On April 23, the final of the 33rd Golden Autumn Art Festival Debating Competition of Wuhan University was held in the academic lecture hall of Wuhan University’s  Main Library. Prof. Su Dechao, Prof. Yu Feng and Assoc. Prof. Fei Dingzhou from the School of Philosophy, Prof. Pan Yingchun from the School of History, Assoc. Prof. Wan Zhen from the School of Civil Engineering, Ms. Zhong Saixiang from the School of Resource and Environmental Sciences and Ms. Zhang Deling from Taikang Medical School (the School of Basic Medical Sciences) were invited as judges, and President Dou Xiankang and Deputy Secretary of the Party Committee of WHU Qu Wenqian were invited as guests.

President Dou and judges

The second runner-up battle took place between debate teams from the School of Cyber Science and Engineering and the College of Chemistry and Molecular Sciences. They debated the topic, “If there is only one choice, is your preference to ‘read a good book’ or to ‘talk to a noble person’”.

The affirmative side, the team from the School of Cyber Science and Engineering, utilized Goethe’s words to put forward arguments from autologous needs. Their viewpoint was based on two dimensions. First, reading a good book makes people think more independently and deeply; Second, reading a good book improves professional ability and helps build a complete knowledge system structure. Comparatively, the negative side, the team from the College of Chemistry and Molecular Sciences, explained Goethe’s words in detail and presented their own arguments: Talking with a noble person can cause one to truly understand the inner world of the other and verify one’s own views, contributing to open-mindedness.

During the subsequent disputation, the debaters’ thoughts collided ferociously. The second debater of the affirmative side stated that reading could result in one feeling the inner world of another person, though talking to a noble person was limited as people cannot demand a person talk to them individually and constantly. To contradict them, the second debater of the negative side took debating as an example to prove the significance of conversation. He believed that passionate conversations are more attractive and deeper than dry books.

The affirmative side illustrating their viewpoints

After a couple of rounds of back and forth debating, the conclusion was also stirring. The fourth debater of the negative side first explained that the emotions brought by conversation could better infect us and inspire us to think, then pointed out that the affirmative side had not completed their demonstration at the knowledge level. Talking to a noble person could allow people to understand the other’s reflection, which reading may not be able to achieve.

The conclusion of the negative side

The result appeared on the signs held up by the judges. The negative side won with a score of 4-3, and Xu Feiyu, the fourth debater of the negative side, won best debater. As a senior student, this was Xu’s last time in the debate competition of the Golden Autumn Art Festival. Remarkably, this is the first time that the debate team from the College of Chemistry and Molecular Sciences reached the end round. Hence this award carried special commemorative significance for him. In expressing his hopes for the junior students in the debate team, Xu said, “It is important to be free from arrogance and impetuosity. I hope they can keep their feet on the ground and work hard.”

During the commenting segment, Ms. Zhong Saixiang thought that the negative side had many vivid and perceptible examples, and the leading effect was better, while the affirmative side had more loopholes in the premise assumption. Prof. Yu Feng pointed out that the negative side was more accurate in grasping the loopholes in the positive argument and analyzed the theory of emotional infection.

Ms. Zhong giving comments

Later on, the battle for the championship between the debate teams from the College of Chinese Language and Literature and the School of Law began. The debate topic focused on “whether ‘Youth will never vanish’ is a lie”.

At the beginning of the argument, the affirmative side, the team from the College of Chinese Language and Literature first explained the definition of youth as a stage towards maturity. Then a judgment was given that it isn’t a lie, followed by the view that things have been changing. As time goes by, when the unknown becomes known, the state of mind changes. Only by recognizing that “Youth will never vanish” is a lie can people please themselves, grasp the present and embrace the future. The negative side, the team from the School of Law, emphasized that youth will never vanish, whether it is necessary to exist in reality and value, cited examples of people who make many choices to break through social conventions and walk out of their wonderful life, and put forward that believing that youth will never vanish can make people pursue goals and love without limitation.

The affirmative side making arguments

The two sides had a heated discussion about the definition of lies and the characteristics of youth. The affirmative side pointed out that the arguments should not be demonstrated by the example of “some people”, but should be in line with the objective facts. The negative side insisted that there was a way for everyone to never lose their youth. For the opposing view that the characteristics of enthusiasm and vitality are unique to youth, the affirmative side believes that they can be possessed at every stage of life, so they do not have unique characteristics. At the same time, the negative side hit back. The so-called psychological change does not mean the passing of youth. If people have experienced it, they can still recall it with tears in their eyes.

Entering the concluding remarks, the fourth debater from the negative side declaimed warmly and sincerely, “The passing of youth is when some people take the initiative to give up, but those who are unwilling to give up youth can still try to keep the characteristics of youth. Finally, I would like to emphasize once again that it is better to plant youth in your heart than to cherish its memory, so that we will always be young!”

The fourth debater from the School of Law declaiming

After fierce competition, the debate team from the College of Chinese Language and Literature won the championship with 4-3 and the golden autumn crown. Yan Yuchen, the fourth debater from the School of Law, won the best debater.

As one of the judges, Ms. Zhang Deling commented that the two sides had both shown a mature style in debating, and they were neck to neck. The affirmative side preferred attacking and emphasized the change of mentality, while the negative side stripped out the overall view of the affirmative side, using many appropriate examples and highlighting meticulous and rational thinking.

After awarding the prize to the champion team, President Dou delivered an impromptu speech. He first congratulated the four teams and highly praised the excellent debate level of WHU debaters. He also expressed his hopes to integrate into the youth group full of vitality and speculative spirit, to constantly meet the growing diversified and reasonable demands of students, and make his “youth never vanish”. Finally, President Dou told students to forge ahead with the heart of youth so that “Youth never vanishes” in the future.

President Dou with the champion

Photo by Peng Zhuo

Edited by Chen Jiaqi, Qin Zehao,Yin Xiaoxue, Zou Xiaohan, Sylvia, Xi Bingqing