Hello, I’m Pang Ying. Welcome to the Q&A for Episode 18 of Think Like a Debater.

A：Many motions omit the words benefit and harm but still require cost-benefit reasoning.

Although this motion asks only whether reposting helps, we must consider both benefits and harms. Only if the net effect is positive can it be called beneficial.

To rebut it, identifying harms is more effective than merely weakening claimed benefits.

Supporters may propose several benefits.

Reposting raises attention to social events. Public attention provides oversight, pressuring organizations and individuals to act promptly, avoid hidden manipulation, improve conduct, solve problems fairly, and answer questions clearly. Attention forces progress and reform: watching is power, and public scrutiny changes China.

What would it mean for the opposition merely to weaken that benefit?

It might say: you are naive. Even the hottest online events vanish quickly. Fragmented attention follows marketing accounts and trending lists, unable to sustain deep concern. Without it, institutions face no pressure. Attention does not make parties tell the truth; they simply polish their lies. Which announcement ever answers every question? Even if we press, who responds? Reposting cannot create your claimed benefit.

To weaken a benefit is to claim it does not exist. The difficulty is persuading everyone it is completely absent.

The affirmative can answer: we know the world is imperfect and reposting will fail nine times out of ten. But even a one-in-ten chance is a benefit worth attempting.

The audience nods: even a 1% chance means reposting helps social reform.

The opposition is then passive. It must identify harms, not merely deny benefits.

It can argue that relying on reposting for reform has many costs:

Online opinion does not necessarily favor truth. Users often do not know facts and invent stories opposite to reality. Opinion is easily manipulated by paid commenters and promotional accounts hired to muddy the waters.

Power sometimes interferes with justice. Adding online opinion does not remove power but pressures and mobilizes it to influence justice. Let opinion that lacks facts and follows promotional narratives intervene in courts? That is frightening.