Hello, seeing that you are very experienced in debating, I would like to ask for your advice. The topic of the debate is whether rational law enforcement or emotional law enforcement can better promot

Hello, seeing that you are very experienced in debating, I would like to ask for your advice. The topic of the debate is whether rational law enforcement or emotional law enforcement can better promote the effectiveness of law enforcement.

I am not very good at debating, so I will just say a few words based on my understanding.

Personally, I feel that the most important thing in debating is to take the lead, that is: let the other party always follow you.

Secondly, don’t get entangled in minutiae. When the front is difficult to attack, you must actively look for other breakthroughs

Thirdly, attack the weak points and guard against the sharp points... In general debates, There is always one opponent who is the weakest. When attacking, you should seize the opponent's shortcomings and strengthen him. According to the chairman's words: It is better to cut off one of his ten fingers than to hurt him...

I feel that the opponent is most likely to use examples. To put pressure on you, for example:

1. Urban management’s brutal law enforcement

2. Various well-known unjust, false and wrong cases (to settle the case) (use emotions to decide the case--beating turns into a trick, Instead of rationality - use facts as the criterion and evidence as the rule of law)

Your counterattack also uses examples as evidence to attack, such as:

1. Police sensibility Law enforcement saves a delinquent boy (Search this title on Baidu: 12-year-old boy suspected of theft and save the police's rational law enforcement)

2. Urban management's rational law enforcement is finally understood (Search this title on Baidu: 5 urban management officers were raped by street vendors) Even though he was beaten and scolded, he still enforced the law rationally and was awarded the Unjust Award_Refresher)

No matter what kind of law enforcement, the focus is not on the process, but on the results... You can question the other party’s debate friends, since in their eyes, rationality Law enforcement is an upgrade of perceptual law enforcement. It is impartial law enforcement without human factors and with coercion. It is the highest state of law enforcement (I guess the other party will say so). So why are there still such and such companionship and disharmony in the world... .This just shows that the mandatory so-called rational law enforcement is just the wishful thinking of the law enforcers. It is essentially divorced from society... In people's minds, what people are more willing and more able to accept is emotional law enforcement. (Two examples above)

Rational law enforcement has established rules and regulations for us, but society is changeable. This is like "Zheng Ren buys shoes". If you only know how to get a ruler when you go home, you don't know The ruler is at your feet, so what's the point of enforcing the law, and how can we talk about 'people-oriented' and 'governing for the people'? ! Then wouldn't the so-called "humanized governance" and "humanized law enforcement" become empty words, clichés, lies, lies... If so, can the "harmonious society" we have been looking forward to really be "harmonious"? !

Haha, this is probably what I can do. I hope it can be helpful to you, haha...