伊杨的作文集合贴，欢迎大家互评，请牛人估测一下我实战能拿到多少分。

yiyang_1982UID: 2244483

issue179 "What most human beings really want to attain is not knowledge, but certainty.  Gaining real knowledge requires taking risks and keeping the mind open—but most people  prefer to be reassured rather than to learn the complex and often unsettling truth about  anything."

The speaker is on the correct philosophical side that human beings need certainty to live a  reassured life, which is the main premise of other activities such as studying and working.  However, the author unnecessarily extends his broad assertion to embrace extreme cases that  what human beings really want to attain and maintain is reassuring rather than knowledge, no  matter what kinds of knowledge. My points of contention with the speaker involve the  function of knowledge and the real desire of human beings.

I concede that every people, perhaps every creature has in nature a sense to seek security,  which involves stability, protection, and certainty etc. After all, security concern lies at  the bottom of Maslow theory as the most basic human need. Absent reassurance or stability,  human beings tend to be unsettled and attracted by anything happened around, while cannot  spare much time to other human endeavors, which belong to higher human requirements. To the  contrary, once spiritually satisfied and psychologically appeased, human beings are likely  to seek and explore the unknown for excitement and self-fulfillment, either in the nature or  in the psychic territory, where knowledge might be taken account of.

Turning to my first point of contention with the speaker, by any means, however, knowledge  cannot impede human beings from getting certainty, as the speaker might imply. According to  the speaker's assertion, human beings were limited in an alternative choice---- certainty  and knowledge. Moreover, he asserts that pursuit of knowledge undermines the stable status  of human beings, because of that gaining real knowledge means risking and mind-opening which  add to complex and unsettling truth to plain live time. As a matter of fact, desire for  knowledge, or more specifically, interests for the unknown world also plays as an  indispensable requirement as sense of security does. Consider infant's curious eyes and  particular interests in everything around. Haven't we have curiosity on how can a  kaleidoscope play tricks or what is there in the basement in our childhood? Also consider  the trial-and-error process of universal exploration. We risk exploring the outer space  times and times again, because we are motivated by nature in searching for true answers and  lasting solutions for pressing problems and questions lurking behind the so-called reassured  life.

Even if attaining knowledge holds no property with human natural requirement, the function  of knowledge aims to help and reassure human beings rather than undermine the well-being of  beings. Consider an extreme example: were we had not had preliminary knowledge or experience  about unsettlement or complexity, query whether we are able to define the opposite ---- certainty. In fact, knowledge aid human beings to live an ever better life than before. For  instance, knowledge of architecture helps to construct strong and comfort buildings;  knowledge of digital information emancipates human beings from complex burdens and gives  birth to reassured SOHO life; knowledge of medical care exempts human beings worrying and  unsettlement, thus create a healthy world. In this sense, knowledge is not a dispensable  luxury but a true necessity for human beings to prosper and maintain reassured, although  road to knowledge might be expensive and tough.

In sum, we human beings are born to seek certainty and other kinds of support that can  promise reassurance. However, we are also a sort of creature longing for real knowledge and  the truth of uncharted territory. In the final analysis, to attain knowledge is to gain the  capacity to be more reassured---- and I would be hard-pressed to imagine a worthier end.

yiyang_1982UID: 2244483

argument18 The following appeared in an editorial in a Prunty County newspaper.

“In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County recently lowered its speed limit  from 55 miles per hour to 45 on all major county roads. But the 55 mph limit should be  restored, because this safety effort has failed. Most drivers are exceeding the new speed  limit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County has decreased only slightly. If we want  to improve the safety of our roads, we should instead undertake the same kind of road  improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago: increasing lane widths and  resurfacing rough roads. Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit,  yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past year than  there were five years ago.”

