Everyone can press a button to revive a favorite person. Do you support it?

The debate topic is Weird Planet Black Technology: Everyone can press a button to resurrect a loved one. Do you support it?

When I saw this title, I was thinking that everyone can press a button to resurrect a loved one. So how can we analyze this proposition regarding this existing fact? First, let’s agree to discuss the key concepts.

What is resurrection? Resurrection means the resurrection of life after death. In the Bible, the original word for "resurrection" is the Greek word "Anastasasis," which literally means "to stand up again." When a person is resurrected, he or she rises from the dead and becomes alive again, with the same thoughts and personality as before.

What is the person you love most? The most meaning is extreme and incomparable. In our lives, we may have different favorite people at different stages and periods. Favorites are relative to individuals.

Everyone has this right, but there is only one chance. Everyone has this right without any discrimination. Of course, everyone can choose to use or give up this right.

Let’s analyze and think about the wonderful performances of Cheng Sibo (positive side) and Zhan Qingyun (negative side).

1. Opening argument

First of all, Zhengfang starts with a classic syllogism:

First, living is definitely a good thing

Second, the person I love most must be a person

So it must be a good thing to keep the person I love most alive. What’s the problem?

What is a syllogism? In fact, it is what we often call the deduction method in reasoning logic, which is an inference in which one proposition (conclusion) is inevitably drawn from the other two propositions (called premises). It consists of three parts: major premise, minor premise and conclusion. Logically, the conclusion is obtained by applying the major premise to the minor premise. The major premise is a general principle, and the minor premise is a specific statement.

Let’s take a look at Zhengfang’s main premise: living is definitely a good thing. People are keen on praising, publicizing, and praising things that are beneficial to the world. But is it also a good thing that bad people who do bad things are alive?

2. Existence (Philosophy)

Resurrection seems to be a very absurd word, as if it is talking about a super power that can bring people back to life, but in fact, this black technology, Not only did it actually exist, it also had many names. Once it was called penicillin and organ transplantation. Tomorrow it may be genetic engineering and stem cell technology. Let's just imagine that if an ancient person traveled to the present and saw today's various operations, such as heart transplants and liver transplants, he would be stunned. Penicillin and antibiotics must be regarded as a kind of witchcraft. For them, what is the difference between this and seeing the resurrected black technology? Are we still discussing here today whether we should support penicillin and organ transplantation?

The concept of absurdity is universalized. It uses some specific examples and scenes to describe and define resurrection, and combines the comparison between ancient and modern times and the passage of time and space to make abstract things easier for the audience to understand and accept. This is very clever.

3. Human beings

Technology has not only reshaped life, but has also redefined death. Our understanding of death, from no breathing to loss of heartbeat to brain death, is becoming more and more precise. This is precisely because one after another so-called death is being conquered by modern medical treatment. Just think about it, what we think of as resurrection today may be seen by future generations as nothing more than a minor surgery. What reason do we have to oppose it?

From a human perspective, highlight the positive impact of technology on life and death, and weaken the audience's resistance and questioning psychology.

4. Family/Individual

In fact, we can understand it from the opposite perspective. Whenever a new technology appears, there will always be some opposition. Some people once opposed photography, saying that photos will take away your soul. Some people once refused to use the telegraph because they missed flying pigeons to deliver messages. of romance. Some people today will definitely say that the technology of resurrection has blurred the meaning of life, the value of death, the feelings of love, etc. But just imagine, put into a specific situation, if we face the families who lost their loved ones in the accident, and the orphaned families where the white-haired people give away the black-haired people. Can we really say that for the sake of love and the meaning of death, we ask you not to resurrect your relatives?

Speculate the opposing party’s intentions and give two counterexamples. Finally, the angle falls on the family/individual to move people emotionally.

5. Humanity

In fact, from a scientific perspective, cryonics technology is already available today. Even without this black technology, the pace of resurrection technology may not be far away from us. Very far. But let’s think about it, when this technology comes true, who will be the first beneficiaries? Are they wealthy businessmen or celebrities and politicians? I think the three words that shine the brightest light on humanity in this debate are precisely called: everyone.

It tells us that the right to survive will no longer be controlled by wealth or status. If we use love to fairly measure every chance of life's resurrection, will it make this world a more tender place?

From a scientific perspective, I talked about achievability, and then from a human perspective, starting from practical interests, focusing on everyone’s concern for being born equal, their desire for survival, and their yearning for a warm world. .

6. Conclusion

Finally, I would like to say that in fact, the best way for human beings to cooperate with the natural laws of life, aging, sickness and death is never to compromise but to fight. In the face of unknown technology, please let us be more brave and more tolerant.

Finally, a call for courage and tolerance.

1. This policy allows us to decide life and death for the group of people we love most in the name of love. Death becomes our responsibility and makes us feel guilty.

2. The future will not only be divided between rich and poor, but also between life and death.

More highlights of the opposition are to heighten emotions.

The affirmative mentioned one point during the final closing argument. In many cases, love is not so selfless. A lot of love in this world is actually worth fighting for. There is no love that is taken for granted or for no reason in the world. Encourage everyone to fight for what they love instead of just pursuing the pure love in their imagination. This point is very contagious and appealing.

After the analysis, recall the key concepts initially discussed.

1. Resurrection is rebirth after death. But is the recipient willing to be resurrected? In what form is it resurrected? Will it be the same after resurrection?

2. The person you love most. For an individual, what is love? Maybe different moments and different experiences have different feelings and understandings of love. Whether love is selfless or utilitarian is worth thinking about for each of us. How to define the person you love most? How many people do you love most in your life? Do the people you love the most have to be together?

3. Everyone has only one right. For individuals, is there a sense of rights? Do you know how to cherish and protect your rights? How will you exercise this once-only right?

Above.

The following is the detailed debate materials compiled