英语演讲辩题.docx

1、英语演讲辩题This house would make fathers take paternity leave这个辩题讲的是男女之间的权利和平等，特别是夫妻之间，在家庭的范畴内的责任和分工。同时，又涉及到由传统到现代社会转变中，人们对男女家庭角色和社 会角色的重新认识与要求。正方站在夫妻权责对等的角度上，认为丈夫或父亲对抚养下一代也同样应承担与妻子相似的职责，政府应在政策上予以强制支持，使男性 产假成为常态，让社会承认，接受，并进一步强化男人在婚内照顾妻儿的职责。另外，正方也同时强调政策的必要性，认为女人在传统的观念下独担家庭和育儿的重 担，使其不得不牺牲或放弃事业发展或自身价值实现的机会，

2、同时，很多家庭的现状是男人在妻子产假期间疲于奔命，想要更多时间照顾家庭，却常因工作要求无法 保证，而政策能充分缓和这一现状，让社会更多尊重男女家庭责任与事业机会的平等，同时也能谈及对孩子的益处，如果父亲在日常能多承担融入，能使家庭更为和 谐，更有利于新生儿的成长。反方则认为男女有其自然分工，现状已然很合理，强调这样做给各方带来的实际损害，比如可能导致公司或企业的员工稳定性受到影 响，进而降低其生产力与效率；不利于男性的职业生涯的持续稳定升级，尤其当其为家中财政收入的重要来源，甚至支柱来源时；政策将在长期范围内影响整个家庭 的财政收入与生活质量，危害家庭的持续稳定。另外，政策的效果也存在质疑，因

3、为强制放假本身并不等同于能督促男人承担起相应的家庭责任。Motion for Round 4: This house would require individuals to use all their wealth beyond usd 5 million for philanthropic projects.辩手们拿到这个辩题的时候第一反应往往是responsibility和rights。正方会认为：individual的个人财富积攒到5 million USD是极大的成就，而5 million USD本身就可以保证这个人之后的生活衣食无忧，过上小康以上的优质生活，基于这种前提下，才有了捐

4、出剩余部分的可能性。其次，每个人的成功均来源于社 会，个人积攒大量自己不可能消费完的财富本身也是一种社会财富分配不均的不健康的表现。所以要求他们在自己成功后再回馈社会也是一种积极的社会财富二次调 配。许多大企业家在成功之后都会主动地捐助大笔积蓄至社会救助活动等公益事业也和此主题不谋而合。而反方当然会认为：individual为什么要把个人身家超过5 million USD的部分捐出去呢？首先应该思考个人是否有这个责任来做慈善，维护国家内每个居民的衣食住行温饱是政府的任务，而不是个人的责任。个人可以自愿去捐， 但是individual不管是有钱还是没钱，他并没有义务去捐，也就是说这个motion

5、是在强迫大家做自己本不需要做的事情。更近一步说的话，这就是 在侵犯individual rights。另外，individual每年已经上交大笔个人所得税的税款，也就是说不管这个人的个人资产达到多少，每一毛钱都是交过税的，那么现在强 行要求捐献，对于个人而言是不公平的，所以在这里也是可以发展到fairness的高度的。总体来说，这个辩题是让大家在social benefits和individual rights之间进行权衡和探讨，可辨性还是很好的。This house believes that China should legalize physician-assisted suicide(

6、中国是否应该将安乐死合法化)。本次“政府”方队员分别从以下三个方面阐述安乐死理应合法化的观点:第一，立法的必要性。她们指出目前中国有大量垂死病人处于生不如死的状态，情况紧急，需要安乐死合法化政策来解决这个紧急问题；第二，她们认为让患者选择生存与死亡是基本人权；第三，医生的职责不仅仅是救死扶伤，更要按患者的意愿来决定治疗。并且，她们补充强调她们所认为的政策必须符合三个特征：一，在尊重患者清醒意愿的基础上之上；二，由医生诊断患者确实已无治愈可能；三，有完善的第三方监督。“政府”方选手思维敏捷，表达流利，举手投足之间充满了自信和霸气；而代表“反对党”的几位选手也从三个方便提出了不同的观点，首先，她们

