Debate is not a fight. Debate is about nurturing opinions.

Discussions can sometimes turn into battles. Battles to crush the other person's opinion. Especially when divided into proponents and opponents, it often feels like a battle. But, please think for a moment. Isn't a discussion fundamentally not meant to be a fight?

When discussions arise, there's usually a single goal. A certain purpose, a goal, and a destination where we want to succeed. Isn't a discussion where everyone contributes their opinions to achieve the best results at that destination?

Cultivating opinions to aim for the best destination.

For example, I think the Olympics are the same. Is rebuilding the stadium truly what's needed to reach the best destination for the Olympics? Was returning to a blank slate the best way to produce the best Olympics? Certainly, we don't want to leave various vested interests or suspicious things untouched, and there's no way it would become the best Olympics while hiding them. In many ways.

Is the current form truly the best destination? Wasn't there a way that would cost less tax, take less time, and be most desired by the public? I apologize for my amateur judgment, but perhaps modifying the initial plan. Instead of changing the stadium designer, keep the same design firm and thoroughly refine the current plan structurally and budget-wise. Personally, I think that would have been the best.

And if the idea of 'thoroughly refining the initial plan' is a no-go, then I think they should rationally explain why it's a no-go and offer further rational opinions. That way, opinions would build upon opinions, and the discussion would progress in a more convincing direction. We often hear the saying, 'If you oppose, offer an alternative,' and that's because we need to accumulate necessary opinions towards the destination.

If opinions don't accumulate, the side offering opinions will just be denied, and they won't know what to do. However, in the case of the stadium, I think it was simply a matter of the budget being too high, so it should have been lowered. And everyone should have made an effort to reduce the budget. There might also be reasons related to vested interests and various other factors preventing sufficient price competition, leading to the current situation.

So, to convince the public, I think it would have been a good idea if the government had provided reasons that at least a majority of the public could agree with. If those reasons were wrong, the public could point it out and suggest, 'Why don't we do it this way?' By repeating that, I think things would move in a good direction.

Indeed, why not solicit proposals on a website for how to build a good stadium? Create such a website, gather opinions, and proceed with discussions while making them public. I suspect that people are only opposing because they have opinions but don't know where to convey them to the government.

If even that can't be done, then explain why it can't be done, and further solicit proposals on what to do given the impossible situation. I can't help but think that would be fine.

When opposition alone is okay, it's when 'it's fine as is.'

In any case, I believe that discussion is about accumulating opinions, determining what's okay and what's not, rationally developing opinions, and ultimately reaching the best goal. Sometimes, people oppose without any rational reason. In such cases, there's nothing to say but 'Is that so?', the discussion ends, and ultimately, it doesn't lead to the best outcome.

Certainly, very occasionally, an alternative isn't needed. Like when 'it's best as is.' But if it's fine as is, then opinions wouldn't arise in the first place; opinions and proposals emerge because 'it's not fine as is,' right? Are the demonstrations against the security bills being talked about in the streets merely opposing because 'it's fine as is'? I think we need to consider that. I suspect there's a reason why 'it's not fine as is.' Or isn't there?

So, when ideas are presented in a discussion, we derive the positive and negative aspects of those ideas with rational reasons. Then, we collaboratively develop the positive aspects through discussion, nurturing them to their highest potential. The goal is to create this flow, not to turn it into a battle. If we only argue, nothing will move forward. Let's all build upon each other's opinions to create better results.