The reading passage asserts that there are three most plausible theories on why <topic>. However, the speaker refutes it by stating that these theories are not supported by evidence.

To begin with, the lecturer insists that <L-subtopic-1>. <detail>. This completely contradicts one of the points in the reading passage that <R-subtopic-1>. <detail>.

Second, the speaker mentions that <L-subtopic-2>. <detail>. This is the opposite of the article that <R-subtopic-2>. <detail>.

Last, the listening contents definitely disagree with the reading passage that <R-subtopic-3>. <detail>. The speech explains that <L-subtopic-3>. <detail>.

The major theme of <topic> has drawn diverse controversial issues in the contemporary period / field. My personal viewpoint is the most practical value / solution to <OP-topic>. To be more specific, <detail>{2-3}.

I could understand A's concern over <R-OP-topic>, however I surely regard that he/she loses another critical point. <detail>{2}

To sum up, <OP-topic>, which is why I definitely insist (that) it is crucial to <topic+positive effect>.