7、认为 “人人都是渴望生命的”，对生命的热爱和坚持才是人性的光辉所在；其次，她们指出基本的人权就包括了生存权这一权利，因此安乐死有违人权道义；最后，她们也提出了反驳，医生最根本的职责就是拯救病患的生命，而不是将他们推向死亡。Death Penalty Should Be AbolishedWhether some murderers deserve to die for their crimes is generally not an issue in dispute between supporters and opponents of the death penalty. What is a

8、t issue is whether the death penalty should be allowed in the United States. For those who oppose the death penalty, there are several common arguments. Some see it as immoral while others see it as only encouraging violence. Some feel that allowing the government the power of life and death is wron

9、g. Only God, they feel, should have this power, since, as Catholic sister Camille DArienzo said, “all lifenot only innocent lifeis sacred.”Sunil Dutta, a Los Angeles police sergeant, feels that supporting the death penalty sends the “dangerous message to impressionable minds that violence is a way t

10、o resolve problems.”One of the more recent arguments against the death penalty is that it is unfairly administered, disproportionately affecting both minorities and the poor. The poor and minorities often cannot afford legal help. Though they are provided legal assistance as a matter of law, all too

11、 often that assistance is substandard, as several reported cases illustrate in which the state-appointed attorneys slept though the trial, failed even to meet with their clients until the day before trial, or otherwise failed to provide even the minimum standard of legal representation. As attorney

12、and former judge Robert Grant points out, “Retributive justice has a bad history, however, as it has historically been used to enforce a class society by oppressing the poor and protecting the rich. It has been used to impose racism by applying the law in an unfairly heavy-handed way upon African-Am

13、erican citizens and in a lenient manner upon white Americans.”Further, the justice system is not flawless, which has been proven in recent decades through the investigative work of law students and journalists, and with the advent of DNA testing. Whether through the eventual confessions of the real

14、murderer, the uncovering of new facts, or the use of DNA testing, close to one hundred individuals have been found to have been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death.Supporters of the death penalty often argue that it acts as a deterrent, to which opponents respond much as API writer John Bloom s

15、tates: “Capital crimes are not committed by people who weigh the consequences of their acts. They dont think, Well, Ill risk 40 years in prison but I wont risk death. Their whole makeup is focused on the short term. Tomorrow is not in their vocabularies.” Or, as Sergeant Dutta states, “Capital punis

16、hment fails to deter those who commit crimes of passion. Capital punishment also has no dissuading power over criminals who are opportunistic, calculating, or overcome by drugs. A person taking a chance that he will not be caught for the crime he is planning to commit does not discriminate between t

17、he death penalty and life in prison without parole. Killing a criminal will prevent him from committing another crimebut so will putting him behind bars forever.”ResourcesBloom, John. “Capital Punishment Is Not a Deterrent.” Capital Punishment. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005

18、.DArienzo, Camille. “Capital Punishment Is Immoral.” Capital Punishment. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005.Dutta, Sunil. “Capital Punishment Cannot Be Justified.” Capital Punishment. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005.Grant, Robert. “Capital Punishment Exac

19、erbates Violence.” Capital Punishment. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005.Cooperation Over Competition Recently, a friend of mine asked me a question, “do you think relations between human beings are becoming more intimate or indifferent”. It makes begin to think about the compl

20、icated situation where people are competing fiercely while cooperating closely with each other.Then upon reflection, I come to the conclusion that cooperation is more important than competition for social development, for it leads us to a more united, colorful and promising world. First of all, coop

21、eration brings unity and harmony to our society.We are now living on the same planet and share common natural resources. Only when we learn to communicate and cooperate efficiently can we achieve a lasting peace. This point has been well proved throughout our long history. Especially when facing wit

22、h the mysterious and powerful nature, we could do nothing but to work together to come up with plans for sustainable development or save lives from terrible natural disasters.It is the power of cooperation that unites we human as a whole. Besides, cooperation is likely to bring out more valuable and

23、 brilliant ideas.Just as the old saying goes, “three heads are bett.er than one”. Since different hold different opinions, it is always true that more constructive proposals can be put up when a group of people discuss together.And this is the reason for successful enterprises or brands looking for

24、strong partrners. Among a number of cases, the cooperation between Starbucks and HP Computer is mentionable. The Starbucks provides wireless Internet access in its coffee houses with the lamptops offered by HP computers so that the logo of HP can be seen any time people walk in a Starbucks shop. And

25、 in return, the convenience of Internet surfing attracts a larger number of customers.What a win-win situation cooperation can bring! Thirdly, a more promising world will embrace us if we carry on the course of global cooperation. For we all know that currently almost every procedure of manufacturin

