英語辯論賽題目口語

① 英語口語重要英文辯論稿，給例子即可謝咯！

親。。你把上面的換一下就好了嘛 - -不過上面的有點點錯誤。。額 修改下。比方這樣的：
Grammar is important, but when it compares withs poken language, it is the root and leaves, spoken english is the root. By saying so, I don't mean tha we don't have to learn grammar,but first of all,we should have the root, that this to say practical ability is more important. nowadays, the society is a communicative one. people need to communicate with each other. when we talk with someone, what matters is that if you express yourselves well or not, but not if you are right in gramar or not.

② 英語辯論賽的常用語（英語的）給幾句吧。

1如何強烈同意意見
I這絕對是真的！
絕對正確！
我同意你的觀點。
我會和你一起去那裡。
我和你在一起。
我也這么覺得。
這是一個很好的點。
這正是我的意思。
這正是我的意見。
2如何半同意意見
是的，也許。
嘿.可以.
是的，在某種程度上。
嗯，可能。
是的，我同意了。
嘿.你說得挺有道理的。
有道理，我想。
我想你是對的。
是的，我也這么認為。
這是值得思考的事情。
3如何禮貌地反對對方意見
我不是真的很確定。
你這樣認為嗎？
噢，這得看情況。
我不那麼肯定。
嗯……，我不太同意.
我傾向於同意。
不，我不這么認為。
4如何強烈反對意見
我不贊成！
我完全不同意你的看法。
我恐怕我不能同意。
我恐怕那是你的錯。
我不相信一分鍾。
你不可能是真的。
你不是認真的吧。
你一定是在開玩笑。
1 How to agree strongly with an opinion
I couldn't agree more!
That's absolutely true!
Absolutely!
I take your point.

I'd go along with you there.
I'm with you on that.
That's just what I was thinking.
That's a good point.
That's just how I see it.
That's exactly my opinion.
2 How to half agree with an opinion
Yes,perhaps.
Well, yes.
Yes, in a way.
Mmm,possibly.
Yes, I agree up to a point.
Well, you've got a point there.
There's something in that,I suppose.
I guess you could be right.
Yes, I suppose so.
That's worth thinking about.
3 How to disagree politely with an opinion
I am not sure really.
Do you think so?
Well, it depends.
I'm not so certain.
Well, I'm not so sure about that.
I'm inclined to disagree with that.
No, I don't think so really.
4 How to disagree strongly with an opinion
I disagree.
I disagree with you entirely.
I'm afraid I don't agree.
I'm afraid you are wrong there.
I wouldn't accept that for one minute.
You can't really mean that.
You can't be serious.
You must be joking.

③ 英語辯論賽辯詞大全

- your career depends on much of your competence/skills.
- The variety of skills include communication, ability to work, group work, coordination, etc. Ecation programs need to recognize the importance of skills beyond personality. Without competence, personality will not last in the long run and will not do the work for invials, something like that?

④ 英語辯論賽題目：外表很重要

英語辯論賽題外表很重要，也也會有給你加分的一個卷子的工整程度也能看出你這個人對做事的處理。

⑤ 英語辯論賽

西方國家自古以來就有論辯的傳統。大家熟悉的古希臘三賢，也就是蘇格拉底、柏拉圖、亞里士多德，就擅長通過論辯修辭，來啟迪人們，思考哲學問題。這種影響也貫穿到了現代的生活。比如在美國，大到總統競選，小到一個活動的組織者，都要通過演講來打動支持者，通過辯論來駁倒競爭者，這樣才能獲得成功。

要參加英語辯論賽那麼就要提高個人的口語水平，在國內找外教一對一練習口語跟出國效果差不多，但費用會省很多。現在中國外國人很多，特別是一些大城市，如北京、上海等，外國人隨處可見。可以主動上去跟他們用英語交流，或者花錢找一個外教一對一專門陪練口語。

點擊藍字免費領取，阿西吧歐美外教試課：【https://www.acadsoc.com】跟著外教學習地道英語

阿西吧外教網，提供純正地道口，10000多位全球外籍教師團隊，來自美國、英國、菲律賓等國家，具有國際專業英語教學資格認證TESOL及各行業工作背景。根據中國學生的特點，甄選多年執教經驗的優秀外教給每一位學習者帶來互動式學習體驗，能夠採取各類有針對性的教學方式。

