An argument about how to write a manuscript is that mobile phones alienate people.

First, the distance is the inner distance, although it can be thousands of miles apart.

Make your point.

Then break the subject and explain what your distance means.

Although it is convenient to have a mobile phone, it also provides convenient conditions for lying and refusing.

The connection between people is closely combined through communication.

I always feel that with a mobile phone, I just make a phone call and send a text message, so I have no desire to meet. I always feel that no matter how much I call and send messages, I can't afford a temporary interview. While mobile phones are convenient for us, they also create more reasons such as "I'm busy recently, so I'll come out for tea again when I'm free". The more developed the communication tools, the farther the distance between people will be, because there are more illusory and empty sentences. Listening is warm in my heart, but there are more substantive things that words can't express.

It is best to find some research materials, such as explaining the way of modern interpersonal communication.

Here are some from the internet.

Debate: Mobile phones bring people closer/alienate people.

In favour: Jiangsu University.

Against: Hohai University.

Speculative argument

Four arguments: Thank you for making the following guess on the other side's argument. First, the other party will interpret closeness in the debate as closeness. Based on this, the distance in the debate will be understood as emotional distance rather than more neutral interpersonal distance. Second, the other party will introduce the concept of face-to-face communication today and compare it with mobile phone communication. It is also because of this conclusion that mobile phone communication is not as good as face-to-face communication in narrowing people's emotional distance. Later, other students will try their best to demonstrate that there is an inevitable contradiction between mobile phone communication and face-to-face communication. Third, other students may find another way to tell us that mobile phones and using mobile phones are not the same concept. As a tool, if no one participates, the mobile phone itself will not bring people closer to their feelings, but this way of argument deconstructs our argument. It also deconstructs the other students' own arguments. Based on this, we make the following guesses about the arguments of the other students. Right? We'll know later.

Counterparty: Thank you, moderator. Hello, everyone. We think there are several possibilities for their argument. First, they confuse geographical distance with the distance between people, and think that mobile phones facilitate people's contact, thus narrowing the distance between us. Second, the other party generally wants to communicate with others, and the mobile phone can make people communicate more conveniently, which brings us closer. Third, the other defense friends will think that mobile phones are convenient, fast and efficient. Signs are bound to bring people closer together. If there is an exception, it is not the fault caused by the mobile phone, but the improper use of people. Fourthly, the other party thinks that it is almost impossible to use other communication tools only in some cases, so it seems to be a strong proof that mobile phones have narrowed the distance between people. If we are unlucky enough to guess, please don't worry and demonstrate slowly. Thank you.

Positive debate: Thank you. Is the mobile phone close to or distant from people? This is a sociological problem. As we all know, people are the sum of all social relations. What is the basis for maintaining people's social relations? It depends on contact. Without contact, social relations cannot be established. From this perspective, we can say that the history of mankind is a history of closer contact, a history of closer interpersonal relationships, and mobile phones are the most modern society. One of the universal communication tools, it can not bring great convenience to the communication and contact between people, and make people's social relations closer. So, of course, it is the mobile phone that brings people closer. First of all, from the perspective of social development, the main means of communication in the era of agricultural civilization are letters, geese, books, fish, feet and jade bird exploration, and so on. Legend has it that people's beautiful and ideal means of communication are left behind, which has caused agricultural civilization to some extent. The self-sufficient natural economic and social structure is relatively loose, but in the era of industrial civilization, communication is more and more developed and society is more and more integrated. The distance between people is close, especially in today's information age, letters, computers, mobile phone networks, etc., have put human beings in a three-dimensional and diversified communication network, and the distance between people is closer. No wonder some people say that the earth has become smaller and a global village. It's not only the credit of the mobile phone, but it does play a very important role in it, so the mobile phone really brings people closer. Thank you.

Argument: Logically speaking, the distance in the debate can only be explained as the distance of interpersonal relationship, not the distance of time or space. From the perspective of interpersonal relationship, the farthest distance is that two people who don't know each other know each other through a mobile phone. Isn't this the intimacy of interpersonal relationships? If you contact each other many times by mobile phone, the relationship between two acquaintances will be closer. Of course, the convenience of contact does not directly lead to the connection of interpersonal relationships. But you should know that people are social people, who want to communicate, want to communicate and want to be close. But this is human nature. Is it convenient for you to contact me by mobile phone, but this relationship is still alienated? Will it be like the other party said that they have never met? No, cell phones only make people meet by chance. Thank you.

