英语辩论赛辩论【优秀6篇】

辩论赛也叫论辩赛，还叫做辩论会。它在形式上是参赛双方就某一问题进行辩论的一种竞赛活动，实际上是围绕辩论的问题而展开的一种相关知识的竞赛，思维反应能力的竞赛，语言表达能力的竞赛，也是综合能力的竞赛。以下是人见人爱的小编分享的英语辩论赛辩论【优秀6篇】，希望大家可以喜欢并分享出去。

英语辩论赛辩论稿 篇1

尊敬的主席、评委、对方辩友、各位观众，大家好。

很高兴在这里与对方辩友进行辩论。我方观点是顺境更有利于人成长。

顺境是指优越的环境、条件，如安定的社会环境、良好的家庭环境以及一个人的行为所得到的肯定、赏识、奖励等，逆境与之相对。人的成长指的是人从自然人转变为社会人，以及充分社会化的过程。以身心的健康发展和社会角色趋向成熟两个指标来显示。

顺境给我们提供最基本成长中的物质需求。如果一个人出生于穷乡僻壤，家里人都食不果腹，他不得不在贫困线上挣扎，连受教育的可能性都没有，他如何成长？对目不识丁的人而言，他只能复制祖辈父辈的生活轨道，这种原地踏步式的生活怎么让他成长？相反，假如他生于富裕家庭，父母都是高级知识分子，他接受了良好的教育，这样顺利的外在境遇不是更有利于他的成长吗？曹操的祖父曹腾，是东汉末年官宦集团中的一员，而父亲曹嵩官至太尉。曹操是中国东汉末年著名的军事家、政治家和诗人，三国时代魏国的奠基人和主要缔造者，后为魏王。曹丕是三国时期著名的政治家、文学家。曹植是三国时期曹魏诗人、文学家，建安文学的代表人物。后人因他文学上的造诣而将他与曹操、曹丕合称为“三曹”。可见顺境能为个人的健康成长提供经济、文化等方面的条件，从而促进个人更好的成长。

顺境更能给人们带来正面的积极的心理影响，从而促进个人更好地成长。顺利的环境让人轻松、愉悦，而逆境则容易让人紧张，沮丧，相比之下，当然人在心情好的情况成长得更好。逆境不仅阻碍人成才的脚步，而且会摧残、扼杀、毁灭人才。就比如说同样面临逆境，只有极少数人跨了过去，功成名就，而绝大多数被淘汰出局，成了风成了尘，成了不知名的陪衬。著名画家梵高面对爱情受挫、生活艰难、创作得不到肯定，最终抑郁自杀。文化大革命更不知残害了多少可以成为人才的人。顺境对人的帮助要比逆境来得快，一句鼓励的话，对你的肯定，是一种自信的力量、一比钱，是成功的本钱。

顺境给了我们更高更广阔的发展平台。小到一个人，大到一个国家，都是在全盛时期发展的更快更好。我国人均GDP在六十年代增速仅仅为17%，到七十年代增至70%，到了飞速发展的八十年代以63%的速度一举超过印度，最后在九十年代更是达到了175%的高峰。（在顺境当中，有师长指路，有书籍指引，有亲友帮助，顺境可以让我们考虑的更全面更完善，那么我们在成长路上都会提前做好准备，对各种可能的问题提前防范，绕道而行，即使面对问题也可以从容不迫，让困难迎刃而解。）而另一方面，一个人在有主动选择权的情况下，主动放弃有利条件而选择不利条件。显然这和人类的基本行为规律是违背的。人都是趋利避害的，都是寻求更好的外部环境和条件的。即使我们深陷逆境当中，在逆境中求发展的目的也是为了在顺境中更好的成长。而我们摆脱逆境的能力和条件正是在顺境当中累积而来，并不是凭空而在的潜能。倘若人始终处于逆境当中，遇到问题时恐怕早已被击垮打倒，肯定没有智慧和体力进行反抗。因此，顺境才能提供给人成长更高更广阔的平台，也是自然规律中使人成长的必须环境因素