In this assertion the speaker recommeds that previous 55 miles per hour speed limit in  Prunty County (PC) should be restored in stead of another 45-mile restriction. To support  this recommendation the speaker cites the following reasons: 1. most drivers drive exceeding  speed despite of the new speed limit, in the meantime, accident rate in PC did not decrease  much. 2. Butler County improved another successful improvements five years ago in order to  adress the same problem we counter, such as increasing lane widthand resurfacing rough road,  however, without speed limit below 55mph. Close scrutiny of each of those reasons, however,  reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

Firstly, the speaker asserts that 45-mile limit has failed because drivers kept exceeding  speed and only a slight accident decrease has taken place. This does not necessarily  indicate that the limit has problem itself. Perhaps, exceeding speed is a common case in the  downtown, while drivers drive more cautious and relatively, in a lower speed in all major  country roads. It is also possible that people are too hasty to seek an immediate result of  such limit in a short time, in which the effect of such limit can not came into. Even if  this limit has put into effect for a long time, it is still possible that in that time,  weather condition was extremely bad, which might amounts to higher accident rate. Moreover,  a rough road surface might also ascribed to when it comes to measuring the effect of 45 mph  limit. Given also my assumptions are warranted, 45 mph limit in PC might be very successful  and effective considering that the accident rate did decreased a little.

Secondly, the speaker cites BC problems as example which again achieves little in  substantiating the recommendation. We may aware that BC and PC could be in different regions  of different geological patterns. Perhaps, PC's roads are so wide and so smooze that no  further amelioration is needed compared with that of BC. Even PC's road is inferior than  BC's. We have to be circumspect about that BC's case happened in five years ago. Many geat  changes might have taken place such as population, amount of cars, and other reasons that  prevent we from featuring BC without reservation. Again, the speaker failed to provide any  evidence that the BC's 55 mph limit is toward all major county roads. It is possible that  this limit is a loose limit for drivers on narrow roads in BC. Even though BC did applied  such kind of limit in major roads and achieved a so-called 25 persnet fewer accidents  reported, it is highly possible that there were more accidents than merely reported ones.  Also, a 25 persnet accident decrease accomlished little in supporting that this limit has  equal effect in years other than this past year, which the speaker cited as an evidence, let  alone the possibility that such 25 persnet decrease does not come from a speed limit but  overall better driving skills of BC drivers.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumption that render it unconvincing  as it stands. To better bolster the recommendation the speaker must provide clear evidence  that keep all factors in common when compared PC with BC. To better assess the  recommendation, I would need to know whether the 25-persent decrease in BC is irrelative  with factors of speed while concern largely with merely road conditions. Otherwise, I remain  unconvinced with the recommendation.

yiyang_1982UID: 2244483

issue202  "Unlike great thinkers and great artists, the most effective political leaders  must often yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise."

I agree with the speaker that as a political leader one should cater for the public, whose  satisfaction fulfils the real meaning of democracy. However, the speaker unnecessarily  extends this broad illusion to embrace the being of political environment, and at the same  time inadvertently misunderstood the very purpose of thinkers and great artists---- for the  well-being of human beings. My points of contention with the speaker involve the so-called  compromised political condition and distorted artistic spirit.

Firstly, I concede that only those political roles, which put public opinion as the most  important---- at least seemingly, worth the title of effective political leaders. After all,  it is the public who endowed these people power to reign and manage. Logically, if one  political leader took the average's opinion truly as his guideline and belief, he would  succeed sooner or later. But when it comes to cases that political leader's suggestion  contradicts the willing of the public, I doubt whether an effective political leader would  yield to public, whose information needed for judgment might be inadequate or biased, let  alone abandoning principle. Admittedly, political leaders took the responsibility to pursue  well-being for his supporters. Yet, could compromising solve all those problems we met when  public thoughts and political leader's judgment fail to meet each other? If so, why bother  electing political leaders? What we need is merely a website to gather and vote. In fact,  political leader plays not only a symbol of a country, but also a general decision maker,  whose points of view might be higher than the public. This is especially true when it comes  to legislation, war, international relationship, sate security and so on. In these  circumstances, public opinion had better yield to that of political leader's for the sake of  true effectiveness. To the contrary, query whether one such leader who catering for the  public without principle could finally fulfill his oath to the public---- the well being of  them.

Actually, yielding to public opinion on the price of principle---- or more rationally  speaking, to the purpose of serving public is just an political illusion, in which people  tend to think their leaders are as honest as Abraham Lincoln and as wise as Plato, thus  mixed up demagoguery and democracy. To be frank, our leaders are far more sophisticated than  we can imagine. Take presidential election as example, can we elect what we really admire or  trust? What I can vote was limited in several political stars from interest galaxies rather  than my professor or my boss, who are real noble and able as to my opinion. When we were  celebrating that some one at last became our political leader, we risk sanctioning other  people to take away our general belief prescribed by law and marked by human rights; they  are players, while we are at most chessmen. Thus, the speaker's implication that political  leaders must become more and more yielding to public opinion or even abandoning principle to  compromise in order for more effective management amounts to little significance other than  another political illusion.

