Should teachers intervene in what high school students post on their WeChat moments?”

第一个环节是开篇立论：正方一辩选手陆同学和反方一辩选手沈同学依次发言。正方明确表示“老师应该干预学生的朋友圈”。他从教师的责任与义务、干预的时间与形式、高中生的心理等角度展开论述，讲得头头是道；反方也不甘示弱，从表达欲的保护等角度来进行反驳。双方各抒己见，各有道理。

The first session of the debate was the opening statements: Luke, the first debater from the pro side, and Tim, the first debater from the con side, took turns to speak. The pro side clearly stated that teachers should intervene in what students post on their WeChat moments. Luke justified his statement from such perspectives as teachers' responsibility and obligation, the time and form of intervention, the psychological traits of high school students and so on; unwilling to be outdone, the con side refuted the statement presented by the pro side by arguing that teachers should protect the students' sense of self-autonomy . Both sides stated their views and supported them with solid reasoning.

第二个环节是攻辩：正方二辩选手孙同学和三辩选手张同学与反方二辩选手张同学和三辩选手黄同学进行观点阐述。正方的孙同学和张同学提出“老师应当对学生的心理健康和伦理道德选择负责”、“青少年心理不成熟”等观点，进行了细致的论述；而反方的张同学和黄同学则提出“保护学生的自由表达才是真正对学生好”来进行反驳。两方有理有据，气氛热烈。

The second session of the competition was the rebuttal: Stephen and Louis, the second and third debaters from the pro side and Kevin and Olivia, their counterparts from the con side, stated their viewpoints respectively. Stephen and Louis from the pro side claimed that teachers are responsible for students’ mental health and students’ ethical or moral choices, and teenagers are not psychologically mature, and they further developed their own ideas, while Kevin and Olivia from the con side refuted what the pro side claimed by arguing that protecting students’ freedom of expression will do real good to them. Both sides brought the audience a heated debate by providing sound reasoning.

第三个环节是自由辩论，也将本次辩论推向高潮。八名辩手争先恐后地发言：前有“自杀”朋友圈老师必须要介入的提议，后就有“个人玩笑”的解释；前有“老师应该适当地关心学生的想法”，后就有“老师不应当侵犯学生个人隐私”的辩驳。台下的同学们一会儿望着正方点头，一会儿看着反方鼓掌，被双方的观点不停地拉扯着，现场气氛焦灼，仿佛空气都被点燃。

第四个环节是智囊团发言提问。正方的徐同学和张同学对阵反方的任同学、刘同学和瞿同学，为了辅助自方阵营进攻，智囊团们抓住对方最弱的点进行攻击，双方的智囊团都铆足了劲，绞尽脑汁。

The fourth session was brain trust inquiry. Daniel and Ken from the pro side confronted Amy, Shirley and Anderson from the con side. In order to help their own debaters, brain trust members from both sides racked their brains, trying their best to attack their opponents’ weaknesses.

第五个环节是观众提问，现场同学们踊跃举手，问出有趣的、富有批判性的问题。辩手们针对这些问题作出解答。

The fifth session was audience inquiry. The audience put up their hands eagerly and raised interesting and critical questions for both sides. The debaters from both sides answered these questions.

最后一个环节是总结辩论：正方四辩蒋同学和反方四辩吴同学进行总结发言。两位辩手站在舞台中央侃侃而谈，他们逻辑清晰，配合着丰富的手势和面部表情，为两方的论述做出精准的总结。

The last session was the conclusion. Leo, the fourth debater from the pro side, and Era, the fourth debater from the con side, made their concluding speeches. Standing in the center of the stage, the two debaters spoke with clear logic and rich gestures and facial expressions, making eloquent summaries of the arguments presented by both sides.