辩论赛经典论题辩论稿整理 篇2

辩论赛经典论题辩论稿整理

一、竞争比合作更能促进文明进步

各位评委，对方辩手，大家好。我方今天阐述的观点是”竞争比合作更能使文明进步。” 首先，我们应该明晰两点问题。第一，竞争是什么？他是指人们为了谋求发展所进行的较量或者公开竞赛。竞争的目的是优胜劣汰，选择更好的，是积极的。而合作是指互相配合共同完成某种任务。它的目的是更好更高效的参与竞争并且赢得竞争。. 第二个问题是文明。文明在中的含义为人类在历史发展和社会实践中创造的物质财富和精神财富的总和。而这种财富累积的动力是什么呢？是竞争。只有优胜劣汰的的竞争法则才可以贯穿文明发展的整个过程。就如同达尔文所说“适者生存，不适者淘汰”。所以说，竞争才是社会进步之母。 所以，我方认为:竞争比合作更能使文明进步！ 下面，请允许我从历史与现在两个时期阐释我方观点。 历史:悠悠五千年的中华文明因为竞争而丰富多彩，无论是斗智斗勇的三国纷争，抑或是才人辈出的科举选拔，无一不在体现中华文明对于竞争的重视。譬如三国时期，不正是有了蜀汉吴三国之间的竞争，才给予了人才以发挥的空间，才给我们留下了一次智慧的盛宴么？如果没有竞争，就如同周瑜遇不上诸葛亮，孙权见不到曹操，那么三国还有精彩的智慧对决，还有令人回味的故事么？正是有了竞争，才可以激发人的求胜欲，才可以更为有效的提高人的积极性，从而激发人的潜能，创造出社会财富。而这些财富，就是我们灿烂的中华文明。 但是，这些不全能代表我们的历史，悠久的文明也曾多次遭到外来文明的侵入和掠夺，从八国联军的烧杀劫掠，到日本帝国的无恶不作，这些屈辱的历史也让我们心痛，更让我们清醒地认识到闭关锁国，缺少竞争意识的中国是不能够在这个充满竞争的世界中屹立不倒的，不竞争就必然面临落后与淘汰。

现在:物竞天择，适者生存是时代永恒的主题，也是文明进步的阶梯，现代社会是一个量才使用，竞争上岗的竞争型社会，无论是人才的选拔还是技术的创新都离不开竞争。我们刚刚经历的高考不就是一次公开公平的竞争选拔么？我们能够来到华理不也是通过竞争才可以取得的学习机会么？我们从不否认合作对当今社会文明所做的贡献，但是相比于竞争，我方坚信竞争才是占据着主导地位的，竞争才是社会的主旋律！正如列宁所说:”竞争在相当广阔的范围内培植进取心，毅力和大胆首创精神。”现代社会正是因为有了竞争从而充满活力，不断进步，在这个呼唤强者的时代，竞争不仅是时代的要求，更是对人性的挑战与磨砺，让我们直面挑战，勇敢地担当起促进文明进步的重任！ 谢谢。

二、大学断电是合理的

谢谢主席，评委。大家晚上好。今天，我方很荣幸能在这里和对方辩友探讨大学断电是否合理的问题。首先，让我们来明晰下辩题。大学，是提供教学和研究条件和授权颁发学士学位、硕士及博士学位等的高等教育机关。大学还包括高等专科学校。而断电，即电源与用电设备之间脱离电器连接的现象。最后是合理，合理即指合乎道理或事理。在这里我们要强调说明的是，第一，由于研究生宿舍普遍都是通宵供电的，不存在断电争论，所以研究生不应在今天的讨论范围内，这是论题本身包含的；第二，一般的大学不会断楼道及厕所的电、电风扇在夏天也是不会断电的。所以，大学断电应是指大学对在校本、专科学生宿舍夜间适时停止供电的现象。第三，是否合理不同于是否合法，所以今天的讨论不应该拘泥于法律范围，而应该从道义层面上开展，否则就失去了讨论的意义。而我方今天的观点是，大学断电是合理的。