Turning to my second point of contention with the speaker: compared with politicians, great  thinkers and great artists serve the public by different means, which might be misunderstood  by common people. However, although they behave unique and contradict public opinion, their  contribution to the public tends to be proven by people after them rather than their  contemporaries. For example, not until latter-day did Plato's theories on state structure  and power formation, which violated the common beliefs of his contemporaries, become the  core spirit of modern political construction. As the same fate, another great philosopher,  Nietzsche's achievements destructured and rebuilt a societal order two hundred years after  his death. Also, hundreds of years has passed before we can eventually decode some art  master pieces, such as Jackstraw by Van Gogh and Mona Lisa by Da Vinci. Moreover, at the  same time we are currently criticizing post-modernistic activities for its unique behavior  and appearance, no one would dispute that this in fact is a reflection of the being of our  life, in which we experience and suffer from demagoguery, dilemma, political illusion and  other kinds of miseries. In retrospection, we have more thinkers and great artists than  politicians in memory; although political leader's active role provides immediate  excitement, real great thinkers' and artists' forward-looking opinion contributes lasting  reassurance for the well-being of human beings.

In sum, neither could an effective political leader or a sophisticated politician yields and  caters for public opinion. Adversely, behind the obstinate and unruly appearance, great  thinkers and great artists are those who strive to find lasting solutions and reassuring  explanations for our enduring problems. We had better treat political leaders' suspicious  slogan and compromising more cautiously at the same time being generous to thinkers' and  artists' unique opinions.

yiyang_1982UID: 2244483

issue4 "No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge  and experience to that field of study."

I partly agree with the speaker that outsiders can bring into one field of study credible  and considerable advancement, especially when it comes to some cutting-edge disciplines.  However, the speaker unnecessarily extends his broad assertion to embrace the other side of  this issue that, without outsider's talents and experience insiders tend to achieve little,  while ignoring certain kinds of bases needed for outsiders to graft their contributions. My  points of contention with the speaker involve the notions of insider and outsider and also,  the best means by which one study might thrive.

I concede that outsiders of one field of study usually make great contributions. After all,  outsiders suffer less restriction from the established formulas which have ingrained in  insider's brain. Moreover, outsiders with large amount of knowledge and thoughts from other  fields of studies tend to bring even larger possibility for both sides of specialists to  communicate, interact and collide, which might result in refined ideas, innovative theories  and refreshing thoughts; thus serve to advance significantly both sides. One apt  illustration focused on the realm of Economics. As an active than ever discipline, economics  plays a vital role as a connection together as a hot-pot between relative subjects such as  Mathematics, Statistics, Accounting, and even Psychology. However, those outsiders who  previously have no relationship with Economics become more and more prestigious for the  reason that they brought great changes to Economics. Were there no mathematician as Von  Neumann, John Nash, there would have no Game Theory; as the same, Hadn't Daniel Kahneman  brought his psychology research into what has been based by former Game Players, Game Theory  could achieve little in extending to human inner part of movement, where lies the ultimate  power of human actions. In turn, both Mathematics and Psychology found their practical model  and concrete laboratory to validate and revise their assumptions. Clearly, outsiders have  made and will continue to intrude other field of study for larger surprise and more active  achievements.

However, emphasize too much on what have offered by outsiders could serve as  counterproductive factors, which migh undermine and destroy the united bases for both sides  of studies to prosper. As a matter of fact, without traditional economists, whose main  objective focused on how to make better use of limited resources, outsiders might have no  chance to realize their advanced ideas of person-to-person plays, strategies, nor could they  found that psychology could play another formerly insignificant role in influencing people's  economic behaviors. Another example might be even more compelling: space exploration. When I  first come across the scene of control center of NASA, I was shocked in the image of  hundreds of specialists, most of which are outsiders beyond Aeronautics. In fact, outsiders  as physicians, mathematicians, chemists, together with engineers of designing, structure,  material, molding, control, and so on, took much more responsibilities than merely  aeronautists did in the process of space adventure as a whole. Yet, were it not for what has  constructed and tutored by aeronautists, I doubt others could finally imagine out what the  rocket, where all other's efforts have to put in, should be like, let alone taking  astronauts to outer space. Therefore, whether outsiders could brought great significance to  one specific field of study or not must be put into a case-to-case analysis. Outsiders  could, as what has happened to Darwinians and Theologian, adversely spoil the integrity of  both sides. In this sense, outsiders strolling beyond one field of study can either make  great advancement or lethal hit to it.