Counterparty: Thank you, moderator. Frankly speaking, when I first got today's debate, I was full of doubts about the distance between people. This word is not difficult to understand. Refers to the emotional distance between people. Simply put, it is the intimate relationship between people. But what is the debate we are going to show our opponents today? There is no doubt that the mobile phone locked in the drawer will not affect people, so let's discuss it today. The theory must be the use of mobile phones, but today, do you want the other debater to prove that two people are close once they use mobile phones, or do you want us to prove that two people are far away once they use mobile phones? Obviously not, because two people use mobile phones to communicate, which does not necessarily lead to the closeness or alienation of both sides. What really determines the distance between the two sides is the content of their communication, not the communication tools. Therefore, when we have a deeper understanding of this sociological debate, we find that the increasingly widespread use of mobile phones is changing people's lives, and what we want to discuss is whether the general changes brought about by the use of mobile phones are close to people or far away. Next, let's take a look at the impact of mobile phones on our lives. The first is an efficient mobile phone that affects communication. Efficient communication tools People use mobile phones because they are convenient, fast and efficient. Generally speaking, people don't use mobile phones for inefficient communication, but in fact, not all communication can follow the principle of efficiency. As far as the distance between people is concerned, the proximity of distance requires both parties to express their feelings sincerely, which has nothing to do with efficiency. For emotional communication, the pursuit of efficiency is absurd and meaningless. Because of the convenience, high efficiency and quickness of mobile phones, people rely on mobile phones more and more, and interpersonal communication is more and more concentrated on mobile phones. The way of communication tends to be single, and we know that interpersonal communication should be multi-faceted, which conflicts with the needs of interpersonal communication and alienates people. Therefore, it is not difficult for us to realize that a specific use of mobile phones for communication will never necessarily approach or alienate people. But this is not the subject of today's debate. When we re-examine the influence of mobile phones on people from the perspective of sociology, we should have an insight into the simplification of modern communication methods and the improvement of communication efficiency, which is precisely to narrow the distance between people. Thank you.

Defensive counterattack:

Debate against: Thank you, moderator. Hello, everyone. I am glad that the opposing debate has reached an understanding with us on the sociological level. Today's debate has been edited, but there are several issues in the arguments of the opposing debate that I don't understand. Please tell us the debater who opposes it first.

Contact is the premise of communication, so mobile phones can contact, so mobile phones have narrowed the distance between people. So if I had a quarrel with my friend and my mobile phone today, how do you think we are getting closer? Therefore, the argument of the opposing debater can only prove that it may be close or distant. The other debater proved that half of us were right and half of you were wrong. Secondly, another debater told us that people have different needs in different times, but regardless of society. How to develop a healthy way of social communication must be a diversified, multi-level and multi-angle demand. Only diversified communication can satisfy our communication today, but the single communication mode of mobile phone can't. The debater of the third opponent told us a logical question, saying that now everyone wants to contact. This is our beautiful wish. Can the opponent's such a beautiful wish demonstrate our fact debate today? If you say this is your logic, then please prove to us that today all of us have a good wish for world peace, and then the world will be peaceful. Thank you.

Thank you. Sure enough, as I expected, the other classmate defined distance as emotional distance and vowed to tell us that our understanding of this debate was biased. Let me give another student an example. There are two roommates in the office. The two colleagues don't like each other. Feelings may be far away, but they are under the same roof every day. Do you think his interpersonal relationship is far or near? This shows that the other students' understanding of distance is biased.

Not us. Second, the other classmate told us that the distance in today's society is diversified and we can't pursue simplification. Then I was surprised that even a single way of communication would inevitably lead to alienation. Is there an inevitable contradiction between the diversification and alienation between people interpreted by mobile phones? I didn't see it.

Positive argument: Another debater gave me an example today. He said that today, it is not the mobile phone that makes people more alienated, but the content of the mobile phone makes people more alienated. He asked us if we had a quarrel with the mobile phone. Is this content alienated? First of all, I asked people, is quarreling with mobile phones the main function of mobile phones? Is this a mainstream phenomenon? If so, do we use mobile phones to express our love? This content is love. Close to our distance, is your logic broken? The logic of another debater today is very strange. They confuse emotional distance. What do we mean by interpersonal distance? Interpersonal relationships include emotional distance. What are the Three Cardinal Principles and Five Permanent Principles, emotional distance or even non-emotional distance? Please ask another debater to show us how far we should discuss today in the next free debate. Is it the mobile phone or the content of the mobile phone that brings us closer?