下面，我将从三个方面论证我方观点。

首先，从断电制度的施行的源头来说。大家都知道，之前是没有断电制度的，而现在那么多学校都采取了这一方式，这一变化究其根本，就是因为在电脑日益普及化的同时，通宵供电使得宿舍学习氛围因为这些而被破坏，严重影响学生学习。不仅如此，在大学这种高度集中化的住宿环境下，一个人的不良行为可能如同瘟疫一般影响他人。通宵熬夜的不良生活方式还有沉迷网络游戏荒废学业，不仅对自己不好，还容易影响他人。这些都已经成为伤害学生身体，腐蚀学生理想的病毒。而学校，秉持着对学生负责，对家长负责，对国家负责，对社会负责的态度，以适时断电为疫苗，利用许多娱乐活动离不开电的原理，从而从根源上预防了这些不良事件的发生。这，难道不合理么？

其次，从断电制度施行的效果上来说。虽然起初断电制度引起了很大的情绪波动，但是并不能否认它的效果。晚上督促学生按时睡觉从而保障学生的身体，不给网络游戏泛滥的土壤从而能够引导学生努力学习，进而能够因为改变一些同学的行为从而改良整个宿舍的学风。况且，断电的时间不是绝对的，学校经常很人性化的调整，在考试前会通宵供电来支持学生学习，在节假日也会给电从而给学生娱乐的空间。我们不否认断电偶尔会引起一些不便，但是并不能只看细枝末节，从整个学校，从长远的角度来看，断电制度是绝对值得施行的，也是合理的！

最后，从学校与学生的关系层面来说。学校要对全校学生负责，而学生也有遵守学校制度的义务。我方并不是说制度不合理也应该遵守，而是说学校的制度制定不会只针对一个学生，它需要以大多数人的利益为主体考虑问题，所以说如果断电会对一些譬如熬夜才有灵感，夜间行动状态佳的人来说有点不合理，但是秉持着小我服从大我的原则，也希望这些同学可以不自私地考虑断电问题，能够改善自己的生活方式，更清醒的明白学校的用意。

综上所述，我方坚定地认为，大学断电是合理的。

三、律师的底线应该是道德

谢谢主席，评委。大家晚上好。

还是让我们明确下辩题。律师是指依法取得律师执业证书，接受委托或者指定，为当事人提供法律服务的执业人员。律师法中还有如下规定，律师应当维护当事人合法权益，维护法律正确实施，维护社会公平和正义。只有做到这三点的才能称之为律师。 接下来是底线，底线是指最低的条件；最低的限度。也就是说如果超过了这个限度，将会产生质的变化。然后是法律。法律，即人类在社会层次的规则，社会上人与人之间关系的规范。它以道德为其存在的基础，以国家的强制力保证实施为手段，以维护社会秩序为目的。而道德是一种社会意识形态，是人们共同生活及其行为的准则与规范。道德是以群体为单位的正面价值取向的总和。由此可知，道德是一种意识形态，而法律是一种行为规范。

接下来，我将从三个方面论述我方观点。

首先，从律师的使命来看。律师要维护当事人合法权益，这是无可厚非的，但律师还有维护法律正确实施、维护社会公平和正义的使命。可见，律师是以法律为手段来维护社会正义的工作者。而要维护社会正义，法律与道德缺一不可，但是法律是不完善的，有很多漏洞和缺陷，而道德是不断进步，更符合社会的价值取向。而且我们讨论的是底线，这最基本的限度更应是道德。所以，律师的底线更应该是道德。

其次，从法律与道德的关系看。道德是法律的起源。法律起源的历史发展可以简化为：原始习惯到不成文习惯法到成文习惯法到国家法。其中，原始习惯是孕育法律的母体，原始习惯作为原始社会普遍遵循的行为规范，是对自然的最本源的体现，其本质正是道德。也就是说法律源于道德。法律日益形式化，然而其内在实质和伦理基础却依然是道德。如果依照对方辩友的观点，律师的底线更应该是法律而不是道德的话，这岂不是舍本逐末的做法？

