You’re watching the Group A 2nd Quarter Final. We now move into the cross-examination round. This round is divided in two.

First, one of the Proposition members who has not presented will cross-examine one of the 2 remaining Opposition members who have not spoken. The Proposition has only 15seconds to ask its questions. And the Opposition can only answer questions, and not ask any. They have 30 seconds to answer any question. There will be 3 minutes to this round. Again, you will hear this bell to mark the end of 15 and 30 seconds. When 3 minutes are up, you will hear this bell.

Let’s hear the Proposition.

[P]:

I’d like to question the Opposition’s second and fourth speakers.

First, Second Speaker.

You just said that a wise man will not turn back. But what if I have just passed the point at which I now want to return? Am I still a wise person?

[O]：

When we talk about the pursuit of love, we’re talking about continuing on the path of love. From the angle of love, that’s called looking ahead. Let me ask the Second Speaker, my true love is very nearby. If I turn back and grab this chance at love, am I not wise? Please answer me.

[P]:

We often do not cherich what we have till we lost it. Someone who does that cannot be a wise person. I’ve asked the question twice but the Opposition has not replied me.

It’s all right, let me ask the Fourth Speaker.

You said that a wise man must have a fighting spirit and forge ahead. But Rattle chose to “go back” on his decision with the Berlin Phiharmonic. Is Rattle a wise man?

[O]：

I’m not very aware of this Rattle example the Proposition brought up, but we know that when he returned to the orchestra, what was the spirit of that decision?

If it had been just for the pay and a more comfortable life. I don’t think anyone would consider him a wise man. But what sort of character did he display in returning to the orchestra? It was the pursuit of progress, since in this case he is moving forward, what reason do we have to say that he had turned back?

[P]:

Thank you but we see that it was precisely because he turned back that this orchestra he once turned away gave him a chance to advance. Why would you deprive Rattle of turning back to grab this opportunity?

[O]:

Actually the Proposition has made a small error. They have misinterpreted the meaning of the Chinese character “hui”. Let’s consider various instances where this character “hui” can be found. Would they all qualify as the opportunity that has passed?

[P]:

You do not consider a lost love that can be found again as an opportunity? You do not consider a career that was once given up, but now regained as an opportunity? I know that De Gaulle returned to French’s politics to help the French citizens and that makes him a wise man.

[O]:

The Proposition considers returning to politics as turning back.

Does the old saying of “not turning back” mean not returning home or returning to one’s country?

[P]:

Thank you for your entertaining response. You just said that the path ahead is much more difficult than the one .that’s passed. But when De Gaulle returned to politics he worked tirelessly and nearly even lost his life. Do you think he found this a pleasant experience?

[O]:

When De Gaulle went to England during World War Ⅱ,he repatriated French citizens with great difficulty.

But it is precisely this courage that makes him a wise man to admire.

[P]:

I am referring to De Gaulle’s decision to return to politics after he retired and not a World War Ⅱ figure.

Let’s now invite the Opposition to start the next round of cross-examination.

Thank you Mdm Chairperson.

[O]:

I’d like to ask the Second and Fourth Speakers.

Second Speaker, in 1660 after the British Civil War which saw the House of Stuarts reinstated, was this an example of “turning back”? Should it not have happened?

[P]:

I’ve been very clear but why does the Opposition keep focusing on the negative possibilities of the past? We can see that whether it’s the future of the past, both can be bad. If you compare the restoration to something in the past, then Armegeddon is a possibility in the future. Should we avoid the future as well? We should all go on a diet then.

[O]:

Society cannot regress. Let me ask the Fourth Speaker-we say that Singapore is constantly pursuing democracy, peace, progress and justice. China’s liberalisation is also progressing relentlessly. Should we go back to how things were like in the past?

[P]:

Dear opponent, turning back is better than staying closed. You talk about Singapore. Yes, Singapore keeps striving to progress, but we also know that Singapore has had to reverse some of its policies on learning Mandarin. It is because of the willingness to turn back that I can stand here today and debate in Mandarin with you.

[O]:

Does the Proposition deny that society cannot regress?

Second Speaker, when Yuan Shikai overthrew the Qing empire in the name of revolution, but he also turned back and became a villain remembered through the ages.

Should he have turned back or not?

[P]:

Today’s motion is whether a wise man would turn back after moving on or not ,and you ask if Yuan Shikai counts as a wise man.

If he isn’t then I suppose I don’t have to answer your question.

[O]:

But in reality, Yuan Shikai was a wise man at first who turned bad after turning back.

Fourth Speaker, Dr Sun Yat Sen devoted his life to overthrowing monarchy and fighting for socialism. He kept fighting despite numerous setbacks. Was he a wise man or not?

[P]:

We’re never said that the desire to progress is not good. But we need to understand that wanting to move forward has nothing to do with turning back. Just like what I said about Singapore. Singapore is progressing ,but didn’t it also turn back? The important thing is to identify when you have to turn back and do it .don’t close the door behind you for good. Having more options is always good.

[O]:

The Proposition did not answer my question about Dr Sun Yat-Sen.

This shows that he was a wise man because he did not turn back.

Second Speaker, can father-son relationships go back to the way they were ,when sons had to do whatever their fathers wanted them to do?

[P]:

Talking about father-son relationship reminds me about my father.

My father is sitting out there.

I’ve quarrelled with my father before to the point that I thought of giving him up.

But I bravely turned back. which is why my father is here to watch me compete today.We reconciled. Isn’t that a good thing?

[O]:

But when you gave up on your father, that made you the prodigal son who returned.

Is this the same as the wise man who does not turn back?