Three arguments: thanks to another debater, who defined distance at the beginning of his debate, saying that distance is the emotional distance of people. Is it really just the emotional distance between people? Then I asked, is there really only emotional connection between people? Is the relationship between superiors and subordinates related to work, partnership and competitors? Was this all emotional at first? The definition of this distance is wrong. In his argument, another debater also told us that the efficiency of mobile phones leads to alienation. What do you mean it's more convenient to contact by mobile phone? Does the other debater mean that it is more convenient to contact by mobile phone, which will alienate us? So in the following argument, another debater must deduce to us how the efficiency of mobile phones leads to alienation. The third debater is still standing. Theoretically, it tells us that the connection of mobile phones has become a single connection of the whole society. Is the relationship between people in the whole society really single? Do you really only rely on mobile phones? So how do we stand on the debate field today and argue with each other? When we eat in a restaurant, how do we talk? Therefore, the singularity you mentioned by the opposing debater simply cannot be established. Thank you.

Four arguments: let's give another example to prove our point. During the period of Spring Festival travel rush, the passenger flow increased year by year, but during the Spring Festival, the number of SMS and telephone calls also increased year by year. According to each other's logic, how can this single logic be drawn? We see that the relationship between the two is gradually rising, not an either-or relationship. It doesn't mean that mobile phone communication will decrease when it rises, nor does it mean that mobile phone communication will decrease when it rises. It is not an inevitable either-or relationship, but a win-win relationship.

Three arguments against it: thank you, moderator. Hello, everyone. Just now, the other debater used an office example to tell us what emotional distance is. Is actually the direct distance between people. Another debater called it relational distance. Is it actually a spatial distance? If it is a space distance, my father who is far away in Australia is much farther than a friend who is by my side. According to your logic, is my relationship with my father far away from me? Of course not. What we are going to discuss today is the distance between people, which is of course an emotional distance. Just now, another debater told us that people sitting in the office can have various contacts with their superiors, but this kind of contact will inevitably lead to the close relationship between people. Of course not. It is precisely because of this that the more we contact with mobile phones, it may not necessarily lead to intimacy. The other debater and you. Talk about efficiency. Why can't cell phone communication bring people closer? Do you think you can get pure feelings by using the principle of efficiency and the principle that I invest the least and get the most? Other debaters told us that mobile communication is not single. Please look at our common phenomenon from the perspective of sociology. Are we people who often use mobile phones? More people write letters and fewer people visit in person. When you see a common phenomenon in a society from the perspective of the whole society, can you tell me that mobile phones are not used in large quantities and are not squeezed in other ways? We're talking about interpersonal communication.

Two statements: ask the other side to argue with the soldiers at the border. International students contact their families through mobile phones and ask how their relationship has become alienated.

Four arguments that contradict each other: the other debater is just demonstrating for us that the relationship between two people is intimate by making a phone call. I can also give many examples to the opposing debater. As soon as a phone call came down, the relationship between the two people became estranged. Give an example to consider the significance of a sociological debate. The first argument of the opponent's debater is to tell us that the earth has become smaller and mobile phones have contributed a lot. Is the opponent's debater narrowing the communication distance between regions or the spiritual distance between people?

A positive statement: mobile phones have brought people closer together. If you can't prove a case, how can you prove the macro? The frontier soldiers we cite are all macroscopic when students are wandering overseas. Let me ask you another macro example. During the Olympic Games, countless spectators expressed their greetings to Olympic athletes through mobile phones. They feel very warm inside, and this greeting makes their distance even farther.

Objection: At the beginning of the debate, the other debater told us that this is a sociological proposition and should be discussed with us from the perspective of sociology. However, during the free debate, the other debater cited one example after another, and I can also give you such an example to prove that people are alienated. What is the significance of such an example in today's debate? Since the other debater wants to discuss it from the perspective of sociology, I have to ask the other debater, what is the impact of mobile phones on our human life today?

Argument 2: It brings convenience of communication tools and intimacy of interpersonal relationship. There are not a few people taking part in the Olympic Games. Why is it a case? If the other debater wants to say macro, let's say macro. With the development of communication tools, the earth has become a global village. Why not close? Why don't you show us alienation?