最后，从底线的角度看。律师作为一个职业人，的确应该以法律为准绳。但是律师不是国家工具，他即使是律师却也不可否认他是一个和你我一样的“人”。作为一个社会人，他的底线更应该是道德。易中天说底线是属于内心的。法律是一种外在强制的规范，而道德是属于精神层面的，从本质上来说，道德相比起法律也更符合底线的标准。

今天我们讨论的是更应该是哪一个的问题，其意义就是法律与道德不可避免的价值冲突。道德随着社会发展而发展，而法律的发展以道德为标杆存在着滞后性。律师之所以为律师，就是因为他们运用法学知识，以法律为武器，为社会正义而战，也就是为道德的公平实现而战。所以，我方坚定地认为，律师的底线更应该是道德。

四、失常杀人的精神病人应该免于处罚

谢谢主席，评委，大家晚上好。今天，我方很荣幸能够在这里和对方辩友探讨失常杀人的精神病人应不应该免于处罚的问题。而我方的观点是：失常杀人的精神病人应该免于处罚。

首先，让我们来看看这个论题。

失常，即失去正常状态，而正常即符合一般规律或情况。很明显，失常就已经限定了杀人时的人的状态，也就是说杀人者在杀人时的思维意识不处在正常的情况，所以我们今天不应该把那种杀人时清醒的精神病人列在讨论范围之内，这是论题本身所暗含的。

而精神病人，也就是今天所讨论的主体，则是指各种有害因素所致的大脑功能紊乱，临床表现为精神活动异常的人。他们往往由于心理活动障碍而歪曲地反应客观事实，丧失社会适应能力，或伤害自身和扰乱社会秩序。这里面我们想强调的则是精神活动异常，也就是导致失常的始作俑者。可以说这个世界在我们的眼中和在精神病人的眼中是不一样的，或许他看到车就以为会被撞从而害怕的尖叫，看到陌生人就以为会被杀害从而想要杀死别人来自卫。而这种不可预测的精神活动异常，就会导致很多不良的后果。这些后果中可能包括杀人，但是这种杀人从精神层面来说不是精神病人的错，而只是他们的疾病所引发的。

然后就是应该这个词。今天，我们在这里想要讨论的是应不应该的问题，而不是有没有的问题，也就是说今天的讨论思路不应局限与法律定义和条文，而是要从人性道德层面展开的，这也就给了你我双方思维交流碰撞的机会，而不至于让这场辩论变成八股的背诵。

其次是免于这个词。就是说本身会有，却因为一些特殊的原因从而被除掉，不要。我方认为免于处罚不代表不处理，而是把他送到精神病院进行看管和治疗。处理与处罚就正好可以引出这个论题最最核心的问题。

那就是什么是处罚？处罚是为了什么？

处罚的定义是使犯错误或犯罪的人受到政治或经济上的损失而有所警戒。

不难得出，处罚的目的就是警戒。而我们讨论的精神病人处在失常状态，他没有正常思维活动和控制自我行为的能力，处罚对于他来说是隔靴搔痒，对精神病人起不到让本人知错改过的功能，那有何必处罚他呢？况且，精神病人通常医疗费昂贵，本人也是治愈希望不大，本身就生活在重重压力与窘迫之下，如果因为犯病失常杀人而被处罚，那么是否符合人道主义精神呢？既然处罚达不成目的反倒会违反人道的话，我们难道还应该处罚他们么？死者不能复生，而活着的人却还要因为疾病被处罚，您，忍心么？

综上所述，我方无论是定义方面，还是人道方面，都坚定地认为：失常杀人的精神病人应该免于处罚！

广告利弊英语辩论 篇3

广告利弊英语辩论

是否应禁止广告

In recent years, more and more advertisements have been flooding into our lives. Some advertisements exert negative effects on the youth. Therefore some people suggest that advertisements be banned. Do you agree or disagree with this? Give your reasons.

