英语辩论赛反方一辩开场词

第一篇：英语辩论赛反方一辩开场词

OK.Thanks my fellow debater.Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.We are glad that the definition we made about corpse donation is similar with fellow debaters’.However, I can’t agree with debaters’ opinion.We insist that upon death, each person’s body should not be given to the State for scientific use, or for organ transplant.According to this topic, what is“should be given”? Is it a forced obligation? Donation has the firstly basic principle is voluntary.And what is the voluntary principle? It refers to the dead and his family donate the corpse with voluntary.If lack of voluntary,it is not the “donation” but robbery.The followings are the reasons for our opposition.First of all, we approval that corpse donation can really meet the needs of scientific use or organ transplant.Especially for part people who require organ to transplant to save their lives, but how much is this part? In China,the current medical system is not perfect, and cost of the transplant operation is so high even more than 30,000.Besides,after operation, medicine also spent a amount of overhead.All of cost goes beyond the ability to pay for a general family.Secondly, both people and the State do not have right to violate the value with another one.Forced corpse donation on the surface is to defend the patient's right to survival, but meanwhile it destroys the right the dead and his families to choose freely.In addition,the deceased's body belongs to himself, although he died ,the right to process the corpse should be given to the deceased’s successor.That is a performance of inherited relationship.However enforced donation undoubtedly breaks the inherited system.The reason why the donation is forced is that the organ is rare and so many patients need it.Similarly,money is also need

urgently,should people donate their heritage to the State? Obviously say NO!They are all voluntary donations.Without will of the parties,the donation would become robbery.If we can not control our body,where are the human rights?If we can not dominate our money freely, what is the necessity of wills? Is it a wastepaper? The State makes the law to give us rights to protect ourselves from

infringement.But he prevents us to use our rights?Where is the equity? Why we can’t freely make our decisions?Who can give you the rights to robber our body without our consent?

Finally, please debaters explain to us how can the State deal with these people who don’t want to donate their bodies? Directly forced occupying without any comments? Are there not any other more moderate ways get the same effect? What is “should be given”?That is to say,people’s corpse must be given to the State after his death,no matter whether he is willing or not.Then,where are our rights?So we insist that upon death ,each person’s body should not be given to the State for scientific use or organ donation.Thank you.Yes!The value of others lives is quite precious, but personal belief does not have signification? Chinese traditional belief is that "your body is something you receive from your parents”.Even death, leaving the whole body is not just only a formality,but it represents our respect for human rights, and respect for the deceased.

第二篇：英语辩论赛反方一辩开场词

OK.Thanks my fellow debater.Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.We are glad that the definition we made about corpse donation is similar with fellow debaters’.However, I can’t agree with debaters’ opinion.We insist that upon death, each person’s body should not be given to the State for scientific use, or for organ transplant.According to this topic, what is“should be given”? Is it a forced obligation? Donation has the firstly basic principle is voluntary.And what is the voluntary principle? It refers to the dead and his family donate the corpse with voluntary.If lack of voluntary,it is not the “donation” but robbery.The followings are the reasons for our opposition.First of all, we approval that corpse donation can really meet the needs of scientific use or organ transplant.Especially for part people who require organ to transplant to save their lives, but how much is this part? In China,the current medical system is not perfect, and cost of the transplant operation is so high even more than 30,000.Besides,after operation, medicine also spent a amount of overhead.All of cost goes beyond the ability to pay for a general family.Secondly, both people and the State do not have right to violate the value with another one.Forced corpse donation on the surface is to defend the patient's right to survival, but meanwhile it destroys the right the dead and his families to choose freely.In addition,the deceased's body belongs to himself, although he died ,the right to process the corpse should be given to the deceased’s successor.That is a performance of inherited relationship.However enforced donation undoubtedly breaks the inherited system.The reason why the donation is forced is that the organ is rare and so many patients need it.Similarly,money is also need urgently,should people donate their heritage to the State? Obviously say NO!They are all voluntary donations.Without will of the parties,the donation would become robbery.If we can not control our body,where are the human rights?If we can not dominate our money freely, what is the necessity of wills? Is it a wastepaper? The State makes the law to give us rights to protect ourselves from infringement.But he prevents us to use our rights?Where is the equity? Why we can’t freely make our decisions?Who can give you the rights to robber our body without our consent?