Counterparty: I ask you what influence the mobile phone has brought to human life today. You told me it was close. Then ask the other debater how to approach you and how to demonstrate.

Argument 2: Another debater has been vague about many examples. Let me ask another macro example. Yesterday, students from Xiamen University told us that 45% of the children in the society can't stay with their parents at home, so they contact their parents through mobile phones and miss each other. What do you think is that they are estranged?

Three arguments that contradict each other: Tell me, my friend, have we ever used mobile phones to bring your parents closer, or said kind words to them.

Positive argument: the other debater, do you express your greetings to me by mobile phone? You must prove how this alienated you from your mother. Please demonstrate.

The opposing party: The opposing party debater, please don't wander between cases. We say this is a sociological proposition. We have reached an understanding with the other debater. You said to call my mom. So I said to make a phone call to quarrel with my friends, is it alienating me? Based on the general reality of the whole society, would you like to discuss this debate with us?

Affirmative argument: what is sociology? Sociology is based on reality. It's impossible without examples. But we have proved it to you with facts from the general perspective of sociology. Please continue to tell us that the officers and men of the garrison and fishermen in Lianyungang offshore islands are rushing to the beach for emergency rescue and disaster relief. It can be said that the military-civilian relationship has deepened. Don't talk about it again. That will also deconstruct your argument.

Four arguments against each other: you just said it was convenient for them to contact, but you didn't give us an argument why it was convenient for us to contact. You also said that we studied this proposition from a sociological point of view, but the other debater asked us to logically reason why mobile phones must alienate us. Of course, we should use sociological methods to see if mobile phones are alienating us.

Three arguments: any macro of the opposing side is composed of one case after another. Today, we gave so many examples, but none of them were solved. Instead, they accused us of giving improper examples. Let's give an example.

Three contradictory arguments: your example is not inappropriate, but your example is not representative. You said that cell phone calls brought people closer. I said that quarreling on cell phones alienated people. Which of us is representative? Does this argument still make sense today? If we don't let the whole society see that people use mobile phones a lot and squeeze other means of communication to discuss such a debate for us?

Four arguments: very simple. The distance between other students is wrong today. Let me ask you one more time. People often don't know where to go. Only peach blossoms are smiling there. Ask other students what to do if there is no mobile phone at this time.

Counterargument: A good opponent just wants to tell us that contact is the premise of communication. With more contact, the emotional distance between people is closer.

Ask another debater whether this method is possible or inevitable.

In favor: I use an old saying of China to answer you. If you don't pay, you can argue with each other. On the contrary, you will show us how mobile phones inevitably alienate people from the macro perspective of society.

The four arguments contradict each other: from the perspective of social macro-argument, the other debater told us that more exchanges will inevitably bring people closer. How much communication do couples living under the same roof have? Why do some people divorce? Is it because they use mobile phones less or send text messages less?

Three arguments: Then I also want to ask another debater, now some young people buy mobile phones to fall in love and contact their lovers conveniently. Do you say that two couples buy mobile phones for divorce and alienation?

Three arguments against each other: friend, I want to ask you. Do you think those two people talk too much to bring them closer, or do we bring them closer with mobile phones every day?

Four arguments: the other classmate is still talking about emotional problems today. I want to ask another classmate. Many of us miss our relatives more than ever during the festive season, but we can't go home and ask questions. How to keep in touch with your family by mobile phone at this time?

The opponent argues that people invented mobile phones to make people close to each other. Will people inevitably get close when using mobile phones? Are we here to win the game today? Are we sure to win the game if we participate?

Three arguments: Another debater told us that people don't have to use mobile phones to communicate today, but is this your opinion? What you want to argue is that they are alienated after using mobile phones. Please demonstrate.

Opposing debater: The opposing debater is that you have been entangled in a case and refused to jump out and take a look at the reality of society. Let me tell you.

Today, let's look at the reality of society. The reality is that people use mobile phones a lot, crowding out other ways of communication. The reality is that people's emotional communication will inevitably have an impact in this respect because of the efficient and fast characteristics of mobile phones. Please talk about how people's emotions can not alienate you under such circumstances. How can an example prove that emotions are close to us and prove the significance of such a debate?

