The third preliminary contest of the 14th Jinan Park Debate Competition

Pro view: the development of the Internet does more harm than good to literature

Counter view: the development of the Internet does more harm than good to literature

Time: March 25, 2116 19: 11

Location: the fourth floor of the Student Activity Center

Pro view: School of Journalism and Communication. Pastoral Chen Ke Fan Lei

Judge: Lin Dai Zhang Yuanming Guan Xiaotong

Know yourself and know yourself

Pro-speculation and anti-argument:

Thank you, Chairman, and good evening! In the face of last year's champion medical school, please first allow my class to take the lead and guess each other's arguments.

First, the other debater may ignore the word development, turn today's debate into "the influence of the Internet on literature", and cite a large number of infectious examples to tell us how serious the network problem is now.

second, even if the other debater talks about the development of the network, he may interpret it as a purely technical development, ignoring the improvement of more important systems and norms in development.

Third, the impetuous, kitsch and superficial phenomena brought by excessive commercialization are attributed to the development of the Internet.

Fourth, the popularity of online literature is deliberately misinterpreted as vulgarity, vulgarity and even vulgarity. The other debaters may also be divorced from the dynamic role of human beings in literature, telling us that non-network literature pursues truth, goodness and beauty, while online literature pursues falsehood, ugliness and ugliness.

The above is our guess. If it is unfortunate, please ask the other defense friend to justify himself.

The opposing side guesses that the positive side will argue:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, everyone. Everything has advantages and disadvantages. Today, the positive side is bound to talk about the benefits of network development. I guess the positive side will argue from the following aspects:

First, development is the change of things from small to large, from simple to complex, from low to high, and the development of the network is bound to be an expanding and more rapid process.

Second, the other party is based on the fact that language and writing are the foundation of literature, thus deducing that the richness of language and writing must be the progress of literature, and the development of the internet has filled people's ears with a large number of fresh words, which have injected new vitality into traditional literature.

Third, the positive side may unilaterally emphasize that the internet provides people with an equal opportunity to communicate and speak freely, and the civilian network seems to have laid the foundation for the development of literature.

Of course, I hope we can discuss it at a more level, instead of just staying at the general level of public understanding. We will listen to each other's arguments.

Positive argument:

Thank you, Chairman. Hello! Today, we want to demonstrate that the advantages of network development outweigh the disadvantages of literature. First, let's clarify two concepts:

First, the advantages of network development outweigh the disadvantages of literature, rather than the advantages of network over literature. The word "development" is defined in philosophy as a process in which things change from weak to strong and from bad to excellent. Therefore, the disadvantages of network to literature at this stage are not the same as those of network development to literature < P > Secondly, the development of network is all-round and multi-angle, which includes not only technological progress, but also human regulation and control, because pure technological progress that does not reflect human will is meaningless, let alone development. Today, the standard for comparing the advantages and disadvantages is whether literature has declined or developed under the condition of network development. Apply what you have learned. Next, we will use the theory of communication to discuss the five elements in the process of literary communication-author, work, communication channel, audience and communication effect.

First, for literary creators, the development of the internet not only makes it very convenient for them to consult materials, send manuscripts and communicate with editors and readers, but also provides them with a relatively free and equal platform for publishing and commenting on their works, which stimulates their creative enthusiasm. Of course, many of them are still too immature, but even if they are immature, such as Selected Compositions for Primary School Students, were they not the cradles for the growth of many great writers? Have you ever made an indelible contribution to the progress of literature?

second, for literary works, the freedom and compatibility of the internet make them gradually return to the people from the top, and the trend of popularization, popularization and humanization is obvious. However, these characteristics have also brought the expansion of junk literature to a certain extent, but doesn't this explain the importance and urgency of network institutionalization and standardization?

Thirdly, for the literary communication channels, the advantages of the network are mainly manifested in the diversification of channels brought by hyperlinks and multimedia, the speediness of communication brought by instant messaging and rapid communication, the extensive influence brought by transcending geographical restrictions, and the low price brought by electronic transmission, which can be described as how fast and good.

fourthly, for the literary audience, they can not only read a large amount of information without leaving home, but also quickly pick out useful information from it, exchange their feelings with like-minded people, or directly feed back their ideas to the author, or even join the ranks of creation.