26、g is interdependent, from designing, producing,processing to sales. Joint efforts are definitely essential to the success of business. And the same goes with military, scientific and cultural sectors. With close cooperation, a bright future for the human society is right ahead. Taking all these into

27、 account, Id like to say that though the benefits of competition can never be neglected, Im still looking farward to more cooperations, for unity, diversity and prosperity are always what we will spare no effort to pursue.中国应立法禁止堕胎 据报道，来自重庆市现代女子医院、都市俪人医院、市计生医院等妇科医院的统计数据显示，这个暑假做人流手术的学生明显增多，平均年龄在17-21

28、岁之间，个别少女一年内人流三四次。按照民法通则的规定，公民的权利能力始于出生，终于死亡。也就是说只有出生后的人才算是个“人”。中国目前没有禁止堕胎的法律规定，相反从计划生育的角度来讲，对堕胎是持纵容态度的。然而，中国刑法第49条规定：“审判的时候怀孕的妇女，不适用死刑。”这不正是承认胎儿的生命权吗？我国的现行法律虽没有保障胎儿的生存权，但在我国继承法中，规定尚未出生的胎儿享有财产继承权。这可以说是用另一种法律形式肯定了胎儿的生命权和法律地位。在中国，除了人工性别选择的堕胎以外，一般来说，堕胎是合法的，至今为止还没有引起多大的道德争议。然而，在美国，人们对是否应禁止堕胎争论得非常激烈，争论的焦点

29、是谁的权利更重要：一个是未出生的胎儿，另一个是怀孕妇女。最根本的一个问题是：胎儿是不是人？如果胎儿是人，那么胎儿的生命权就应当受到保护，应当禁止堕胎；如果胎儿还算不上是人，那么孕妇理应享有堕胎的权利。2003年11月，美国总统布什签署了一项禁止在怀孕晚期通过外科手段堕胎的法案。2006年3月，美国南达科他州州长朗兹签署法案，严格禁止所有的堕胎行为，唯一的例外是当孕妇的生命受到威胁时；否则，实施手术的医生将被视为违法，最高可判5年监禁。随意堕胎，是一种漠视生命的行为。一般认为，三个月以上的胎儿，已经具有人类的基本生命特征了。因此，笔者认为中国应立法禁止对三个月以上胎儿的堕胎。这样做可以一举两得：

30、既能保护胎儿的生命权，也有利于缓解目前严重的出生婴儿性别比失衡问题，因为胎儿一般要到四至五个月才能用B超鉴定出性别。Motion for Round 7:This house supports the free movement of labor worldwide.点评：本次世辩赛大多数辩题都是纯粹的价值辩论，并没有太多的现实背景，论辩双方要将火力集中在价值冲突上。正方第一可以突出强调劳工与企业的契约自 由是公民社会的基础，应当高于两国（原籍国及工作国）的管治利益，第二可以强调劳工的国际迁移，是世界经济结构的反映，也就是说两国必然有市场需求，劳务 市场如同一切市场，可以有自我调节的功能，无需

31、政府加以过多调整；第三可以强调政府加以过多调整的不利后果-既可能给企业带来雇佣成本的负担，等等。反 方应当强调，劳务的开放并非由市场决定，而是劳务输入国的主权行为，其基础在于劳务输入国的承受能力以及对本国公民生存条件的利益进行首要考虑，所谓管 治利益实际上是本国社会的发展成本；劳务市场从来就不能够自我调节，因为管理与服务任何外来人口都需要社会成本，而企业无法承担这一社会成本故而就 不能够享有雇佣自由；政府如果不加调控，那么本国人民的生存空间会受到挤压，本属于本国公民最基本的社会资源（包括警力、监狱等政府资源，甚至是空间资源 本身）也会被侵占。Full-Time Housewife: Most

32、Womens ChoiceFewer Women Are Willing to Take JobsAs experts are busy looking for ways to help laid-off women get re-employed, an investigation of 2,000 couples, made by the Womens Federation of Beijings Haidian District, shows more than 60 percent of the professional women are willing to be full-time housewives; only more than 30 percent of them are determined to work until the age of retirement. Some people believe this is a retrogression of the society, and others think it is a sign of the social progress.Full-time housewives (except those laid-off) occupy