第一篇：英語辯論賽反方一辯開場詞

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：英語辯論賽反方一辯開場詞

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：辯論賽一辯開場

謝謝主席，大家好。我是正方一辯。來自----我方的觀點是在創(chuàng)業(yè)的過程中人脈比技術更加的重要！創(chuàng)業(yè)就是創(chuàng)業(yè)者對自己擁有的資源或通過努力能夠擁有的資源進行優(yōu)化整合，從而創(chuàng)造出更大經濟或社會價值的過程。在社會學中人際關系被定義為人們在生產或生活活動過程中所建立的一種社會關系。心理學將人際關系定義為人與人在交往中建立的直接的心理上的聯系。中文常指人與人交往關系的總稱，也被稱為“人際交往”。從上述的定義不難看出人際關系本身便是建立在生產和生活活動，而我們的創(chuàng)業(yè)本身便是一種便是一種生產生活活動。我方認為在創(chuàng)業(yè)過程中是人脈重要還是技術重要我們完全可以以在創(chuàng)業(yè)所用的時間、創(chuàng)業(yè)過程所經歷的難題、創(chuàng)業(yè)最終成功與否來決定。我方認為創(chuàng)業(yè)人脈比技術更為重要，其理由有； 第一點：在創(chuàng)業(yè)初期我們便要面對著比如資金、項目、市場等困難。而這些條件都是需要我們與外界交流，不是我們單純靠能力便能解決的，因為市場瞬息萬變等你在天時，地利，人和等方面認為準備充分的時候市場又有了很大的變化。在現在21世紀我們的信息傳遞方式已經十分的便捷了，但便捷的同時并不代表這我們能夠隨時取到我們有用的信息著。而當我們有了足夠的人脈后這些信息便能夠隨時的關注到。這些可不是只靠工作能力強就能辦到的！第二點； 相信大家在平時做小組作業(yè)的時候都有一種感覺，就是自己閉門做車不管是怎么的努力到最后卻依然是失敗。而這個時候便需要一個組長，他也許并不能做多少事情，但是當有了他以后事情便有了合理的分工。這樣不需要每個人都能作很多，只要你會一部分，在組長的統(tǒng)一協作下我們就有了一個完整的作品。而這個和我們創(chuàng)業(yè)的過程是想通的，我們并不需要有多么大的能力，但是我們必定需要有足夠的人脈能夠協調統(tǒng)一，集合大家的能力。第三點； 就是我們的一些長輩他們的成功創(chuàng)業(yè)，無不都經營著完善豐富的人脈也正是這些人脈成就了他們的成功。曾任美國某大鐵路公司總裁的史密斯說：“鐵路的95％是人，5％是鐵?！泵绹撹F大王及成功學大師卡耐基經過長期研究得出結論說：“專業(yè)知識在一個人成功中的作用只占15％，而其余的85％則取決于人際關系。”所以說，無論你從事什么職業(yè)，學會處理人際關系，掌握并擁有豐厚的人脈資源，你就在成功路上走了85％的路程，在個人幸福的路上走了99％的路程了。無怪乎美國石油大王洛克菲勒說：“我愿意付出比天底下得到其他本領更大的代價來獲取與人相處的本領。” 綜上所述，我方認為，奧運商業(yè)化利大于弊。謝謝各位！

第四篇：電力企業(yè)辯論賽反方一辯

反方一辯：感謝主席，各位評委，對方辯友，大家好！

我方提出的觀點是供電企業(yè)維權不能保障供、用電雙方的合法權益。

電力是維系國民經濟發(fā)展的經濟命脈之一，是經濟發(fā)展的源動力、社會的穩(wěn)定劑，是生產、生活的必需品，連續(xù)可靠的供電是供電企業(yè)應盡的責任，“以客戶為中心”的服務是供電企業(yè)應該遵守的原則。但是，供電企業(yè)在維權過程中為維護本企業(yè)自身的利益采取了一系列措施，如對欠費客戶停電。供電企業(yè)只是為了維護自身的經濟利益，暫停了對用電客戶的服務，侵犯了用電客戶的權益，沒有盡到應盡的職責，直接或間接的影響了企業(yè)和人們的生產、生活的需求。由此可見，供電企業(yè)維權不能保障供、用電雙方的合法權益。

我方對于正方辯友提出的觀點深表懷疑。經濟發(fā)展，電力先行，作為國家支柱產業(yè)的供電企業(yè)依法維權是無可非議的，但維權是否能保障雙方的合法權益，我方持反對觀點?，F實生活中，供電企業(yè)的維權還是從維護供電企業(yè)自身利益出發(fā)的，并沒有保證供、用電雙方的合法權益。我們可以從以下兩個例子來得到驗證：