In order to make a more harmonious circumstance for all kinds of research to thrive, we have  to call for a balance between inside research and outside expertise. After all, stale minds  need fresh air to revitalize and new sailors demand lighthouse to navigate. No one would  dispute that interdisciplinary cooperation could finally reconcile and remove the issue  debating "which one is more important", and focus on "how to make better future" for human  beings as a whole, and I would be hard-pressed to imagine a worthier end.

yiyang_1982UID: 2244483

issue4 "No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge  and experience to that field of study."

I partly agree with the speaker that outsiders can bring into one field of study credible  and considerable advancement, especially when it comes to some cutting-edge disciplines.  However, the speaker unnecessarily extends his broad assertion to embrace the other side of  this issue that, without outsider's talents and experience insiders tend to achieve little,  while ignoring certain kinds of bases needed for outsiders to graft their contributions. My  points of contention with the speaker involve the notions of insider and outsider and also,  the best means by which one study might thrive.

I concede that outsiders of one field of study usually make great contributions. After all,  outsiders suffer less restriction from the established formulas which have ingrained in  insider's brain. Moreover, outsiders with large amount of knowledge and thoughts from other  fields of studies tend to bring even larger possibility for both sides of specialists to  communicate, interact and collide, which might result in refined ideas, innovative theories  and refreshing thoughts; thus serve to advance significantly both sides. One apt  illustration focused on the realm of Economics. As an active than ever discipline, economics  plays a vital role as a connection together as a hot-pot between relative subjects such as  Mathematics, Statistics, Accounting, and even Psychology. However, those outsiders who  previously have no relationship with Economics become more and more prestigious for the  reason that they brought great changes to Economics. Were there no mathematician as Von  Neumann, John Nash, there would have no Game Theory; as the same, Hadn't Daniel Kahneman  brought his psychology research into what has been based by former Game Players, Game Theory  could achieve little in extending to human inner part of movement, where lies the ultimate  power of human actions. In turn, both Mathematics and Psychology found their practical model  and concrete laboratory to validate and revise their assumptions. Clearly, outsiders have  made and will continue to intrude other field of study for larger surprise and more active  achievements.

However, emphasize too much on what have offered by outsiders could serve as  counterproductive factors, which migh undermine and destroy the united bases for both sides  of studies to prosper. As a matter of fact, without traditional economists, whose main  objective focused on how to make better use of limited resources, outsiders might have no  chance to realize their advanced ideas of person-to-person plays, strategies, nor could they  found that psychology could play another formerly insignificant role in influencing people's  economic behaviors. Another example might be even more compelling: space exploration. When I  first come across the scene of control center of NASA, I was shocked in the image of  hundreds of specialists, most of which are outsiders beyond Aeronautics. In fact, outsiders  as physicians, mathematicians, chemists, together with engineers of designing, structure,  material, molding, control, and so on, took much more responsibilities than merely  aeronautists did in the process of space adventure as a whole. Yet, were it not for what has  constructed and tutored by aeronautists, I doubt others could finally imagine out what the  rocket, where all other's efforts have to put in, should be like, let alone taking  astronauts to outer space. Therefore, whether outsiders could brought great significance to  one specific field of study or not must be put into a case-to-case analysis. Outsiders  could, as what has happened to Darwinians and Theologian, adversely spoil the integrity of  both sides. In this sense, outsiders strolling beyond one field of study can either make  great advancement or lethal hit to it.

In order to make a more harmonious circumstance for all kinds of research to thrive, we have  to call for a balance between inside research and outside expertise. After all, stale minds  need fresh air to revitalize and new sailors demand lighthouse to navigate. No one would  dispute that interdisciplinary cooperation could finally reconcile and remove the issue  debating "which one is more important", and focus on "how to make better future" for human  beings as a whole, and I would be hard-pressed to imagine a worthier end.

yiyang_1982UID: 2244483

argument43 The following appeared as part of a business plan developed by the manager of the  Rialto Theater.
"Despite its downtown location, the Rialto Movie Theater, a local institution for five  decades, must make big changes or close its doors forever. It should follow the example of  the new Apex Theater in the mall outside of town. When the Apex opened last year, it  featured a video arcade, plush carpeting and seats, and a state-of-the-art sound system.  Furthermore, in a recent survey, over 85 percent of respondents reported that the high price  of newly released movies prevents them from going to the movies more than five times per  year. Thus, if the Rialto intends to hold on to its share of a decreasing pool of  moviegoers, it must offer the same features as Apex."