Along with the rapid progreof society, the advertising industry has undergone remarkable development. Every day we are surrounded by all kinds of ads and commercials, which have a profound influence on our daily lives. As a result, there arises a fierce debate concerning the proposal that we should ban all kinds of advertisements.

On one hand, some people are in favor of the idea that advertisement should not be banned; instead it should be further developed. They are of the opinion that advertisement is a good channel which helps promote the exchanges of information. In an era of information, everyone can benefit a lot from the advertisements, not only the manufacturers but the customers. Moreover, the advertisement enables people to catch up with the amazing advance in all fields. From the mushrooming advertisements, people get to know some newest products and the trend of consumption. Thirdly, advertising, to some extent, is not only an industry but an art. Many advertisements are elaborate works of art full of ingenuity and originality, which render great spiritual pleasure to the viewers and add to the picturesque cityscape. In a word, the advertisement is a blessing for modern people.

Despite the benefits advertisement has brought us, many people strongly condemn it, saying that they have been fed up with all kinds of rubbish ads. They call for a comprehensive ban on the advertisement based on the following reasons. First of all, a majority of advertisements are fictitious and misleading, causing confusion in people’s daily life and even leading to the injury and death of some customers. Secondly, they bring many inconveniences and troubles to us. For example, are you pleased with a mailbox stuffed with unwanted ads or a wonderful film on TV being interrupted frequently? Furthermore, the non-standard use of language in advertisement brings about irreparable damage to the integrity and purity of our language. Consequently, it will exert a disastrous impact on the literacy of our younger generations. In some people’s eyes, the advertisement is just a Genie out of the bottle.

To be frank, it is quite impossible for people to reach an absolute consensus on most controversial issues. To my mind, a total ban on advertisement is not an ideal and practical choice. How can we imagine all advertisements vanishing overnight? The demerits should by no means make us lose sight of the benefits advertisements have brought to us. A more workable and rational attitude should be adopted; that is, to eliminate the false and retain the true. Always bear in mind the old saying:“never throw away the baby with bath water.”

英语辩论主持稿 篇4

你自己看看吧，对照你们的辩论流程适当修改，有用就采取，没用就废稿。背诵困难的地方我都有英汉双译，背起来应该没那么费事儿，加油吧。。。就是别忘了小说。。。。

开场白（英）：Ladies and Gentlemen, Good afternoon! Welcome to “辩论赛题目”English Debating Competition we hold here today. Here you can release your energy, here is the collision of the wisdom, here is the fierce competition. Here, no failure, but only the heroes ……In a word, thank you all for your coming. Firstly, I’d like to make a brief introduction to myself, I’m Ma Chaodong, and I have the great privilege to present today’s chairman

for this debate , Boys and girls, let us welcome our contestants and our judges with our

enthusiastic applause.

Those from team A are XXX, XXX, XXX, and XXX, their opinion is “观点”

Those from team B are XXX, XXX, XXX, and XXX, their opinion is “观点”

Next, welcome timekeepers of both sides raise hands to give a sign.

Our judge is XXX,XXX.....

Ok, as everybody is ready now, here starts the debate.

（汉）女士们，先生们，大家中午好，参加本次关于“题目”的英语辩论赛。这里，你可以尽情释放你的能力，这里承载智慧的碰撞，这里充斥着激烈的竞争。但是，这里，没有失败，因为只有英雄。总之，感谢你们的到来！首先，请允许我做个简单自我介绍，我叫马朝东，非常荣幸能主持这次辩论！现在，让我们热烈欢迎我们的参赛者们。

来自第一组的是XXX，XXX，XXX，他们的观点是“。。。。。。”

来自第二组的是XXX，XXX，XXX，他们的观点是“。。。。。。”

接下来，让我们欢迎双方的计时员。。

好了，既然各位准备就绪，我们就开始这场辩论。

主场部分

英：(a) Opening statement part （立论环节） In this part, the first debaters of two sides state their view one by one. This Time is for 3 minutes.