一、客戶拖欠電費時，供電企業(yè)將會對客戶采取停電催費措施，但停電往住會給用電客戶造成諸多不便，甚至是經濟損失，侵犯了用電客戶的權益。對方辯友稱供電企業(yè)維權保障了供、用電雙方的合法權益，供電企業(yè)停電催費，這樣的維權能保障供、用電雙方的合法權益嗎？

二．某一客戶的電能計量裝置發(fā)生故障，少計電量，供電企業(yè)理應承擔少計電量的損失。而實際上，供電企業(yè)為了維護自身的權益，卻要求用電客戶補交電費，這樣的維權能保障供、用電雙方的合法權益嗎？

電力是特殊的商品已是不爭的事實，居民掏錢買電、供電公司收費后向居民供應電力，并提供一系列的相關服務。作為電力銷售者——供電公司理所當然應為消費者提供質量合格的電力及服務，保障用電客戶的合法權益。但是，隨著供電企業(yè)不斷增強維權意識，制定和完善規(guī)范供、用雙方權利與義務的相關管理辦法和制度，使用電客戶被供電企業(yè)的某些用電條款約束。面對用電客戶拖欠電費，出現用電故障等問題時，供電企業(yè)只是通過維權手段維護自身的權益，解決和應對遇到的問題，而沒有通過維權來維護供、用電雙方的合法權益。

因此，我方認為“供電企業(yè)維權不能保障供、用電雙方的合法權益”。謝謝大家！

第五篇：反方一辯陳詞

反方一辯陳詞

謝謝主席，尊敬的評委老師，可愛的對方辯友，在座的同學們，大家好！對方辯友的發(fā)言可謂是滔滔不絕，但我方并不能茍同。我方認為：擁有美貌弊大于利。美貌，也就是指人美麗的容顏。在這里我方要強調的是：擁有美貌，不等于擁有了美。我方并不否認美貌所給我們帶來的像在求職、交際等方面的好處，但我們今天討論的標準，是以人為中心，以人的得失來討論的。遍觀現實，我們發(fā)現過度追求美貌于自身存在很大的弊端，具體理由如下：

第一：過度追求美貌易導致很多人在人生追求上本末倒置，忽視能力和內在美的培養(yǎng)。當太多人為了追求美貌而花費大量精力時間而忽視內涵的提升的時候，這是一種可怕的本末倒置。姣好的容顏如果沒有內涵沒有氣質作為源泉，再美的容顏也是一副空皮囊。現實中，我們看到多少模特花了大量時間追求天使面龐魔鬼身材，卻連基本文化素質都保證不了。對于一個女人來說，這不是真的美，當有一天歲月流逝青春不再，我們終究會后悔當年對于美貌的過分的愛。第二：擁有美貌給我們帶來了太多不必要的痛苦和煩惱。古時女子因美貌選入后宮，以為就此榮華富貴可大多卻寂寞一生，是美貌讓她們寂寞了一世。而今日呢，多少人為了擁有美貌去做整容而發(fā)生不可逆轉的惡果，多少明星因為擁有美貌而遭遇到潛規(guī)則，多少女性因為自己擁有了美貌而對自身定位過高，在婚姻愛情上不肯妥協最終成為剩女，甚至于那些既有美貌又有能力的女人也無法幸免，當你憑自身實力攀登的時候卻被人誤認為是靠容貌不是實力，你甘心嗎？

第三：當今社會對于美貌的追捧帶來了也帶來了很多弊端。韓國小姐選舉，把各個佳麗的照片擺在一起，哇塞，真的好像是一個人在選舉哎~社會大眾對美貌的普遍追捧整容成風，可只有瓜子臉大眼睛高鼻梁大眾長一張臉才算美貌嗎？再者，社會對美貌的追捧興起了很多美麗產業(yè)，帶來了很大的經濟效益，但這種經濟效益的背后是引起人們價值觀念的錯漏，使得吃青春飯的女孩子越來越多?？墒墙酱胁湃顺霭?，縱然擁有像“甘露露”那樣的美貌出的了像她一樣大的名，又能有多長久呢？再弱弱的問一句，美貌所帶來這種名聲這種行業(yè)，真的干凈嗎？

今天雖然討論擁有美麗弊大于利，但我方并不是排斥美貌，大家可以看到我方除了一辯同學之外都很漂亮，我們是想提醒大家在美麗面前要保持清醒的頭腦，不必刻意追求，保持自己的風格，不被盲目的追求沖昏頭腦。因為，你本來就很美。綜上所述，我方堅持認為：擁有美貌弊大于利。