The manager of Rialto Theater (RT) recommends that RT should copy the same features as Apex  in order to hold on to its market status or it should shut down forever. To support his  recommendation the speaker cites the following reasons: (1) competitor Apex featured a video  arcade, plush carpeting and seats, and a powerful sound system. (2) a recent survey reveals  that a large amount of respondents refuse to go to movies more than five times per year due  to high price. Close scrutiny of each of the reasons, however, appears that none of them  lend credible support to the recommendation.

First, Apex's feature do not necessarily indicate that it played as a negative factor in  RT's decreasing share. Since they are in the different location, it is possible that they  both have fixed groups of customers respectively. Even Apex has influenced RT's business, no  evidence has been offered concerning that RT's features and equipment are inferior than  Apex's. Perhaps Apex's video arcade, plush carpeting seats and sound system are out of date  compared with that of RT's. Even if Apex's equipment outweigh RT, why should RT necessarily  copy Apex's features? If this is the main reason why RT is suffering a share decreasing, it  would be wiser for RT to provide more luxury environment rather than merely copy that of  Apex if money permits? In short, without rulling out other possible reasons that Apex's  equipment really outweigh RT and attract more customers from the latter, the speaker cannot  convince me on the basis of them that such kind of renewing is necessary, nor can he  persuade me that the profit decreasing relates to equipment issues.

Secondly, another problemwith the argument involves the cited statistic about movie  customers. However, the speaker provides no evidence that the survey's respondents are  representative of the overall group of people whose interests of movie watching were  seriously influenced by the so-called high price. Perhaps those respondents who are  complaining about high price makes only a small portion of people in that region as a whole.  It is also possible that newly released movies are few exceptions among all the movie  offerred. People can still enjoy cheap movies if they do not want to taste the new ones.  Even if such high-price movies are the majority, and those respondents are representative,  it does not necessarily lead to RT's decreasing share. It is possible that RT's movie prices  are so high that only a small group of customers could ensure RT an expecting profit. Or  perhaps, people in the state are not big fans of movies, while five times a year in the  region appears too much and could guarantee RT adequate profit. Even if these assumptions  are warranted, newing equipment following the example of Apex can achieve nothing but  amounts to even higher movie price due to accounting concerns. Therefore, the recommendation  might be eventually counterproductive. Unless the speaker sustantiate more evidence on the  survey and general information of customers in that region, I remain unconvinced that the  so-called high price of movies has played some part in the profit decreasing of RT.

Many other factors might also influence RT's share, such as custom service, competitors  other than Apex and other economic movements such as investment on chain stores amd  inflation. The overall popularity in that region should also be considered, because it is  also possible that people are about moving out in that region, which contributes RT's share  lost.

In sum, the recommedation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing  as it stands. To better bolster the recommendation the speaker must provide clear evidence  that Apex's equipment are better than RT's and RT have to amerliorate its equipment in order  to all back market share. Moreover, a more specific and wide survey is also needed so as to  have a better analysis of customer's interests and trends in that region.

yiyang_1982UID: 2244483

issue215 "The bombardment of visual images in contemporary society has the effect of making  people less able to focus clearly and extensively on a single issue over a long period of  time."

I concede that the author repeated two plain facts---- visual images in contempory society  is extremely flooding and modern people are getting more and more absentminded from issues  they should focus upon. However, the speaker unnecessarily joint up them and concludes that  visual images should has been blamed for causing such kind of absentmindedness. My points of  contention with the speaker involves various reasons why people getting abstracted and the  bilateral effect of visual bombardment, as discussed below.