[P]：

Why can’t the prodigal son who returns be a wise man who turns back? Now I’ve realized there’s nothing better than my parents and I bravely turn back, is that not the hehaviour of a wise man? A willingness to repent is what’s important.

[O]:

But the prodigal son is not the same as the wise man who has not erred.

All right, time’s up.

Now we have the second round of cross-examinations. The Proposition will begin. The remaining debater who has not presented till now will cross-examine the two Opposition speakers who were not cross-examined earlier. The time limit is the same.

[P]:

I’d like to ask the First and Third Speakers.

Third Speaker, when you say that a wise man will turn back after moving on, does this mean he would want to do so every opportunity he has?

[O]:

Our opponent hasn’t fully explored the meaning of “want” in today’s motion. They say that one doesn’t constantly want to turn back, but the world when used in this context connotes value judgment. Rice is a staple of our diet, but we don’t desire it every moment. But for a man of integrity, is accepting ill-gotten gains a matter of resources?

It’s a matter of moral standard. So a man of integrity would not accept charity, an honest man would not accept ill-gotten gains. Likewise, a wise man who moves on will not backtrack.

[P]:

Thank you for telling us that a gentleman would not accept handouts.

Is this a definite “no”? If that’s the case, does that mean a wise man who cannot turn back, cannot turn in any direction?

[O]:

When we say a wise man does not turn back after moving on, this saying is all-encompassing, just as “a wise man turns back after moving on.” is also all-encompassing. The decision to act or not boils down to a matter of principle. It’s like saying I want to be a good person, but if I were to do evil and commit crimes, am I still a good person? Which is why one who does not receive ill-gotten gains is morally upright. Only by not turning back, can a wise man make great progress. This is what our motion really means.

[P]:

Let me ask the First Speaker.

My team says that a wise man will turn back even after moving on. Are we saying that a wise man can only turn back and has no other options?

[O]:

Turning back means when faced with a crossroad in life the choice one makes is to turn back. Our opponent said that the opportunity to turn back is always a good thing. But is a potentially lethal opportunity from the past necessarily a good thing? Should your motion not then be “A wise man will turn back for something good?” You also said that one does not desire to eat all the times, but the decision to do so is a matter of principle?

If I decided to be honest, does this mean I can occasionally lie?

If I say I want to be good, does this mean I can occasionally do evil?

Between doing and not doing, I have chosen to do. Can I keep changing my mind?

[P]:

You said that we want to eat, but not necessarily all the time.

Doesn’t that mean besides turning back we can also move forward?

[O]:

When faced with an option and you choose to turn back, then you cannot choose to move forward? In life we should be looking ahead, because a wise and outstanding man seeks progress.

Imagine if Columbus, when on the high seas ,suddenly thought of turning back, would he have discovered the New World? If Alexander, when crossing the desert, had thought of turning back, would he have discovered paradise? This is why wise men should bravely explore unchartered frontiers.

This is what truly makes a wise man.

[P]:

Earlier you said, one who can tell the real from the fake is, and outstanding person .That being the case, our wise man should be discerning. But why haven’t you made that differentiation and decide that the view turning back is not worth a look?

[O]:

The wisdom to discern which you just spoke about is what a wise man ……

Time’s up.

The Opposition will now start the next round of cross-examination. The time limit remains the same .If you please.

[O]:

First Speaker, your team spoke about lost loves earlier. Why is that many people are able to remarry and find happiness, and there are many people who after remarrying can only hurt others, or be hurt?

[P]:

Why do you assume that someone who remarries has not turned back? We can see cases of people who after getting married, get divorced. Even after moving on, one can still be unhappy. Does that mean one should not move on? Which is why we one cannot look at past options as off limits. But if past options are good, why not take them?

[O]:

The Proposition has conceded that bad options should not be considered. How about the good opportunities that they talk about? You mentioned De Gaulle who found success after returning to politics. But why are there many people who turn back often, often get hurt?

[P]:

Our opponent keeps putting words in our mouth. What we’re saying is when it’s not worth turning back, we wouldn’t. Just like De Gaulle. When he turned back what did he turn back to?

It was at a time of French politics going through a period of crisis. By turning back, De Gaulle practically bent backwards. He was content that he would die with no regrets. Under such circumstances ,could you say it was worth him turning back? The reason he turned back was not for himself. Just as the spirit of the wise man who turns back, not for himself, but for the greater good. De Gaulle was doing it for the French people and in the end courageously turned back.

[O]:

First Speaker, we’ve just seen two similar situations, two different intentions. Some choose to do it ,others choose not to. Wu Sangui was a cunning man. Does history see him as a genius or a sly and wicked man?

[P]:

I fail to see how this is relevant to today’s motion. What I want to say is that when we talk about turning back, we’re not saying that one should turn back all the times. We eat apples, but does that mean I should eat them all the times? If I were to do that, I would choke to death.

[O]:

The Proposition is once again talking about making a choice. Was Wu Sanggui very decisive? Zhu GeLiang was a genius who could adapt with ease, why does history view him as a great man, and not a indecisive one?

[P]:

Do you not know that Zhuge Liang had been visited 3 times and he rejected the offer to serve the country? But in the end he turned back and accepted the offer. Such a mad who turned back was indeed a wise one. Why do you say that a wise man will not turn back after moving on?

[O]:

The previous examples tell us that while the situations may look similar on the surface, the motivations behind them are very different. Simply repeating themselves does not explain the Proposition’s motion. If a wise man loses his lofty ideals and directions will history still consider him wise. First Speaker?

[P]:

You bring up the point of lofty ideals which we totally agree on. Just as we said earlier in making a value assessment, if it isn’t worth it then one should not turn back.

Time’s up.