英语辩论赛辩论稿(实用3篇)

英语辩论赛辩论稿 篇一：Should school uniforms be mandatory?

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters,

Today, I stand before you to argue in favor of the proposition that school uniforms should be mandatory. While some may argue that uniforms stifle individuality and creativity, I believe that the benefits of school uniforms far outweigh any perceived drawbacks.

Firstly, school uniforms promote a sense of unity and equality among students. When all students are dressed in the same attire, it eliminates the pressure to wear expensive or fashionable clothes, reducing the risk of bullying or discrimination based on appearance. With uniforms, students are judged based on their character and abilities rather than their clothing choices, creating a more inclusive and harmonious learning environment.

Secondly, school uniforms can enhance safety and security within schools. By having a standardized dress code, it becomes easier for staff and security personnel to identify intruders or unauthorized individuals on campus. Additionally, uniforms can help prevent gang-related activities or the wearing of inappropriate clothing with offensive symbols or messages. By enforcing a strict uniform policy, schools can ensure a safer and more focused educational environment for all students.

Moreover, school uniforms can instill a sense of discipline and professionalism in students. By requiring students to adhere to a specific dress code, it prepares them for future workplaces where dress codes are often enforced. Uniforms teach students the importance of following rules and regulations, which are essential life skills that will benefit them beyond their school years.

Furthermore, school uniforms can help alleviate the financial burden on parents. Without the pressure to buy trendy or expensive clothes, families can save money on clothing expenses. Uniforms are generally more affordable and durable, reducing the need for frequent replacement. This allows parents to allocate their financial resources towards other educational needs, such as textbooks or extracurricular activities.

In conclusion, the implementation of mandatory school uniforms provides numerous benefits that outweigh any concerns regarding individuality or creativity. By promoting unity, ensuring safety, fostering discipline, and reducing financial burdens, school uniforms create a conducive learning environment for all students. Therefore, I urge you to support the motion that school uniforms should be mandatory.

Thank you.

英语辩论赛辩论稿 篇二：Should cell phones be allowed in schools?

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters,

Today, I stand before you to argue against the proposition that cell phones should be allowed in schools. While some may argue that cell phones enhance communication and provide useful educational tools, I believe that the drawbacks of allowing cell phones in schools outweigh any potential benefits.

Firstly, cell phones can be a major distraction in the classroom. With the proliferation of social media and online entertainment, students are more likely to be engrossed in their phones rather than paying attention to their teachers or engaging in classroom activities. This not only hampers their academic performance but also disrupts the learning environment for other students.

Secondly, cell phones can facilitate cheating and academic dishonesty. With easy access to the internet, students can quickly look up answers or share information during exams or assignments. This undermines the integrity of the educational system and devalues the achievements of hardworking students. By banning cell phones in schools, we can ensure a fair and level playing field for all students.

Moreover, cell phones can have negative effects on students' mental health and social skills. Excessive use of cell phones has been linked to increased anxiety, depression, and a decline in face-to-face social interactions. Allowing cell phones in schools may exacerbate these issues, as students become more reliant on their devices for social validation and entertainment, rather than developing meaningful relationships and effective communication skills.

Furthermore, cell phones can pose security risks within schools. With the ability to take pictures or record videos, cell phones can infringe on the privacy of students and staff. Additionally, cell phones can be used to disseminate inappropriate or harmful content, such as cyberbullying or explicit material. By prohibiting cell phones in schools, we can protect the well-being and safety of all individuals on campus.

In conclusion, the drawbacks of allowing cell phones in schools outweigh any potential benefits. Cell phones are a distraction, promote cheating, negatively impact mental health and social skills, and pose security risks. Therefore, I urge you to oppose the motion that cell phones should be allowed in schools.

Thank you.

英语辩论赛辩论稿 篇三

　　——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 inpidual 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 peo

ple 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.