An article discovered on Gmail, published on Bailanyuan in June 2009, now posted here. It essentially represents my basic approach and methods regarding the format of “debate competitions” as a way to discuss issues.
Without much preparation, 24 contestants debated for several hours across 3 debate competitions, while I spent those hours analyzing the topics. Below are some of my basic viewpoints, representing my current, spontaneous thoughts, without implying any other meanings.
The first topic was:
Integrity is More Important than Ability vs. Ability is More Important than Integrity
The affirmative side was the School of Economics and Management, and the negative side was the School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. Since the affirmative side won, I will present some points from the negative perspective:
First: Integrity is a form of ability.
Undoubtedly, integrity is a form of ability. The concrete manifestation of integrity is the ability to control oneself, respect facts, respect oneself, and respect others.
Abilities vary in magnitude but are not inherently good or bad. If we add subjective judgment, we might say that abilities can have positive or negative impacts on society. As a form of ability, integrity also has both positive and negative aspects. The affirmative side often emphasizes only the positive aspects of integrity, but as with all things, integrity has its downsides. Integrity comes at a cost, and the cost of integrity and the outcomes of integrity-based actions can differ significantly. If a society consistently finds that the cost of integrity outweighs the benefits, that society will not remain honest forever! In such cases, the ability of social laws to constrain people becomes paramount. Only when society has the capacity to establish norms and laws, and the ability to enforce them, can integrity be effective. Otherwise, if counterfeiting and deceit are profitable, who would bother with honesty?
Second: My first point already makes it clear that both ability and integrity are not limited to individuals; they can extend to society and other organizations. Does our society need integrity, or does it need the ability to enforce integrity and ensure that integrity is fairly rewarded? The answer is self-evident.
Third: Integrity safeguards ability. Because one is honest, their abilities can be better demonstrated. From this perspective, integrity is merely a means to safeguard ability. In debates, “means,” “methods,” and “approaches” are all part of the process, while the essence is what truly matters. It’s like a bicycle to a person: a bicycle helps me reach my destination faster, but the focus isn’t on the bicycle—it’s on my choice and my movement. In comparative propositions, ability is undoubtedly more important than integrity.
Fourth: Ability is a broad concept, while integrity is relatively narrow. What’s important is that integrity is the ability to control oneself from being dishonest. So, which is more important: this ability to control oneself or integrity itself? Most people might think that the ability to control oneself is a means to achieve integrity, thus relating to the third point about “means.” However, this isn’t the case. The question of whether one must first have the ability to control oneself to be honest, or whether honesty leads to self-control, is endlessly debatable. However, the generally accepted view is that one must first have the ability to control oneself to be considered honest. What use is honesty alone? As for the “otherwise” mentioned earlier, the ability to control oneself is a form of ability, and integrity is also a form of ability. What we truly value is the totality of abilities, because the ability to control oneself serves integrity, and integrity serves the broader spectrum of abilities. The relationship between the ability to control oneself and overall ability is akin to the relationship between Guangdong Province and China.
Fifth: I believe that integrity can be divided into three types (just as ability can be divided into many types). First, personal loyalty to oneself; second, honesty towards others and society; third, integrity towards nature. I won’t delve into specifics, but these categories can be expanded widely, all emphasizing the importance of ability. Social integrity manifests as: first, society’s integrity towards individuals; second, society’s integrity towards itself. Society can be understood as groups, nations, or other entities. The broader the discussion, the harder it is for the opposing side to respond, and ability remains the core of the topic. I won’t analyze further… there’s much more, but typing is tiring, so I’ll stop here.
Suddenly, I remember that the debate revolved a lot around the U.S. and North Korea. The negative side kept arguing that the U.S. has strong abilities, so they don’t need integrity to deal with North Korea. Such examples are neither here nor there because, from a socialist perspective, the U.S. may indeed lack integrity, but they might uphold integrity towards the EU or Japan. In diplomacy, these things are ambiguous… both sides can argue their points.