Firstly, please welcome the first debater of team A Thanks to the wonderful statement of人名， next，please welcome the first debater

team B。

汉：在这部分，有请双方的大辩各自称述自己的观点，计时三分钟。首先，我们有请来自A组的辩论者。。。。感谢XXX的精彩称述。接下来，有请B组的辩论者XXX。

(B) Attack debate part （驳立论环节） 人名from

英：Now, let us welcome the second debater of team A to refute the argument of the team B , the time is for 2 minutes.

Next let us invite the second debater of team B to refute the argument of the team A , the time is for 2 minutes.

汉：现在，有请A(B)组二辩对于B(A)组的观点进行驳论，计时2分钟。

英

ose the first or second

or fourth debater from team B to have a dabate, the time is for 90 seconds.

Next let us invite the third debater of team B to choose the first or

second or fourth debater from team B to have a dabate, the time is for 90 seconds.

汉：现在有请A(B)组的三辩挑选B(A)组的第一、二或者四辩进行辩论，计时90秒

英：Next the two sides is going to have a summary abo：Next let us invite the third debater of team A to cho

ut the attack defense links.

Finally, let’s invite the first debater of team A to have a summary, the time is for 2 minutes. Much thanks to 人名from

人team 名A; Next, let’s invite the first debater

of team B, the time is also for 2 minutes.

汉：最后，请双方一辩总结称述，计时2分钟。。。。 感谢来自A组的XXX，接下来，请B组的XXX进行总结称述，计时2分钟

(C) Free debate part （自由辩论环节）

英：In this part, both debaters could take part in the debate, the time for each team is 5 minutes. Let’s begin with team A 。。。。

汉：在这个阶段，双方的成员可以自由辩论，计时5分钟。让我们先从A组开始。

(D) Last sum-up part (结辩环节)

英In this part, the forth debaters of both sides will have a summary. Time for each team is 4 minutes.

英语辩论赛辩论稿 篇5

——论自杀应该被合法化

今天，自杀合法化的英文辩论稿终于写完了，以下是辩论稿的全部内容

Good evening，Ladies and gentlemen.

According to the law, every single individual is born with the right to keep living. Since death is just a part of life, to suggest that it is a right is to grant that it is a freedom to decide when and where to give up this kind of right. In a manner of speaking, it is a man’s right to commit suicide.

Again, we can find in the OXFord Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese dictionary the explanation of “suicide”----the act of killing oneself intentionally----which indicates that suicide is simply a libertarian movement for human freedom and the right of making choices. It is the law’s duty to protect human’s freedom and the right of making choices.

While it is without doubt that suicide, in reality, is human’s right, there main argument remain:

1,Maybe some people will say that the primary purpose of human being is to live, so suicide is inhumane and totally against the standard of ethic;

2,Suicide is criminal offense because it involves the killing of a person;

3,The people who commits suicide is irrespondsable to those who love him, even if it is a physical and mental realse to himself.

However, an evidence to sustain the first argument is difficult to obtain.It is common sense to note that Modern medicine has its own limitation and can not cure all the existing diseases.In spite of the extraordinary progress made in Modern medicine, problems remain in terms of guaranteeing that all the pains due to illness can be reduced to a tolerant level. As a result of this, at least in the near future, there must be some illnesses which can not be treated, some pains which are uncontrollable, some people who are terminally ill. Maybe the primary purpose of an ordinary and healthy human being is to live, but what if the person we are talking about is a terminally ill patient whose remaining time is no more than a series of suffering . Neither the law nor medical ethics requires “everything be done” to keep a person alive. However, insistnece, against the patient’s wishes, that death be postponed by every means available is contrary to law and practice. It would also be cruel and inhumane. There comes a time when continued attempts to cure are not compassionate, wise or medically sound. That’s where only euthanasia can be of use. Voluntary euthanasia,which is another form of suicide, is human, because it brings mental and physical release to the patient and his family and helps to put an ultimate end to the torment of a termnally ill patient by hastening his death when he has no prospect of recovering. Extending an incurably sick patient’s life means the same as aggravating the pain . It is unnecessory to maintain life artificially beyond the point when people will never regain consciousness. Because effort should not be made to perpetuate what has become a meanless existence.

