adversarial

简明释义

英[ˌædvəˈseəriəl]美[ˌædvərˈseriəl]

adj. 对抗的；对手的，敌手的

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.Forced into an adversarial position with an indifferent society, they have nothing to fall back on but their talents.

在一个冷漠的社会里被迫沦为社会最贫苦的人群，他们除了自己的才能无所依靠。

2.But an adversarial relationship of mistrust and suspicion is no alternative.

但不能被一种敌对，不信任和怀疑情绪所替代。

3.He warns against the emergence of a "structurally adversarial relationship" between China and the United States and its regional friends.

他对中国与美国及其在该地区的盟友之间的“结构性对抗关系”浮出水面发出警告。

4.And soon, what could have been addressed with a friendly conversation has turned into an adversarial situation.

很快，有可能通过友好谈话解决问题的关系，会迅速变成了敌对的情况。

5.Sir Nicholas said a less adversarial approach was needed in the family justice system.

Nicholas先生称，家庭司法体系需要减少敌对的解决方式。

6.Sometimes you must work with an adversarial buyer or agent.

有时，你必须与敌对买方或代理人。

7.These adversarial goals shift cognitive focus to the self and it can be tough to shake that self-focus.

敌对的方向致使人们将认知集中到自己身上，并且随之形成的自我关注很难被动摇。

8.In an adversarial legal system, both sides present their cases to an impartial judge.

在一个对抗性的法律系统中，双方向公正的法官陈述他们的案件。

9.The researchers developed a model that can withstand adversarial attacks in machine learning.

研究人员开发了一种可以抵御机器学习中对抗性攻击的模型。

10.During the debate, the candidates adopted an adversarial stance towards each other's policies.

在辩论中，候选人对彼此的政策采取了对抗性的立场。

11.The adversarial nature of the negotiation made it difficult to reach an agreement.

谈判的对抗性特质使得达成协议变得困难。

12.In an adversarial environment, competition can drive innovation.

在一个对抗性的环境中，竞争可以推动创新。

作文

In today's society, the concept of an adversarial relationship is increasingly prevalent. Whether in politics, law, or even personal interactions, the idea that two parties can be in opposition to one another is a common theme. An adversarial approach often implies a competitive dynamic where each side seeks to undermine the other to achieve its own goals. This notion can be particularly seen in legal systems, where lawyers represent opposing sides in court. The adversarial nature of the legal process is designed to ensure fairness by allowing both parties to present their arguments and evidence, ultimately leading to a just decision based on the merits of the case. However, the adversarial system does not come without its criticisms. Some argue that it promotes hostility and conflict rather than collaboration and resolution. In many instances, the focus on winning can overshadow the pursuit of truth and justice. For example, in a highly publicized trial, the adversarial tactics employed by attorneys may lead to sensationalism, diverting attention away from the actual issues at hand. This can create a spectacle rather than a fair examination of the facts. Moreover, the adversarial model can extend beyond the courtroom into everyday life. In workplaces, colleagues may adopt an adversarial stance towards one another, viewing their peers as competitors rather than collaborators. This can stifle creativity and hinder teamwork, as individuals become more focused on outdoing each other rather than working together towards common goals. In such environments, the adversarial mindset can lead to a toxic culture, where mistrust and resentment flourish. On the other hand, there are situations where an adversarial approach can be beneficial. For instance, in academic settings, debate and discussion often thrive on adversarial dialogue. Engaging with contrasting viewpoints can lead to deeper understanding and critical thinking. Students learn to articulate their thoughts while also considering opposing arguments, which ultimately enriches their learning experience. In this context, the adversarial nature of discourse fosters intellectual growth rather than conflict. Furthermore, the adversarial system can serve as a check on power. In politics, for example, an adversarial press plays a crucial role in holding government officials accountable. Investigative journalism often uncovers corruption and malfeasance, ensuring that leaders remain transparent and answerable to the public. Without an adversarial media, abuses of power may go unchecked, undermining democracy itself. In conclusion, while the adversarial nature of human relationships can lead to conflict and division, it also has the potential to foster accountability and intellectual growth. Understanding when to embrace an adversarial approach and when to seek collaboration is key to navigating the complexities of our interactions. Striking a balance between competition and cooperation can lead to more productive outcomes, whether in the courtroom, workplace, or classroom. Ultimately, recognizing the dual nature of adversarial dynamics allows us to harness their strengths while mitigating their drawbacks, paving the way for healthier and more constructive relationships in all facets of life.

在当今社会，‘对抗性’关系的概念越来越普遍。无论是在政治、法律还是个人互动中，两个对立方的存在是一个常见主题。‘对抗性’的方法通常暗示着一种竞争动态，其中每一方都试图削弱另一方以实现自己的目标。这种观念在法律体系中尤为明显，律师在法庭上代表对立的双方。法律程序的‘对抗性’本质旨在通过允许双方陈述各自的论点和证据来确保公平，最终根据案件的优劣作出公正的决定。 然而，‘对抗性’系统并非没有批评。一些人认为它促进了敌意和冲突，而不是合作与解决。在许多情况下，赢得胜利的焦点可能会掩盖对真相和正义的追求。例如，在一场备受瞩目的审判中，律师采用的‘对抗性’策略可能导致耸人听闻的效果，使公众的注意力偏离实际问题。这可能导致一场表演，而不是对事实的公正审查。 此外，‘对抗性’模型可以超越法庭，延伸到日常生活中。在工作场所，同事之间可能会采取‘对抗性’立场，将彼此视为竞争者而不是合作者。这可能抑制创造力并阻碍团队合作，因为个人更加关注超越他人，而不是共同朝着共同目标努力。在这样的环境中，‘对抗性’心态可能导致有毒文化，导致不信任和怨恨滋生。 另一方面，在某些情况下，‘对抗性’方法可能是有益的。例如，在学术环境中，辩论和讨论往往依赖于‘对抗性’对话。接触对立观点可以导致更深刻的理解和批判性思维。学生们学会清晰地表达自己的想法，同时也考虑对立的论点，这最终丰富了他们的学习体验。在这种背景下，‘对抗性’的讨论促进了智力成长，而不是冲突。 此外，‘对抗性’系统可以作为权力的制衡。在政治领域，例如，‘对抗性’媒体在追究政府官员责任方面发挥着至关重要的作用。调查性新闻报道常常揭露腐败和不当行为，确保领导者对公众保持透明和负责。如果没有‘对抗性’媒体，权力滥用可能会失去控制，从而削弱民主本身。 总之，尽管人际关系的‘对抗性’特征可能导致冲突和分裂，但它也有可能促进问责制和智力增长。理解何时采用‘对抗性’方法以及何时寻求合作是应对我们互动复杂性的关键。在法庭、工作场所或教室中，寻求竞争与合作之间的平衡可以带来更具生产力的结果。最终，认识到‘对抗性’动态的双重性质使我们能够利用其优势，同时减轻其缺点，为生活各个方面建立更健康、更具建设性的关系铺平道路。