeaten, the other party says that the tolerance here can't meet the requirements, and the tolerance there can meet the requirements. Why can a concept be changed? Is it true that only state officials are allowed to set fires and people are not allowed to light lamps?

Opposing point of view: Just because we are passionate and rational, it shows that the current model of lenient entry and strict exit has its reality and rationality. Wide entry and strict exit correspond to private universities and community universities, while strict entry and strict exit correspond to full-time ordinary universities. Peking University, Tsinghua and Wuhan University are all such models. We only compare the differences between the two models on an objective basis, and our opponents are just saying that these universities are not good.

Three affirmative arguments: the opposing debater always adopts two standards in today's debate. One criterion is to compare famous universities with private universities. Is this fair? Another criterion is that the leniency of the opponent's defense friend cannot strengthen the strictness of the opponent's defense friend. Does this conform to our logical laws?