Others may argue that “suicide is criminal offense because it involves the killing of a person”。 Indeed, killing another person is a kind of serious criminal offense which we call “murder”。 However, what we are talkig about is “suicide”, not “murder”。 Do they realise there is a big difference between the lives of our own and the lives of other people? Since it is our own life, we have the right to decide in what way the life meets its end. If not ,what is the difference gonna be? For instance, you are guity of keeping other people’s possession without permition. Because you are stealing the things which do not belong to you. But when it comes to your own possession, that it is to say, when you keep your own possession or even use it in a way that will probably destroy it,no one would consider you as guity.So, Sustaining the idea of “suicide is criminal offense” is as ridiculous as saying that a person is guity of using his own possession in a destructive way. In the case of suicide, there is no victims, let alone the so-called criminal offense.

With regard to the last argument----”the people who commit suicide ,even if it is a physical and mental realse to himself, is irresponsable to the people who really love him”----the argument itself, ironically is in some sense to abmit that suicide is a physical and mental realse. But what they fail to realise is that the kind of release is not just to the one who commit suicide, but also to his family.It is a terminally sick patient’s right as well as duty to put an utimate end to the torment of himself and his family. Because he is the reason of all the suffering. Those who choose suicide are a class of people whose remaining time is nothing but simply suffering, a class of people who choose death as an ultimate escape from the eternal torture they are destined to ,a class of people who need compassion and understanding from their relatives and the society, rather than meanlessly prolonging his painful life. If we really love the one who commit suicide, we should let him die in a desired way, die with dignity as he wishes. Because this is where true love lies.

Judging from what has been discussed above, we can safely draw the conclusion that we should make suicide legalized. Because it’s a new and bitter truth we must learn to face.

That’s all.Thank you.

英语辩论赛流程 篇6

Steps of an English debate

say your opinion

1、 The first debater in pros speaks.(about 3 minutes)

2、 The first debater in cons speaks.(about 3 minutes)

ask questions to each other

1、 The third debater in cons asks.

2、 The first debater in pros answers, then asks.

3、 The first debater in cons answers,then asks.

4、 The second debater in pros answers, then asks.

5、 The second debater in cons answers, then asks.

6、 The third debater in pros answers, then asks.

7、 The third debater in cons answers.

（ 30 seconds per people, all are 3 minutes）

sum up the questions and the answers

1、 The second debater in pros.(1.5 minutes)

2、 The second debater in cons.(1.5 minutes)

free debate

The pros speak first, then the cons speak.

Pros and cons take turns to speak.

（ 4 minutes per people）

sums up all the arguments

1、 The fourth debater in cons speaks.

2、 The fourth debater in pros speaks.

（ 4 minutes per people）

Rules

The rules of asking part

The speach of each debater should includes answer part and ask part. The answer should be clear and easy and the question also should be clear.（ only one question each time）

The rules of free debate

1、 Free debate should be around two teams.A debater in pros speaks first then a debater in cons speaks. Two teams take turns, until the time is up.

2、 The time that each team takes should be calculated the total time. When one team end the speaking, we begin to record the time of the other team.

3、 In the total time. It doesnt matter that how long and how many times a debater speak.

4、 If one of the teams uses out the time, the other team can give up speaking or keep on taking turns until the time is up. Giving up speaking cannot influence the score.

During the debate, debaters cannot read the imformation that is prepared before. But they can show the summary of any newspaper or book.

During the debate, debaters cannot leave sets. They also cannot stop the speaking of the other side debater or their side debater.