The second topic was:
White Lies are Detrimental to Integrity vs. White Lies are Beneficial to Integrity
The affirmative side was the School of Science, and the negative side was the School of Law and Politics. Since the affirmative side had the upper hand, I will present some points from the negative perspective:
First, what is a lie, what is integrity, what types of lies exist, what types of integrity exist, what does it mean to benefit integrity, and what does it mean to harm integrity.
The key to this issue lies in understanding what a lie is and what it means to benefit integrity. If this isn’t clear, losing the debate isn’t surprising.
The affirmative side introduced a surprising concept from the Citizen Moral Implementation Outline, which was a significant vulnerability. Definitions from such administrative documents are generally unsuitable for debate competitions. Being intimidated by such a definition is unwarranted, and too much time was wasted on this point.
I believe integrity is a pathway and attitude towards pursuing and realizing truth. It doesn’t just mean individuals should be honest; the establishment of a social integrity system is fundamental. This is crucial. Without this understanding, discussing integrity is like rowing a boat on water… Westerners often talk about responsibility rather than integrity. Why? Because they don’t need to emphasize integrity—their systems are already designed with the assumption that no one is honest! They focus on social and legal responsibilities, along with religion and other factors, making the emphasis on integrity unnecessary. This is an important concept, though it’s understandable that those who believe in the inherent goodness of humanity might not consider it.
So, what does it mean to benefit integrity? Does it mean facilitating a state where individuals never break their promises, or does it mean contributing to the establishment of a social integrity system? There are many interpretations here, offering ample room for argument.
What is a white lie?
I believe there are three types of lies: malicious, white, and meaningless (e.g., “It’s snowing in New York today.”). Even the most malicious lies can have positive effects. Criminal penalties are said to have general and specific deterrent effects. Can malicious lies not have any general deterrent effect? If even malicious lies have benefits, how can white lies be detrimental to building an integrity system? How can they not strengthen others’ resolve to be honest?
At this point, I’ve outlined that there are at least three types of lies, and benefiting integrity has numerous interpretations, creating a vast field for argument.
Second: We must distinguish between white lies and malicious lies! What constitutes a white lie, and what constitutes a malicious one? This is crucial. Otherwise, arguments like “a doctor not telling a diabetic patient they have diabetes, leading to the patient eating sugar and dying” can unfairly score points. Such behavior by the doctor is malicious! If a doctor tells a patient they have appendicitis instead of diabetes, and the patient immediately has their appendix removed, is that a white lie? Clearly, if a doctor doesn’t inform a patient about diabetes, they must also warn them about dietary restrictions; otherwise, it’s malicious.
I believe the distinction between white and malicious lies shouldn’t rely solely on intent, process, or outcome but should be judged comprehensively. Saying the Party Constitution is a lie in front of a row of Party secretaries is a major taboo in debates. Compliments or flattery are purpose-driven lies and shouldn’t be directly classified as white lies. Otherwise, white lies would simply become lies that sound nice.
The key is understanding “white.” Is it the speaker’s internal goodwill, the recipient’s perception, or a third-party’s view that defines it as white? These aspects require extensive preparation. Since I’m only discussing general directions, I won’t provide specific examples.
Third: Distinguish between lies and deceit. Is it a white deceit or a white lie? At first glance, this might seem trivial, but it’s actually significant. The opponent’s example of a wolf in sheep’s clothing is deceit, not a lie. The difference lies in the fact that deceit inevitably causes mental or emotional harm, whereas lies may not. Any harm caused defines it as deceit, while no harm defines it as a lie, which greatly benefits the negative side’s argument. For example, a teacher telling students, “Don’t lie, or you’ll be expelled!” is a white lie because it doesn’t harm the students but teaches them honesty. If a teacher says, “You can kill now because you’re under 14 and won’t be punished,” that’s malicious honesty. If your boyfriend has an incurable disease, and your friend conspires with him to tell you he’s fallen in love with someone else, encouraging you to break up, this causes emotional harm and is thus a white deceit, not a white lie. If your friend tells you your boyfriend has gone abroad on a military mission and will never return, that might be a white lie, as it doesn’t necessarily cause emotional harm. If it does, it’s deceit; if not, it’s a lie.
Fourth: Finally, the standards for what is beneficial or detrimental.
