[AI生成]

[AI生成]

　　I address the very argument that things like this are very obvious: we are entirely not the economy, we are that we possibly reduce the size of the framework in which the market evolves, we still have the market being some kind of essential director. That is your approach, but there is a market in pitch I currently of course. But there is a market in of course, you argue that maybe we are going further than the approach, but actually this is very relevant.

　　Your major concern in Chinese economy is that it is purely because of state intervention that despite this, China has been able to lead the world, China is like the world leader and supposedly no longer in initial unclear context, and yet on the contrary, you also say that the state should play a role, there is a competition there, because if the state were to reduce its role in the economy, actually most of the enterprises that are currently part of this world-leading production with any of my trailing incomplete thought.

　　I was just curious because one of your arguments that it's going well when the government is involved. Then why should we change the market approach? They are doing too well that they cannot escape their competitive situation. They are unable to innovate because they are increasingly having to sell way below their own production costs. That is causing them to have to reduce their workforces, to reduce their costs in whatever way they can in order to still keep competitive against all other classic firms that your family has built up and has made strong, but they are competing against each other and they are unable to escape this cycle. That is what's doing so well, doing fantastically for consumers right now, but will they do fantastically for the overall economy, our political economy and our national security in the long-term future?

　　This is what is necessary to be able to transition away because if the cost of renewables will actually be set by market sources, it would be much, much cheaper for already taxed industries to simply rely on them.

　　Right. Okay, so fundamentally the issue here is there is disagreement over whether the renewable energy market is still in its infancy or not, right? But my main problem here isn't necessarily that we should completely cut off industrial policy, obviously it's meant to be a long-term thing and unclear phrase "smoking capering off" industrial policy, my main problem with you is we continue to see the market this way as a money issue. Obviously economically it's hard to say this, why for this long time and it also creates issues, such as talent issues because you then have a bunch of these companies who have overemployed people, because the government is offering money as an incentive to employ people. If these people who are working in jobs that have future-oriented experience, all of a sudden those jobs will disappear once the government stops its financial support, right?

　　So that is a core issue with this, and you also have to think about the budget structure of the country as the country grows and as its population ages, since China doesn't really have net immigration. The pension system, so you have to somehow address this. I just don't believe that it's sustainable to keep all of these investment policies and subsidies continuously, especially since a lot of supply chains and technology are already in place. Supply chains don't disappear overnight, you can lower trade barriers, keep the supply chain there and you can initiate trailing incomplete thought. Okay, so next.

　　Right now. That is because there is a critical need for forward-looking, important technologies for the future, and green energy is precisely that. It would be unwise to invest in technologies related to weapons of war, as some have done previously.

　　The central government, the local government—actually, I would argue that the main issue within the Chinese government right now is the role of local governments relative to the central authority. Even if the government itself is not the problem, the extent to which government entities have influence over the economy is a concern. In fact, greater central oversight would reduce the harmful competition and anarchy between local governments. In a sense, resources would be directed toward more productive directions rather than wasted on inter-local rivalries. Right.

　　All decisions should be led by sectoral priorities rather than local interests. I understand that perspective, but I believe that while restructuring to shift more authority from local companies to the central government would alleviate budgetary issues, it would create another problem: bureaucratic inefficiency. I think everyone here has already had the experience of trying to contact the relevant team about an issue, only to be passed between different email contacts, going in circles with no resolution. That is the core problem with the current system, and it would become a major issue in this industry as well.

　　This is already a problem. The existing bureaucracy is already a significant barrier, especially given the scale of this industry. Having so many people seeking contact and support creates a strain, and this is partially why, for example, thousands or tens of thousands of students submit inquiries, but only hundreds receive responses.

　　The issue of some parties being left out or not receiving support is less problematic in the university context, but becomes far more serious when discussing industrial development. Of course, this leads to informal, team-based governance issues that can undermine actual production oversight. The fundamental reality is that China has made such rapid progress in recent years that direct, market-based production oversight is far less feasible now than it would have been in the past.

　　Okay. I believe China has become a global leader, and that is true. But why has China become a leader? Why hasn't the U.S. or the EU taken that position? Japan and other countries that rely primarily on market forces, with only targeted state intervention to support local firms—these countries have not achieved the same level of success. China's centralized system, with markets operating as a subsidiary component, is what has allowed it to grow so rapidly. Even countries like France, which built its own nuclear energy sector, now struggle to maintain its existing power plants. During periods when certain countries led the development of new energy technologies, France's sophisticated energy system now cannot even manage its own existing infrastructure.

　　While I agree that state intervention has a place, the core problem I see with China's economy is overcentralization. This stems from authoritarianism. When the benefits outweigh the costs, this system works well, but when benefits and costs are balanced, problems emerge. This is a inherent flaw in state-led economies, where costs are often delayed and hidden.

　　I see this as a natural cycle. I believe that when the government provides significant support, as through industrial policies, it eventually needs to step back and let the market operate on its own, while still maintaining appropriate oversight. Obviously, we are not suggesting abandoning all state intervention entirely, but I do believe there is a point at which targeted subsidies and policies can be scaled back, allowing the market to take a more central role. This would create a more sustainable, profitable environment, as overly interventionist policies can stifle consumer choice and industry innovation. Reducing state intervention and subsidies would also help improve wage levels and support the population. This is not just relevant to renewable energy.

