Arguments and Arguments for the Debate on "Positive Innovation" over "Getting Down to Business".

Your question is very clear and I think I will be happy to answer it for you. First of all, let's recognize your thesis, your more important word? Let me hint, this debate should never focus on innovation is better than down-to-earth work, otherwise it can't convince the public. You should recognize your opponent's correctness and then expand on it. Now I will describe your arguments and thesis. 1.With the continuous development of technology, the ever-changing technological products gradually become the mainstream. Like ipad,android products and so on. Their impact and achievements are huge, while China's ipad and so on are just copycat. This is the difference between practical work and positive innovation in the current social situation, in the current social situation, innovation is more important. Its impact is far-reaching, only to innovation as the root and then down-to-earth work, in order to seize the first opportunity in this competitive and cruel society. 2, innovation is the source of progress, there is no innovation in the world and no thinking of the scholars are the same, it will be stuck in the sinking rules, do not want to change. 3. innovation is to let you do things more down-to-earth, because it will give you what you do to bring open a more lucrative reward and results. 4. 4. In the years of reform and opening up, continuous innovation has always been an important principle. And down-to-earth work has not been mentioned, which is not to say that it is not important, just a summary of the current period of a summary of a result of the judgment, innovation is more important.