This is a practical issue because the only difference in the topic is between “beneficial” and “detrimental.” What does it mean to benefit integrity? As mentioned earlier, I want to delve deeper: it’s not just positive aspects that benefit; negative aspects can also be beneficial. Otherwise, why not completely reject white lies or all lies? If our world had no lies, integrity would lose its meaning. The existence of malicious lies can provoke thoughts about integrity, let alone white lies. The standard for “beneficial/detrimental” isn’t singular. Even socialist construction has at least “three beneficial” standards; white lies are no exception. Finding such standards isn’t hard; the challenge lies in breaking conventional thinking.
Since my understanding is based on my current perspective, many aspects aren’t comprehensive, and I lack the necessary evidence. My apologies!
The third topic was:
The Pursuit of Money and Moral Pursuit Can Be Unified vs. The Pursuit of Money and Moral Pursuit Cannot Be Unified
The affirmative side was the School of Life Sciences, and the negative side was the School of Physical Education. Without watching, it was clear the School of Physical Education lost, so I’ll present some points from the negative perspective:
First: What is money? Is money just RMB? Is it just USD? Is it just numbers in a bank account? No! I believe money represents material wealth. Gold and silver are naturally money, representing material value. Paper currency is a symbolic equivalent of gold, silver, or other products. Money represents material. The pursuit of money is humanity’s endless desire for material wealth. This desire is illusory because you can never know what materials you’ll need in the future. The desire for material wealth is concentrated in the pursuit of money, making money a perfect embodiment of humanity’s future aspirations and current deficiencies. Thus, the pursuit of money is endless.
What is morality? Morality is a form of social consciousness at a certain stage, essentially an aspect of production relations. Money represents material, embodying current and future productive forces. Whether from the perspective that material determines consciousness or that production relations can never fully align with productive forces, the pursuit of money and morality cannot be unified. If material determines consciousness, then money gives rise to morality (though this is fallacious), implying a sequence and hierarchy, making unification impossible. If productive forces and production relations were unified, the world wouldn’t need to develop; the day they unify is the day humanity waits for death.
Second: From the above, the pursuit of money is infinite and ever-evolving. However, the pursuit of morality is not; it has already ended! Or rather, the pursuit of morality has stagnated. Since the end of primitive society, people have known not to kill, rob, rape, or lie. Modern morality is much the same. Essentially, since primitive times, moral development has only expanded the definition of “morality.” From primitive society to now, the main thread of moral pursuit has been the quest for equality and freedom. How can such an unchanging concept as morality unify with the ever-evolving pursuit of money?
Third: The affirmative side often cited examples of entrepreneurs contributing to the nation, arguing that these individuals unified the pursuit of money and morality. This is a serious misconception (from the negative perspective). The pursuit of money isn’t something an individual can pursue alone. An individual’s pursuit of money is merely the pursuit of purchasing power for real products, while humanity’s pursuit of money represents the pursuit of material resources. Equating the illusory pursuit of purchasing power with the tangible pursuit of material is unscientific. Thus, such behavior only represents the pursuit of interests (manifested as the purchasing power of their bank accounts or safes over societal goods), not the pursuit of material wealth. Additionally, the affirmative side misunderstood moral pursuit. Moral pursuit is the expansion and deepening of moral concepts. This process is extremely slow, as morality, like literature and art, only expands without significant development. For example, modern people struggle to surpass the literary and artistic achievements of sages from 2,000 years ago or the Renaissance. Morality is similar. If moral pursuit means everyone must adhere to moral norms, then, according to the theory of inherent goodness, humanity has always possessed all goodness and morality. Thus, what is there to pursue? According to the theory of inherent evil, if humans are inherently evil, how can they establish moral standards of goodness? Moreover, moral standards have remained largely unchanged throughout history (with some variations across periods). Bringing up these propositions can easily trap the opposing side in endless debates about inherent goodness or evil. In short, morality doesn’t develop much and can be fully realized. Each era’s moral pursuit has an end, while our pursuit of money is endless and ever-evolving…
That’s about it. The team is starting a match, and there’s a lot of shouting on IS… I’ll stop here.