Who can ask some good questions?

Party II): I would like to ask the other party: As an individual, do you have your own ideas and wishes?

[35 Blacksky (dichotomy of opposites): Unlike animals, people have thoughts and can think about problems.

Can proceed from the overall situation, not just for survival.

[33mrickel (positive dichotomy): In short, you just admit it.

Ask the other person again, is what people do driven by their own will?

[35 Blacksky (dichotomy of opposites): People have two attributes: one is naturalness, the other is sociality, and sociality is the main one.

But people do things for many reasons, and we can't generalize.

[33mrickel (positive dichotomy): In fact, in any case, what people do goes through the brain.

I would like to ask the other party to distinguish between friends. Can people live for themselves by doing what they want?

[35mBlacksky (objection): you can't say that completely.

Most of the time, I work for others.

Besides, drunkards do things without thinking.

[33mrickel (positive dichotomy): I don't deny that people often do things for others.

But what people do is consistent with their own outlook on life and values.

So after all, I'm still living for myself.

[35mBlacksky (objection): Hehe, so according to the other person's point of view, there is no concept of living for others at all?

Micol (positive dichotomy): Yes, we are discussing whether we are happy or not.

In the past, slaves lived for slave owners because they could not do things according to their own wishes.

So they are unhappy!

[35mBlacksky (opposing argument): Dayu managed water for three times, but did not advance. Does he want to attend?

[33] Micol (positive dichotomy): Yes, but the embodiment of his life value lies in the success of water control.

So he chose not to enter.

[35mBlacksky (against debate): Didn't the other debater just advocate that a person should act according to his own will?

Since he wants to join, why not?

[33] Micol (positive dichotomy): Individual will is big and small.

It's like the other side is arguing with me now.

The small purpose is to defeat me in this reincarnation.

The biggest goal is to win the game.

No contradiction

[35 Blacksky (against dichotomy): But my two wills are unified.

You think Dayu's two wills are fallacies.

[35mBlacksky (opposing debate): remind the other debater that you can't be happy if you want to be happy.

Personal subjective thoughts are unpredictable, which has been pointed out in our argument.

[37m 3, [32m three arguments vs three arguments against.

[33mxox (Three Debates): Do you think you live to be happy for your own ideals?

[35 Mas (three opposing arguments): We say that our ideals should be based on contributing to society.

With this ideal of contributing to society and others, we are of course happy, thank you.

[33mxox (three debates): Hehe, it's very strange. Is there an essential difference between living for your own ideals and living for yourself?

[35 Mas (three arguments disagree): Please pay attention to other students. We are talking about living and fighting for the lofty ideals in our hearts.

This in itself is for the happiness of society and others.

Living for an ideal is different from living for yourself.

[33mxox (Three Debates): It is your ideal to contribute to others, but it doesn't mean that you have to live for others.

What if someone asks you to do something that goes against your ideal?

[35 Mas (three opposing arguments): Please note that we are not talking about the need to live for others.

What we want to say is that it is happier to live for others, or you can live without others.

But you don't live and be happy for others like that. Others go against your ideals.

Doesn't mean you can't have fun.

[37m 4, tassel: = = = = = Start asking questions affirmatively = = = = = =

5.[32m binary opposition vs positive dichotomy

[35mBlacksky (objection): What is the purpose of people living? Is it to survive?

[33] Micol (positive dichotomy): What makes a person alive is that he is alive. Besides, our debate today will focus on.

There's no point! The purpose of people living is to realize their own life value and social value!

[35] Blacksky (Debate of Opponents): But the other side mentioned in his argument that "the fundamental purpose of human life is

In order to meet their material needs, pursue their beliefs, and finally realize their life value. "

Didn't say social value

[33] Micol (positive dichotomy): Did the opponent not look carefully?

In fact, the realization of your life value is based on a certain social value.

Without social value, there is no value in life.

[35mBlacksky (opposing arguments): Thank you for your arguments. Finally, without social value, where is the value of life?

[33 Micol (positive dichotomy): But this does not mean that if people want to be happy, they must live for others.

We say that people have social attributes.

If the other party distinguishes friends in this way, it is considered to be recognized by us.

That's all wet.

[35mBlacksky (objection): Is social value realized by individuals? People are social,

A person's existence is meaningless,

Only in the context of society can we talk about individuals, while the other party says that people live for themselves.

If people live for themselves, it is estimated that there are no human beings long ago, or that is not called human beings.

[35mBlacksky (against debate): Remind the other debater again: How to make the debate happier?

People live to be happy, which can be achieved temporarily by living for themselves.

[37m 6, [32m] Three arguments against three arguments in favor

[35maas (Three Debates at loggerheads): May I ask the debater, are you happy alone or with others? thank you

[33mxox (three arguments): It seems a little off topic. It doesn't matter if I can listen to good music. I will follow whoever has the ability.

[35 Mas (three arguments disagree): We are discussing whether it is happier to live for ourselves or to live for others. The ancients still knew.