Four arguments: Today is very funny. The other classmate said that millions of students and tens of millions of staff are examples. Then I will ask another classmate. What kind of situation will each of us face? We really can't meet and exchange letters with our families and our relatives. Without face-to-face communication so quickly, it is impossible to achieve negotiation. How can you be alienated by using a mobile phone?

Opposing point of view: My mother and I are in different places. I am a college student studying in a different place, but I don't think the mobile phone has brought us closer, but the sweet words I told my mother have brought us closer. Is it to prove that the mobile phone is close to us or the text is close to us?

Affirmative argument: is the other debater's mobile phone still called a mobile phone if it is not used for talking? Another debater told us repeatedly today that mobile phones have crowded out other means of communication. I want to ask, is this really brought by the mobile phone? You must prove this inevitability.

Four opposing arguments: let's look at the phenomena in society. Is it alienation or closeness for people to use mobile phones in society? Why discuss inevitability? If the other debater thinks that we have approached the relationship between people through mobile phones (it's time to object), thank you.

Argument: CCTV has a lot of staff at the Spring Festival gala every year. They can't go home, how can they say happy new year to their families through their mobile phones?

In fact, the other classmate said that we were not close for a long time, but the other classmate didn't argue and alienate from beginning to end today.

Three arguments: the other debater told us that the mobile phone has alienated people. Is it because someone fainted on the side of the road today? We shouldn't dial 120 by mobile phone. Should we run 20 kilometers (square time is up)? Thank you.

Set the tone with a beat of the gong-say the last sentence

Lu Yiming: I know from contestant No.2' s speech in Zheng Fang that some students across the street have mobile phones, so I hope this student with mobile phones can tell us later how he chose a tool that can alienate people. Thank you.

Jiang Changjian: You said that using modern communication tools, such as cell phone e-mail instead of traditional e-mail, would alienate people. If we push this logic indefinitely, will it return to a simple way of communication, such as the voice of the old, and the relationship between people is so close? Thank you.

Counterargument: Thank you for asking me, teacher. Just now, the other debater said that the classmate with a mobile phone number was me, but I want to tell you that the other debater did send me a short message and left my phone number, but I didn't reply to this short message. Why? Because I don't think this kind of mobile communication can bring us closer. What we need is a diversified communication. I'd like to go out with another debater. I'd like to walk and eat with you. I'd like to call you and send a message when I'm free. Only in this way can we close the distance between you and me. If we hold mobile phones all day and keep sending them, I believe I can't understand each other's arguments, and neither can I understand each other's arguments. Don't you think so? Thank you.

Four arguments against it: We put the mobile phone on our body to make our information exchange more convenient. Our argument is not based on necessity, because we all know that mobile phones, as a tool, do not necessarily make us pull or alienate us. The key is to see how we use mobile phones, just as Teacher Jiang asked in that question. After we use the mobile phone, the content we deliver will not necessarily deteriorate. It's not that what we deliver is necessarily friendly, but how we use it, but it's inevitable that with the development of society, our human needs for communication will become more and more diversified and diversified. As a single communication method, mobile phones undoubtedly greatly squeeze other communication methods, so they can't meet people's emotional communication needs in various forms, levels and angles, and can't narrow our distance. We can only be alienated. As people's communication becomes more and more concentrated on such a tool, the distance between us will become more and more alienated. In fact, it is not so easy for us to understand today's proposition. Why? Because this is from a philosophical point of view, it actually tells us that this is a problem of alienation of technology to people. As other debaters have been asking us today, we often contact each other by mobile phone. Why do we have to say that the distance between us is estranged? Yes, I think many of you may have the same problem, and I often contact with my mobile phone. I think our relationship is very close. Why do we have to say that the distance between us is estranged? Then just like I asked Rousseau and Marcuse. I asked them that I didn't feel alienated from them every day. I feel very satisfied. Why do you have to say that I am alienated from them? In fact, they can't answer such a question, just as I can't answer why I use my mobile phone every day, because this is a sociological proposition. We ask such questions based on our little knowledge. Based on our own little knowledge, we can't appreciate the true and profound connotation of this debate. I can only break through my own cognitive world and look at the whole society. We will find that the original mobile phone is really changing our lives. The change is to make our communication more and more focused on this communication tool, and our communication becomes more and more simple, so that the way of human communication is more and more focused on mobile phones, which can no longer meet our communication needs, thus alienating us. Thank you.

References:

Debate: Mobile phones bring people closer/alienate people.