英语辩论赛二辩稿模板Word文档下载推荐.docx

1、Thank you,Mr.（Ms.）speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, good evening! providing extra incentives to scientists from universities and research institutions, therefore increasing innovation. This is wrong. Firstly, many scientists work for pharmaceutical xxpanies directly . Secondly, scientists at universiti

2、es and research institutions are paid by pharmaceutical xxpanies to undertake research for them. Why is this importantIt means that scientists are actually harmed under the propositions model, not helped. When patents are removed,pharmaceutical xxpanies can no longer earn monopoly profits.Now Iwhy w

3、e save more livesFirstly, under our plan you can pay scientists double the bonuses they get paid and still get the job done way below the current cost. This is because we wont have to pay $6-10 million a year for the CEO of the firm in question or billions in publicity. Were also providing incentive

4、s for the same xxpanies to research novel drugs. Rather than fret over prices remaining high for 20 years tomake a profit were allowing them a generous research and development-linked profit on delivery. Secondly, we have the preposterous claim that university research is funded by corporations! The

5、 Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry lobby group, estimates that private industry finances only about 43% of drug development! Our plan allows for universities and government institutions to take on more research and even provide them with concrete benefits. Thirdly, mo

6、re than 69% of those with HIV lack access to the medication to treat it. Rather than pay the current prices for that 69% for as long as they need them what we do is pay for them in adrastically cheaper one-off payment that would allow for generic copies to be made ad infinite. This way we also dont

7、endorse current practice that actively discourages innovation but instead create a new regime that truly rewards it allowing everyone to benefit from genuinely novel drugs.Fourthly, the opp has argued our plan would not encourage cheaper drugs with the same effects to be produced. Of course not! If

8、we create generic drugs, accessible to all why need a “new” drug that does exactly the sameThis is what happens under the status quo;xxpanies creating useless “me-too drugs” one after the other rather than researching into novel drugs that have something to offer. Rather than see this lack of innova

9、tion as a problem they are offering its solution as an argument .In addition, if xxpanies with patents charge very high prices, that creates a market for cheaper drugs for that illness, so other xxpanies can move into that market. This means innovation is encouraged, there are more drugs and the pri

10、ce isnt an issue in the long term. Under the props model it is necessary that generics are more profitable than new drugs for a xxpany to produce, or else none of them will, instead going for the massive prize for new drugs. If generics are more popular, no new drugs will be produced, only copies.Fo

11、r the second aspect, abolishing patents for life-saving medicines would not decline the price of prop have founded their case on the idea that lots of generic producers will be ableto produce drugs cheaply if patents are bypassed. However, there needs to be a massive incentive to get these drugs dev

12、eloped in the first place. They cost up to $800 million to get to market, and this means huge amounts of investment are required. Not only does this investment need to be payed back, there needs to be a promise of strong profit to pay off the risk of such a hugeinvestment being unsuccessful . As pat

13、ents provide the ability to charge monopoly pricing, if there was no patent for life-saving drugs there would need to be an even greater incentive to stop xxpanies producing non-life saving drugs instead. What this means is that whatever model the prop propose to provide these incentives, it will al

14、ways be more expensive than allowing a xxpany to patent a product, which at least makes it as valuable as a non-life saving drug. medicines,thus,abolishing patents for life-saving medicines seems to save more lives at the beginning, it would kill more lives in the long run.篇二：英语辩论范例英语辩论赛话题：当代社会男人压力大

15、还是女人压力大主持：主持词：Good morning everyone, today, we will bring you a small but brilliant debate. I hope all of you would enjoy the time.（介绍来宾）The judges of todays debate are our teacher and everybody here! Welxxe! The topic for our debate today is whether the pressure of men is more than women? First ple

16、ase let me introduce the contestants of both sides. Those on the pros are Liu Junyi and me. Those on the cons are Gao Tianli and Lei Feiyan. As everybody is ready now, here starts the debate.The first session: Statement of their arguments: -the For-side, please正方一辩：我方观点是当今社会男人的压力比女人的压力大。在当今社会事实是男人承受的压力远大于女人的压力，不仅从社会角度，从工作角度，从家庭角度都对男人有更多的要求，男人被要求能够很好的处理社会交际，能够出色的工作，能够