Lu Meier's appearance changed the direction of the debate.
Afterward, many people began discussing whether someone who had made a mistake should be allowed to become a Licentiate.
The affirmative side argued that someone who had committed an unforgivable crime-such as becoming a Rebel Species, betraying their country, or slaughtering innocents-and crossed the bottom line of humanity should indeed not become a Licentiate. But Lu Meier had done nothing that crossed that line and had continued doing good deeds afterward. Someone like her should be allowed to become a Licentiate.
The opposing side argued that this bottom line was acceptable for an ordinary person, but a scholar's bottom line should not be so low.
The affirmative side countered that even if the opposing side set a higher bottom line, Lu Meier had not crossed an ordinary person's bottom line when she was an ordinary person, nor had she crossed a scholar's bottom line after becoming a scholar! The opposing side was actually demanding that an ordinary person abide by a scholar's bottom line, which was utterly absurd.
This line of debate produced no winner.
Then the debate changed direction again. The affirmative side proposed a new angle: what if a man had been sold into a brothel, forced to sell his body, and finally broken free of the brothel's shackles, cleansed his heart and turned over a new leaf, and passed the Licentiate examination? What would the opposing side think then?
As soon as this new angle appeared, the opposing side's replies became far less frequent.
In the end, the affirmative side reached a powerful conclusion: both sides actually believed that as long as someone had not committed countless evils or filled their measure of wickedness to overflowing, everyone could accept them if they cleansed their heart and turned over