Turning to my fist point of contention, what has made contemporary people less capable to  focus clearly and extensively on a certain issue? Admittedly, modern people tends to be  overwhelmingly splitted by visual images arround us, such as flooding advertisement,  colorful magazine covers, television shows and time-wasting commercial movies. However, it  is unjustifiable to pin all of these to visual matters. In fact, human beings mainly depend  on observing and hearing to make decisions and judgement. If it is warranted to claim that  we are enclosed in the bombardment of what we can see, also, it might be justify to take  aural trashes in account of making people distracted from normal concerns. Consider the  negative function of trashy talk-shows and shouting matches, and so forth. Sound pollution  of such bombardment clearly outweighs that of visual images. Also consider another famous  psychological experiment, in which experts put two groups of normal people into two distinct  rooms---- one with moving meaningless montage on the wall and another with sporadic tuneless  sounds. As it turns out, people in the latter sound-room trends to be more distracted and  anxious than those in the enclosure of visual bombardment. Of course, visual image  unnecessarily plays the only factor which should be blamed.

Turning to my second point of view that to some extent visual images help contemporary  people to generate meaningful discussion and valuable communication. As has illustrated  above, people rely on visual expressions to collect information necessary for them to focus  and solve certain issues. As an old saying goes, "picture says a thounsand words". Moreover,  as a matter of fact, statistic results proves that symbols, images and pictures are the most  meaningful, effective and imaginative means which we human beings hire to communicate. Let  alone the undermining results of excessive visual impacts, certain symbols, logos, or other  visual identifications aid people to judge, differentiate and sieve useful imformation. For  example, few would dispute that trade mark's indispensible driving function when some people  aim to choose something good immediately. And also, when it comes to public signs such car  parking, hospital, emergency exit and so on, such visual images tend to help people to  address pressing problems and thus focus clearly and extensively on other more pressing  issues.

Even if in contemporary society, visual pollution plays so incredibly flooded that normal  societal life was seriously disturbed, distorted and co-mingled, to the contary, human  beings have the capacity to shunt and avoid visual abstraction. That is, turning off TV  sets, getting back from Internets, playing with kids and thinking and chewing the real  meaning of human life. Complaining visual images have stealing our time and patience over a  long period of time assist nothing but exacerbate this fool's errand.

In sum, although sometimes visual impact has the effect of treating people a more passive  role in focusing specfic issues or problems, human beings---- especially modern people cling  to visual perception for successful communication and valuable understanding. Sieving sand  for gold and screening trash for pearl, this interesting process might be the very course,  by which true strong people survive and succeed.

yiyang_1982UID: 2244483

issue35 No matter what the situation, it is more harmful to compromise one's beliefs than to  adhere to them

I agree with the speaker that one has to adhering to his belief, which plays as the origin  of confidence and motivation, especially in the modern society. People without beliefs or  principles achieve little and tend to lost himself in the mundane world. However, the  speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace another extreme side of this  issue that sticking to one's beliefs---- no matter what beliefs they are, always amounts to  positive outcome, while ignoring certain compelling examples that some of these stubborn  choices result in counterproductive effects. My points of contention with the speaker  involve the very notion of belief and several reasons why people have in some circumstance  compromise his beliefs, as discussed below.

Turning to my first contention with the speaker, what is belief? In certain conditions, such  kind of belief is largely a definition from religious tenet or tradition, which has been  planted in the deep part of one's value system. This helps to explain why Native Americans,  Amish Americans, Hasidic Americans and European Americans remain still in their beliefs of  value system, rituals, ceremonies, clothes and diets and so on. These people insist on  certain beliefs because they depend on such spiritual guidelines to maintain a period of  history, culture, and a means of living. Such adhering appears even precious compared with  modern, ever-changing, perishable social relationship. For this matter, some ones might not  be easy to swift from one such belief to another, nor could him easily compromise or abandon  it. Yet, seldom could many people win the battle between outside attractions and principles,  due to innate human deficiencies such as aggression and greedy. To seek relative examples  one need not look beyond the influence of violence and commercialization, in which spirits  of human beings tend to be evaluated by beastliness and money. Therefore, in most  circumstances, people are encouraged and applauded to defend their beliefs of moral  principles, ethic tenets and other kinds of self-controls. In short, we will never too  stubborn to guard our beliefs in the face of evils and enticement.