Finally, please debaters explain to us how can the State deal with these people who don’t want to donate their bodies? Directly forced occupying without any comments? Are there not any other more moderate ways get the same effect? What is “should be given”?That is to say,people’s corpse must be given to the State after his death,no matter whether he is willing or not.Then,where are our rights?So we insist that upon death ,each person’s body should not be given to the State for scientific use or organ donation.Thank you.Yes!The value of others lives is quite precious, but personal belief does not have signification? Chinese traditional belief is that "your body is something you receive from your parents”.Even death, leaving the whole body is not just only a formality,but it represents our respect for human rights, and respect for the deceased.

第三篇：辩论赛一辩开场

谢谢主席，大家好。我是正方一辩。来自----我方的观点是在创业的过程中人脉比技术更加的重要！创业就是创业者对自己拥有的资源或通过努力能够拥有的资源进行优化整合，从而创造出更大经济或社会价值的过程。在社会学中人际关系被定义为人们在生产或生活活动过程中所建立的一种社会关系。心理学将人际关系定义为人与人在交往中建立的直接的心理上的联系。中文常指人与人交往关系的总称，也被称为“人际交往”。从上述的定义不难看出人际关系本身便是建立在生产和生活活动，而我们的创业本身便是一种便是一种生产生活活动。我方认为在创业过程中是人脉重要还是技术重要我们完全可以以在创业所用的时间、创业过程所经历的难题、创业最终成功与否来决定。我方认为创业人脉比技术更为重要，其理由有； 第一点：在创业初期我们便要面对着比如资金、项目、市场等困难。而这些条件都是需要我们与外界交流，不是我们单纯靠能力便能解决的，因为市场瞬息万变等你在天时，地利，人和等方面认为准备充分的时候市场又有了很大的变化。在现在21世纪我们的信息传递方式已经十分的便捷了，但便捷的同时并不代表这我们能够随时取到我们有用的信息着。而当我们有了足够的人脉后这些信息便能够随时的关注到。这些可不是只靠工作能力强就能办到的！第二点； 相信大家在平时做小组作业的时候都有一种感觉，就是自己闭门做车不管是怎么的努力到最后却依然是失败。而这个时候便需要一个组长，他也许并不能做多少事情，但是当有了他以后事情便有了合理的分工。这样不需要每个人都能作很多，只要你会一部分，在组长的统一协作下我们就有了一个完整的作品。而这个和我们创业的过程是想通的，我们并不需要有多么大的能力，但是我们必定需要有足够的人脉能够协调统一，集合大家的能力。第三点； 就是我们的一些长辈他们的成功创业，无不都经营着完善丰富的人脉也正是这些人脉成就了他们的成功。曾任美国某大铁路公司总裁的史密斯说：“铁路的95％是人，5％是铁。”美国钢铁大王及成功学大师卡耐基经过长期研究得出结论说：“专业知识在一个人成功中的作用只占15％，而其余的85％则取决于人际关系。”所以说，无论你从事什么职业，学会处理人际关系，掌握并拥有丰厚的人脉资源，你就在成功路上走了85％的路程，在个人幸福的路上走了99％的路程了。无怪乎美国石油大王洛克菲勒说：“我愿意付出比天底下得到其他本领更大的代价来获取与人相处的本领。” 综上所述，我方认为，奥运商业化利大于弊。谢谢各位！

第四篇：人性本恶 辩论赛反方一辩稿

在座的各位同学们：

大家好！我方认为：人性本恶。

开宗明义，人性本恶中的本，无论是本来，原本，还是根本，在字典里都是事物的开始的时候最初根源的意思。虽然大家对善恶的标准都有自己的评判和思想，但归根到底恶指的就是本能和欲望的无节制地扩张，而善则是对本能的合理节制。我们说人性本恶正是基于人的自然倾向的无限扩张的趋势。早在两千年前，所谓人类文明的轴心时代，东方荀子的性恶论与西方原罪说便遥相呼应。而到近代，从马基雅维里到弗洛伊德再到鲁迅，无一不主张人性本恶。对方辩友身为祖国的花朵面对这样的真知灼见，至今未能幡然醒悟，真是让我痛心疾首啊！所以我方坚持认为：人性本恶。我将从以下三个方面阐述这一伟大的思想。

