We are sure in the debate: the network language has enriched the language and culture of China. On the other hand, the network language has impacted the language and culture of China.

Logically speaking, "richness" and "impact" are not contradictory words, so there is nothing to argue about. This impact is also enriching the language. In human society, human language has never stopped changing, which is the product of social change. In this era when the amount of information doubles every five years, human language and its culture can't be static, and it has never been static.

If there is a dispute, it should be a value judgment, that is, it is better to keep the traditional culture or change it. Obviously, whether active or passive, culture is fluid and constantly changing. The other side's position should be very unfavorable! The positive view should be to make a fundamental argument, admit the influence, admit the change, and try to prove that this phenomenon is good! Forcing the other party to explain the impact, the other party's explanation can only be that the impact is equivalent to "cultural destruction", so we should make more preparations in this regard!

Whether it is rich or not, whether it is influential or not, is indisputable!

You can refer to the discussion in my other replies!