When it comes to, however, other sorts of beliefs which are generally based upon the former  and personal experience, such beliefs might be not as unalterable as we imagine. In fact, as  a reflection of outside material realm, beliefs keep changing every day even if they take  place in a less perceivable and predicable manner. After all, we live in a world whose  trends and interests behave so contagious. For example, since the world war two has past 60  years, former enemies such as Germany and Russia, China and Japan, USA and Italy became even  friendly than ever in the influence of globalization, no matter how miserable and disastrous  results the war has brought about. People gradually swift their beliefs of resentment from  war and intruders to recovering and reconstruction and another circle of economic booming.  All conclusive economic connectedness helps to form another international belief----  cooperation, to replace unilateral development and isolation. Or taking political areas as  example, almost in every run of presidential election, president candidates strive to cater  for the voters in order to earn larger support. In these conditions, political stars happily  compromise their beliefs merely for better impression and more compelling image. Despite of  their speculative and specious purposes, this process of compromising reveals a general  belief, with which one could eventually succeed and attain personal goals. Although such  kind of compromising tends to diminish one's individuality, or even worse bring another  political lier, public might still benefit from supporting those political leaders who  insist on their deeper own tenets and principles, as we have discussed above. True strong  people are those who can successfully call a balance between compromising and adhering  beliefs, and those get well use of beliefs. Moreover, were I had the chance to choose  whether revise my beliefs according to fit situation or sticking unconditionally to  established beliefs, I would like to select the first option in the premise of being loyal  to my tenets---- honest, straight, and the pursuit of happiness.

In sum, compromising on the price of abandoning one's principle or adhering to beliefs  unconditionally amount to extremity and the most harmful, for we are social individuals,  whose behavior, thoughts, deeds are largely influenced by the world around us. Rather than  treating compromising-adhering as an alternative choice, one should put this combination  into an overall perspective that whether we should face the intrinsic disadvantages among  human beings, and thus, seek harmony from unnecessary conflicts.

yiyang_1982UID: 2244483

issue 130

I fundamentally agree with the speaker that how to raise and educate children plays a vital  role, which concerns what generation might come in the future. However, the speaker  unnecessarily overstated the importance of socializing children, while ignoring certain  kinds of exceptions that what children really need is education---- both intelligent and  moral, and that in the mean time adult’s role in this process also deserves focusing. My  points of contention with the speaker involve the notion of socializing and the obligation  of adults.

I concede that problems concerning children deserve concentration. After all, as the speaker  said, how to raise and breed children help bringing about a better future. However, this  trend of concerning about children stems mainly from parent's growing expectation for and  the deteriorating status of environment, in which our children live. War, disease, child  prostitution, alcohol, dirty material, lack of education, all of which are tangling modern  human beings kept influencing our children. And, because of children are easy to learn and  affect, and are less able to distinguish right to wrong, this influence might be largely  enhanced if we delay saving. The speaker is right that how children are socialized amounts  to, in some extent, the destiny of our society. One of the chief meanings of education is to  make children to know how to communicate with, participate into and seek self-satisfaction  from society. Yet, how to define the word "socializing"? No one would dispute that a  generation of pre-mature and pre-sophisticated children is not what we need though  socializing; that is to say, putting too much emphasis on the so-called process of  socializing children achieves little in the mission of bringing about a better future.  Unfortunately, consider the trends of youth crime, youth addict and youth pregnancy, we have  gone too far in the way of misunderstanding “socializing”.

Then, aside from socializing children, what should we take as mission to raise endangered  children? Education---- both moral and intelligent. As a matter of fact, however, normal  education system unnecessarily enlarged the advantage of intelligence, which might help  children to get through socializing or more practically prepare for job, while neglecting  the value and formation of moral system. Because moral education's immeasurable function  often pales compared with immediate benefit from intelligence, people used to highlight the  latter. One apt illustration of this might be the increasing children mental-ill rate:  during the past decade, the overall condition of children mental-illness kept exacerbating  in a range of 5% per year. That means the epidemic of mental and moral illness outweigh in  speed AIDS! As we see, social pressure, and sick environment tends to push children into a  bottomless quagmire, which our children have not already armed to face to. Therefore, as far  as I am concerned, we are obligated, or even forced to enhance moral education rather than  intelligent or socializing ones, if we still hope to bring about a healthy generation. Since  "how children are socialized today influence the destiny of society", what these children  might think in or in what means could them fulfill their roles in future society amounts to  vital value.