第一，人性是由社会属性和自然属性组成的，自然属性指的就是无节制的本能和欲望，这是人的天性，是与生俱来的；而社会属性则是通过社会生活、社会教化所获得的，它是后天属性．我们说人性本恶当然指的是人性本来的、先天的就是恶的．

第二，各大学术门类的研究均已证明人性本恶。人类学上，人类在诞生之初，就已经把本恶的人性充分地显示出来．研究表明，周口店猿人就已经懂得用火来把同类的头骨烤着吃，这种生猛烧烤，是何等凶残啊！秦的暴政到日本侵华战争到今天的利比亚混战。可见，千万年以来人类都还是保留有人类的劣根性啊！教育学上，有研究表明，等孩子长到两岁时，以殴打他人撕咬玩具为表现形式的暴力行动达到顶峰。此外社会学，管理心理学，生物学，哲学等方面的研究都众所皆知了。

第三，人有理性悟性和可塑性．人性可以通过后天教化加以改造．当人的自然倾向无限向外扩张的时候，如果社会属性按照同一方面推波助澜，那么人性就会更加堕落；相反，如果我们整个社会倡导扬善避恶，那么人性就有可能向善的方向发展。所以在现实中，法律，教育，道德才愈加重要。但我们不是改变人的自然属性而是塑造人的社会属性。

而对方辩友言下之意人类所有的道德教化都是多此一举了！心痛之余我不禁请问对方辩友，如果人性本善，那么我们要道德法律、交通规则干什么呢？个人修养、社会教化还有存在的必要吗？我方要尖锐指出：人性本善是某些不愿直面真我的人夜郎自大自欺欺人的最大借口。是普天下最大的谎言！所以我方坚持真理：人性本恶。

第五篇：电力企业辩论赛反方一辩

反方一辩：感谢主席，各位评委，对方辩友，大家好！

我方提出的观点是供电企业维权不能保障供、用电双方的合法权益。

电力是维系国民经济发展的经济命脉之一，是经济发展的源动力、社会的稳定剂，是生产、生活的必需品，连续可靠的供电是供电企业应尽的责任，“以客户为中心”的服务是供电企业应该遵守的原则。但是，供电企业在维权过程中为维护本企业自身的利益采取了一系列措施，如对欠费客户停电。供电企业只是为了维护自身的经济利益，暂停了对用电客户的服务，侵犯了用电客户的权益，没有尽到应尽的职责，直接或间接的影响了企业和人们的生产、生活的需求。由此可见，供电企业维权不能保障供、用电双方的合法权益。

我方对于正方辩友提出的观点深表怀疑。经济发展，电力先行，作为国家支柱产业的供电企业依法维权是无可非议的，但维权是否能保障双方的合法权益，我方持反对观点。现实生活中，供电企业的维权还是从维护供电企业自身利益出发的，并没有保证供、用电双方的合法权益。我们可以从以下两个例子来得到验证：

一、客户拖欠电费时，供电企业将会对客户采取停电催费措施，但停电往住会给用电客户造成诸多不便，甚至是经济损失，侵犯了用电客户的权益。对方辩友称供电企业维权保障了供、用电双方的合法权益，供电企业停电催费，这样的维权能保障供、用电双方的合法权益吗？

二．某一客户的电能计量装置发生故障，少计电量，供电企业理应承担少计电量的损失。而实际上，供电企业为了维护自身的权益，却要求用电客户补交电费，这样的维权能保障供、用电双方的合法权益吗？

电力是特殊的商品已是不争的事实，居民掏钱买电、供电公司收费后向居民供应电力，并提供一系列的相关服务。作为电力销售者——供电公司理所当然应为消费者提供质量合格的电力及服务，保障用电客户的合法权益。但是，随着供电企业不断增强维权意识，制定和完善规范供、用双方权利与义务的相关管理办法和制度，使用电客户被供电企业的某些用电条款约束。面对用电客户拖欠电费，出现用电故障等问题时，供电企业只是通过维权手段维护自身的权益，解决和应对遇到的问题，而没有通过维权来维护供、用电双方的合法权益。

因此，我方认为“供电企业维权不能保障供、用电双方的合法权益”。谢谢大家！