英语辩论赛辩论稿【精简5篇】

英语辩论赛辩论稿 篇一

标题：Should animals be used for scientific research?

Introduction:

Good morning/afternoon, honorable judges, respected teachers, and fellow debaters. Today, we are here to discuss a highly controversial topic - whether animals should be used for scientific research. On one hand, some argue that animal testing is necessary for medical advancements and human safety. On the other hand, opponents believe that it is unethical and cruel. After careful consideration, my team firmly believes that the use of animals for scientific research is justified and beneficial.

Argument 1: Medical Advancements

The first reason to support animal testing is that it has led to significant medical advancements. Throughout history, animal research has played a vital role in the development of vaccines, antibiotics, and surgical techniques. Diseases such as polio, smallpox, and tuberculosis have been successfully eradicated or controlled due to the use of animals in research. Without animal testing, medical progress would be severely hindered, resulting in higher mortality rates and a lack of effective treatments for various diseases.

Argument 2: Human Safety

The second reason to support animal testing is the need to ensure human safety. Before any potential drug or treatment is tested on humans, it undergoes rigorous testing on animals to determine its safety and efficacy. This process helps to identify potential side effects, dosage levels, and possible interactions with other medications. By conducting these tests on animals, we can minimize the risks to human subjects and ensure that only safe and effective treatments are approved for human use.

Argument 3: Ethical Regulations

Lastly, it is important to acknowledge the ethical regulations that govern animal testing. In most countries, strict guidelines and regulations are in place to ensure that animals used in research are treated humanely and with respect. These regulations include measures to minimize pain and suffering, provide appropriate housing and nutrition, and use the smallest number of animals necessary to obtain valid results. While there have been instances of unethical treatment in the past, it is crucial to focus on improving and enforcing these regulations rather than abandoning animal research altogether.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the use of animals for scientific research is a necessary and justifiable practice. It has led to numerous medical advancements, ensured human safety, and is regulated by ethical guidelines. While we should continue to explore alternative methods and reduce the number of animals used, completely eliminating animal testing would hinder medical progress and compromise human health. Let us prioritize human lives and support the responsible use of animals in scientific research.

英语辩论赛辩论稿 篇二

标题：Should the voting age be lowered to 16?

Introduction:

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters, today we gather here to discuss a crucial matter - whether the voting age should be lowered to 16. While some argue that 16-year-olds lack the maturity and knowledge to make informed decisions, our team strongly believes that lowering the voting age is essential to encourage youth engagement, foster civic responsibility, and give young people a voice in shaping their future.

Argument 1: Youth Engagement

Lowering the voting age to 16 would provide an opportunity to engage young people in the democratic process at an earlier age. By involving them in voting, we can encourage political awareness and participation from a younger age. It is a well-known fact that habits formed early in life tend to persist, and by allowing 16-year-olds to vote, we can cultivate a lifelong habit of political engagement and active citizenship.

Argument 2: Civic Responsibility

Granting 16-year-olds the right to vote would also instill a sense of civic responsibility. If young people are expected to pay taxes, obey laws, and contribute to society, they should have a say in the decisions that shape their lives. Lowering the voting age recognizes the importance of young citizens and empowers them to take responsibility for their actions and the future of their country.

Argument 3: Informed Decision-making

Contrary to the belief that 16-year-olds lack the maturity and knowledge to vote, studies have shown that young people are capable of making informed decisions. With access to information through the internet and social media, today's youth are more politically aware and informed than ever before. Lowering the voting age would provide them with a platform to voice their opinions and contribute to the democratic process.

Counterargument:

One common counterargument is that 16-year-olds are easily influenced and manipulated. However, this is not a valid reason to deny them the right to vote. Influence and manipulation exist at all ages, and it is the responsibility of society to educate young people about critical thinking, media literacy, and the importance of making informed decisions. Denying them the vote based on assumptions undermines the potential of young citizens and perpetuates age discrimination.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, lowering the voting age to 16 is a necessary step towards fostering youth engagement, civic responsibility, and informed decision-making. It recognizes the capabilities of young citizens and ensures that their voices are heard in shaping the future of their country. Let us embrace the potential of our youth and grant them the right to vote, empowering them to actively participate in the democratic process.

英语辩论赛辩论稿 篇三

　　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 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.

英语辩论赛辩论稿 篇四

　　Good morning everyone.Today I’m happy to make a discussion about paper book and E-book with you. After our team seriously thinking and discussion,we agree that paper book is still the first s

　　election when people decide to read.经过我们团队认真思考和讨论，大家一致认

　　为，纸书依然是当人们决定要读取的第一个选择，资料共享平台

英语辩论赛辩论稿 篇五

　　That means,though E-book has appeared for many years and its market is growing rapidly,paper book still occupy the first place.这意味着，尽管电子图书已经出现了许多

　　年，其市场正很快，纸质书仍然占据第一的位置。

　　Therefore,our group choose to support paper book.When compared with E-book, paper book has its natural advantages.因此，我们小组选择支持的纸质书。当与电子书相

　　比，纸书有其天然的优势。

　　Firstly,traditional culture take paper book as its carrier,this also makes traditional reading has become a habit for most people.首先，传统文化采取纸质图书为载体，这也

　　使得传统阅读对大多数人来说已经成为一种习惯。

　　We all know that once a habit developed,it will be hard to change.我们都知道，一旦习

　　惯开发的，这将是很难改变。

　　It also illustrates that the status of paper book is still hard to shake by E-book and the soul and essence of paper book are also impossible to be replaced by E-book.这也说

　　明了纸书的地位还是难以通过电子书来动摇灵魂和纸书的精华，也不可能被电子书取代。

　　Traditional reading helps us cultivate abstract thinking ability,by contrast,E-book looks like a kind of fast food culture which lacks of depth and aftertaste.传统的'阅读能

　　帮助我们培养抽象思维能力，相比之下，电子书看起来就像是一种快餐文化，而缺乏深度和 回味。

　　Secondly,E-book isn’t really conductive to collection,collection of books is also a kind of collection of culture and a historical accumulation at the same time.其次，电子书是

　　不是真的利于收藏，收藏的书籍也是一种集文化，并在同一时间一个历史积淀。

　　So,one day in the future,if what we can see in museum is not ancient books but electronic readers,such as kindle,CD,removing storage devices,don’t tell me that you still have interesting to visit.于是，有一天，在未来，如果我们能在博物馆看到的是不是古

　　代的书籍，但电子阅读器，如点燃，CD，删除存储设备，不要告诉我，你还有兴趣访问。

　　So,as far as I’m concerned,a electronic reader is always a cold machine,it cann’t bring us warm feeling like paper book.所以， 就我而言， 一个电子阅读器始终是一个冰冷的机器，

　　它无法带给我们像纸书温暖的感觉。

　　To sum up,we choose to support paper book is a right choice. 综上所述， 我们选择支持

　　纸书是一个正确的选择。