Fifthly, in terms of the effect of literary communication, from the initial BBS to the current blog, from intermittent failure to self-contained, we have been surprised to find that the network is developing in a direction that is more suitable for the laws of literary creation, and its communication effect is increasingly prominent.

to sum up, we firmly believe that the advantages of network development outweigh the disadvantages for literature.

Argument against:

Thank you, Chairman, and hello!

first of all, let's clarify the concept of network, which obviously means that the development of Internet is the development of Internet. What is literature? He is an art that uses language as a tool to visually reflect the objective reality. To judge whether the network development is harmful or beneficial to literature depends on whether it is more conducive to literature to fully and truly reflect the objective reality, whether it is conducive to the development of literary creation tools, that is, language and writing, and whether it is more conducive to literature to play its guiding role of truth, goodness and beauty.

Then, let me demonstrate that the development of the Internet does more harm than good to literature.

Literature originates from the inspiration of creation. Only when Li Bai floats alone can he have the heroic spirit of "flying down to thousands of feet, and it is suspected that the Milky Way has fallen for nine days". Liu Yong is not close to the market, where can he get the lingering feeling of "holding hands and looking at tears, but he is speechless and choking"? In the final analysis, literature comes from real life. Without the cornerstone of reality, the building of literature can only collapse. People linger on the Internet, forget the noise of the food market, and get rid of the hard work of crowded cars, not to mention the advantages and disadvantages of human development. At least, the reduction of real contact between people makes it impossible for us to expect to describe the music of birds in three pools mirroring the moon and experience the strength of Gone with the Wind.

Throughout the network, a large number of network terms are flooding our articles. As we all know, the mainstream people who use the Internet are teenagers. They picked up the "886" and let go of the "farewell". With the "1314", they abandoned the "pledge of eternal love". How can we find the fragrance of "how many flowers fall in our dreams" when the language and writing, the tool of literature, have developed so far?

Thanks to the development of the Internet, Tang Priest never fell in love with La Traviata at first sight. the Monkey King was reincarnated as the son of Sister Xianglin, which can be described as various and strange. Should it be amazing or lamenting?

literature needs to protect the creative hierarchy and bear the heavy responsibility of attracting people to pursue truth, goodness and beauty. However, blindly pasting and copying big words and adapting them will make the original pure literature "unrecognizable" and make people become famous overnight, which will attract people to flock, cater to readers' preferences and pursue click-through rates.

It took Goethe 61 years to sharpen his sword before he wrote Faust. After several rounds of deliberation, Jia Dao "pushed the monk to the door".

I wonder, how can a masterpiece last forever without a lot of practice and thinking? If the piling up and clipping of literature are all literature, then where will literature die?

Defensive counterattack

Any debater of the opposing side refutes the positive argument:

Thank you, Chairman, and also thank the other debater for the wonderful speech he gave us. However, in your speech just now, the other debater gave us the advantages of the development of the Internet, but never mentioned the disadvantages. Let's take a look at today's debate, which is a comparison of advantages and disadvantages. Since it is a comparative proposition, Then, when the other debater lists the advantages for us, does he also give us an analysis of its disadvantages, and demonstrate to us which is clear and which is important, unless the other debater wants to demonstrate to us that the influence of the development of the network on literature is only beneficial and not harmful. Then let's take a look at how the other debaters argue.

First of all, the other debater told us that the development of the Internet has accelerated the spread of literature. If all the literature is spread on the Internet, then we admit that it is of course the benefit of literature. But the problem is that the Internet is full of some literature that can't be said to be literature, and these articles are the most concerned by people. So from this perspective, the Internet has not really accelerated the spread of literature, but accelerated the spread of these articles that can't be called literature, which makes people pay attention to real literature.

Second, the other debater said that the development of the Internet has contributed to the benefits of literature in many ways, but I want to tell the other debater that literature comes from life. What you see on the Internet, what you smell is moldy bread on the desktop. In the long run, the other debater told us that this is also called life? What is life? Life needs us to devote ourselves to society, nature and our five senses to feel. It is this feeling of life that is the creation of literature. However, the development of the internet makes our life more confined to the network, and the development of the network is extremely unfavorable for this change in lifestyle and literary creation.