Turning to my next point of contention, pinning all missions on children, hoping them to  solve and experience all those enduring and lasting social problems adds to irresponsible  and pessimistic attitude of people in the present. Firstly, it is us, who are committed to  make it a world as better as we can to breed children. However, this does not mean that once  we have made our best, outstanding generation promise to come undoubtedly. Moreover, as we  have not accomplished to achieve the obligation of making a better society set by our  parents, how should we pass down this unpredictable and everlasting commission to our  children? Secondly, as has discussed above, adults at present bear double assignments----  both make it a better world for people at the time being and a hopeful future for children.  Therefore, how adults behave and strive now directly leads to what we can harvest tomorrow.  Even if children determine the destiny of society, as the speaker asserts, adults decide at  least what world could remain and sustain till children grow up. In such sense, we are the  real commander of societal destiny.

In sum, the process of raising children develops as a combination which deserves our  emotion, passion and attention. Nevertheless, every thing we can expect exists together in a  delicate circle, in which what we have experienced and suffered might someday replay on our  generations. Fortunately, we are at the beginning of this circle.

yiyang_1982UID: 2244483

issue144

Who is or, who has giving society something of lasting vaue? I fundamentally agree with the  speaker that artist sometimes bring about masterpieces of great enduring value. However, the  speaker unnecessarily denied that art appreciating exists as an interaction, in which  critics are also needed in order to help and promote the overall aesthetic value. My  contention with the speaker involves the very notion of lasting value, the role of critics  and the very criteria to judge lasting value.

Turning to my firt point of contention, what is lasting value? No one would dispute that the  so-called lasting value serves to title those deeds or events which have brought great  breakthrough, well-being, excitement to human beings as a whole. Such kind of kind of value  comes from various disciplines---- natural science, social science and humanity as well.  Therefore, as a main means to describe and characterize humanity, art established its vital  status in fulfilling the meaning of "lasting value". After all, what we can see exists  together in a delicate art world. To search apt examples one does not have to seek beyond  the world around---- even a tiny building, or mini image or even a piece of music come from  artist's hands or at least represents a sense of artistic notion. Were there not be art and  artists, human world might degrade into colorless, stale, depressing mass. Thus, though we  ascribe too much achievement we made to natural scientists, artists are those who really  deserve appreciation for this diverse and kaleidoscopic world.

Turning to my next point of contention, how critics interact artists? I concede that  everything has its value. However, this broad assertion has at least two meanings: (1).  someone might overlook the value of one thing because he does not like it, at least partly.  (2). someone likes the thing tends to content and debate with his adversaries. Here comes  the interation and critics outstand when this appreciation developed into a professional  process. Therefore, art pieces are born to criticize. In fact, great critics often helps  artists to refine their work. For example, Terry Eagleton in his famous commentary  Literature Theory summarized and tersed most of the literature achievements from middle age  to 17th century, which afterwards leads to a prosperous literature evolution in English  speaking countries. Also, since few people might understand what artists want to express,  some people have to serve as the interpreter to redirect art values. This has been  especially true in the realm of painting. Without explicit explanation from critics, few of  us can really perceive Picasso's "montages"; also we would be hard-pressed to comprehend Van  Gogh's Jack Straw nor his suicide. Thus, critics commenting on art works is in fact a miror,  through the reflection of which we might better assess the significance of art works and  share the lasting value provided by critics.

Then, turning to my last view point, what is the criteria for us to distinguish lasting  value from trivial existence? No matter in or out of the realm of art&art critique, things  have lasting value could never be those whose significance pales compared with time and  common wealth. In other words, criteria for lasting value focus on whether it can bring  about significance to predictable future and the well-being of human beings. In this sense,  Guernica, Cien Anos de Soledad together with their dissenters all contribute to establish  common mission for human to maintain peace and independence. And the process, through which  we communicate with others, became even eternal.

In sum, the so-called lasting value came from people who creat it but was enhanced,  highlighted, represented and refined by critics. Without them, human beings might either  exist in a world of depressing or get lost in the labyrinth of misunderstanding. I would be  dard-pressed to imagine a worse end.

yiyang_1982UID: 2244483

哪位大哥还是看一眼吧。谢谢了。

yiyang_1982UID: 2244483

做饭去了，希望吃完饭回来能够看到各位施舍的回复.

depressed, very depressed.....

wp123UID: 2187508

兄弟, 你一下发这么多, 受不了啊.......
会死人的.......

lonely_natalieUID: 2228902

晚上小嘉来了要PP你的

yiyang_1982UID: 2244483

刚听了张靓影唱夜宴，老是说很难听。