　　Of course, I agree that renewable energy is critically important, but in this context, there is no reason to believe that greater central investment and long-term direct oversight would yield better results. Second, the social capacity to implement such policies also needs to be considered. China's own energy transition goals could be hindered by overcentralization.

　　Taking a step back, my opposition to excessive central planning is rooted in the need to properly evaluate cost trade-offs. Allowing the market to function freely also means retaining the ability to course-correct when necessary. When you centralize authority further, as I discussed earlier in the context of climate and economic policy, issues are pushed further down the line, only to become more severe later when they finally surface. By that point, addressing them will be far more difficult. If you wait until a problem is obvious, it will already be far more complex to resolve, as we have seen with issues that have emerged over the past year.

　　The iterative policy testing and reassessment process that is already in place is critical. Building public confidence is also essential. Centralizing authority further would not maintain the status quo, that much is certain.

　　Okay. What now? Let's talk about finance. China has ordered the solar sector to rein in overcapacity and capital pricing, as the largest manufacturers have suffered losses amounting to millions of dollars. As the biggest manufacturers suffered millions of dollars in losses.

　　Okay, what is the solution to this problem? It is allowing uncompetitive companies to exit the market, and having confidence in the industry's ability to survive without ongoing state support. This is what the Chinese patriots of the past did during the period of industrial transformation. I would argue that even in the face of a potential crisis, we must rely on market mechanisms.

　　If you believe that unsustainable subsidies will continue to prop up failing enterprises, then a more gradual, scholar-led transition approach may be preferable. A technology-focused transition for renewable energy would be better, because if the only way to produce energy is through permanent state support, that is not a viable long-term model.

　　And that is the end of the debate. Because you are doing. Yeah, is that clear to everybody?

　　Okay, how are we starting now and. I hope we can then see we can vote, right? So which team won the debate?

　　Okay, okay, how about we're starting right now? First about the introduction, and I will keep track of time right now. First.

　　Starting from the protein and I will do the timer 123. We are in an area that indeed approaches this field, and in fact, perhaps more investment would be more effective in promoting energy transition, because energy transition is still a very new and emerging field across various industries.

　　In most market systems or even under a more market-oriented approach, this energy transition would still be relatively new, and the switching costs are high. This would put newer renewable energy companies at a disadvantage, just like some countries already face. Market forces, due to stagnant development, have meant that many of these firms have been able to navigate this gap despite their very low profits during the current global crisis. In fact, this situation shows that it was not just for the sake of energy security, and that point is actually very vital for China to avoid falling into certain traps in related fields.

　　Another argument is that a market system always seeks the highest profits and operational efficiency. Systems always seek the highest profits and effectiveness, and transitioning to more renewable energy and a green development model often conflicts with a market system where the core goal is short-term profit maximization. Therefore, we will argue that the government's main role should be...

　　The third part is that when you think about green energy, it is always tied to large-scale projects and infrastructure. And the market-oriented approach alone cannot fully address this. So the only practical way for China to address this issue is to centralize resources. For energy projects of the scale I have seen, the state can actually help China become a world leader.

　　OK. So my honorable opponent mentioned that China's renewable energy industry is still in a certain stage. Does anyone here believe that China's renewable energy industry is already the most advanced in the world? It is no longer in the nascent stage, and therefore no longer needs the same level of government support as before. It can stand on its own.

　　Secondly, overproduction and involution are the major concerns facing this country. Overproduction creates unnecessary waste of resources, while involution leads to price wars and unsustainable business practices within the industry.

　　Thirdly, climate change is an international problem. Think about the international backlash caused by overproduction, the damage it inflicts on industries in other countries, such as Europe and North America, and the growing sentiment that China is not aligned with global efforts on this issue. These developments are not sustainable.

　　Now my honorable opponent has additional points. Addressing the issue of involution, state-mandated subsidies have long supported our domestic green energy companies here in China. Our good green energy companies in China, yes, they have received support, and solar energy enterprises have benefited greatly. In fact, this support was so substantial that they were forced to slash their workforces by 30% in 2024. They had to reduce production precisely because they were performing too well.

　　Now here's the thing: the concept of market competition has had a significant impact on China's economy at present. This is characterized by low profit margins and an inability to escape cutthroat competition, as multiple successful firms have emerged in the market. These firms were propped up by your own government.

　　Firms were propped up by your own government. We do not take the stance of completely abandoning policy intervention; we advocate for a combination of policy guidance and market mechanisms. Second, we oppose the total reliance on industrial policy, as your side seems to advocate.

　　Okay, let's move on to the next round.

　　哈哈哈哈哈哈。

　　双方的论证都非常精彩。我们此前并未从进化论的语境展开讨论，而是始终围绕市场展开。整场对话中，无论我们是支持还是反对当下的政府，我们都始终以市场为核心聚焦议题。

　　当下的政府始终极为重视维持现状，而这一现状的核心逻辑始终是政府政策优先，市场则会在自身能力范围内运作，如同秃鹫盘旋于腐肉之上，竭尽所能攫取一切可获得的资源。

　　我们如今听到的提案，则主张公共政策优先、市场紧随其后，二者相辅相成：市场支撑政府政策，政府政策则确保市场不会失控脱轨。

　　我们也曾探讨过当前体系的弊端，以及那些困扰我们经济、影响我们进化进程的不幸处境。

　　那么，我们今日所支持的群体，他们的立场究竟是什么？他们会投票支持延续经济的长期健康，支持我们产业的长期健康与持续创新。而这一切，唯有通过放手让市场发挥作用才能实现。

　　以上。