Any debater of the positive side refutes the rebuttal of the negative side, and at the same time consolidates our position:

Thank you, Chairman! Hello everyone! Just now, the other debater said that we didn't talk about the disadvantages of the internet. We are really more wronged than Dou E! We have just made it clear in our argument that we did not say that there are no disadvantages in the Internet, but as the other debater said just now, there are many junk works on the Internet, but there are also classic works on the Internet, including The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and A Dream of Red Mansions. Why don't you say something? Please search Baidu to see how many Shakespeare there are. Do you know? I really don't understand how quickly and economically the other debater said. Does the other debater even deny the advantage of how fast and economically the communication is? Do you want us to go back to the time when it was "difficult to cross the mountains and send precious books"? Moreover, the other party just said that the Internet makes people addicted. Am I addicted to love, playing mahjong and fishing? Aren't these addictions?

Any debater for the positive side refutes the argument against the negative side:

Thank you, Chairman! Hello everyone! Today, the arguments made by the other debaters are wonderful and voluminous, but if we analyze them carefully, we will find many loopholes.

first, Li Daitao is stiff. The other debaters transfer most of the problems in literature itself or the weakness of human nature to network problems, such as the terminology of network literature.

Second, the development mentioned by the other debater is not development at all, but retrogression. According to the logic of the other side, the network will get worse and worse, and its advantages will gradually disappear. What is development? If human development for 5,111 years is retrogression according to the logic of the other side, then human beings would have gone up in smoke. Today, the literature in the mouth of the other debater has become a vase, and any hint of literature will be broken. Looking at the history of literature development, we can draw that literature has achieved its own growth only through repeated changes. When the novel vernacular appeared, many people almost exclaimed that the end of literature had arrived, and even committed suicide by jumping off a building. But isn't the novel vernacular the mainstream of literature today? Finally, I would like to ask the other debater a question. Today, the other debater talks about the pros and cons. What is the standard that the development of the other debater's network does more harm than good to literature? The other defense friend didn't tell us, so please answer our questions directly. thank you

Any debater of the opposing side refutes the rebuttal of the positive side, and at the same time consolidates our position:

Thank you, Chairman, and good evening!

First, respond to the other party's question. Today, our communication based on this debate has clearly told the other party's debaters in our first debate, that is, whether it is conducive to the creation of our literature and the development of language and writing, whether it is conducive to reflecting the objective reality, and whether it is conducive to giving play to the guiding role of literature in truth, goodness and beauty. So just now, the other debater told us that we expanded literature, so what I want to tell the other debater is that it is precisely because of the fast, convenient and extensive network that literature has been expanded. Isn't this the disadvantage of network development to literature? In addition, the other party said that we have expanded the disadvantages of the network more and more, so I want to ask the other party whether the development of the network is only good for literature and not bad. So, should our debate today become that the development of the internet is only good for literature, not bad? Furthermore, the other party said that we are alarmist, so I want to say that the significance of discussing this debate today is to tell everyone to realize this in a responsible manner. A levee of a thousand miles collapses in an ant nest, so what we are seeing now is the impact of the development of the network on literature, on language and writing, and on the impact of literature on truth, goodness and beauty. Isn't it difficult for us to think about it when we see such signs? Here, I also want to ask the other debater, is the development of the internet more beneficial than harmful to literature at any time?

hand-to-hand combat

FANG: I don't know if you haven't heard of it. There is a literary forum in the Chinese Department called "Watchmen". Professor Wu Wei, the judge of our Jinan Garden Debate Competition, once wrote a passage on it: I would like to dedicate the last few drops of nectar in my dried-up literary fountain to the watchers. If the development of the internet does more harm than good to literature, as the other debater said, will Mr. Wu Wei dedicate this to something that does more harm than good?

Counterparty: First of all, in response to the question raised by the other debater, Mr. Wu Wei devoted his love of literature to the Internet, which is for literature, not for the Internet. What is the mechanism of the development of the other debater's network?

pro: the other debater has separated the network from literature. Isn't this a philosophical mistake?

opposing party: the opposing party, we are not separated from literature by the internet, so I would like to ask the opposing party the second question, what impact has the development of the internet had on all aspects of our lives?

pro: I can't tell you the advantages and disadvantages of online literature, so I want to ask the other debater a question: the development of the internet has greatly improved the social status of literature and made it easier for literary works to read online. Does this make its communication effect better?

Counterparty: the effect of communication is good, but please remember that the premise of communication is the creation of literature. The other debater didn't tell us the influence of the internet on life, so I want to ask the other debater,

Pro: Why didn't we say the influence on life? It's more convenient and faster, isn't it? Then it is precisely because of the convenience and speed of the internet that we can get more literary works. Isn't this good for literature?

opposing party: please listen to our questions.