還有其他什麼學習問題，可以網路搜「阿西吧vivi老師」為您分析解答。

想要更多的英語學習資源，可以網路搜「阿西吧官網論壇」免費下載。

⑥ 英語口語辯論賽有用句型

你這個題目很寬泛。。有個英語辯論賽技巧的帖子，希望能對你有用 On Debating Clarity: Avoise of terms which can be interpreted differently by different readers.When we are talking to people who substantially agree with us we canuse such terms as "rednecks" or "liberals" and feel reasonably surethat we will be understood. But in a debate, we are talking to peoplewho substantially disagree with us and they are likely to put adifferent interpretation on such words. Evidence:Quoting an authority is not evidence. Quoting a majority opinion is notevidence. Any argument that starts with, "According to Einstein..." isnot based on objective evidence. Any argument that starts with, "Mostbiologists believe..." is not based on objective evidence. Saying, "TheBible says..." is not evidence. Authorities and majorities can be wrongand frequently have been. （歷屆辯論賽中出現最多的問題） Emotionalism: Avoidemotionally charged words--words that are likely to proce more heatthan light. Certainly the racial, ethnic, or religious hate words haveno place in rational debating. Likewise, avoid argumentum ad hominem.Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectualbankruptcy. Also, slurs directed at groups with whom your opponent isidentified are usually nonproctive. Try to keep attention centered onthe objective problem itself. There is a special problem when debatingsocial, psychological, political, or religious ideas because a person'stheories about these matters presumably have some effect on his ownlife style. In other words, rather than saying "and that's why you aresuch an undisciplined wreck" say, "a person adopting your position is,I believe, likely to become an undisciplined wreck because ..." Causality: Avoid the blunder of asserting a causal relationship with the popular fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hocwhich declares that because some event A happened and immediatelyafterward event B happened that event A was the cause of event B.(Iknew someone whose car stalled on the way to work. She would get outand open the hood and slam it and then the car would start. Singing asong would have been just as effective to allow time for a vapor lockto dissipate!) Also avoid the popular fallacy that correlation provescausation. People who own Cadillacs, on average, have higher incomesthan people who don't. This does not mean that if we provided peoplewith Cadillacs that they would have higher incomes. Innuendo(影射):Innuendois saying something pejorative about your opponent without coming rightout and saying it but by making more or less veiled allusions to somecircumstance, rumor, or popular belief. If you want to see someexcellent examples of innuendo, watch Rush Limbaugh. Politicians are,unfortunately, frequently guilty of using innuendo. It is an easy wayto capitalize on popular prejudices without having to make explicitstatements which might be difficult or impossible to defend againstrational attack. Besure of your facts. What is the source of your information? If it is anewspaper or a magazine, are you sure that the information hasn't been"slanted" to agree with that publication's political bias? Wherecrucial facts are concerned, it is best to check with more than onesource. Often international publications will give you a differentperspective than your hometown newspaper. Check to see whether the bookyou are using was published by a regular publishing company or whetherit was published by some special interest group like the John BirchSociety or a religious organization. These books cannot be trusted topresent unbiased evidence since their motivation for publishing is nottruth but rather the furtherance of some political or religious view. Understandyour opponents' arguments. It is good practice to argue with a friendand take a position with which you do not agree. In this way you maydiscover some of the assumptions your opponents are making which willhelp you in the debate. Remember that everybody thinks that hisposition is the right one, and everybody has his reasons for thinkingso. Do not impute ridiculous or malevolent ideas to your opponent. An example of this is the rhetorical statement, "Haveyou stopped beating your wife?" This imputes or presupposes that youropponent has beaten his wife. One frequently sees references byconservative speakers and writers to the idea that gay activists want"special privileges." This would be ridiculous if it were true. Itisn't true, but speaking as if it were true and well known to all isegregiously unfair to listeners or readers who may not be wellinformed. It is probably always wise to treat your opponent withrespect, even if he doesn't deserve it. If he doesn't deserve respect,this will probably soon become obvious enough. Regression to the mean(邏輯退化):Another source of error which occurs very frequently is the failure totake into account regression to the mean. This is a bit technical, butit is very important, especially in any kind of social or psychologicalresearch which depends upon statistical surveys or even experimentswhich involve statistical sampling. Rather than a general statement ofthe principle (which becomes more and more unintelligible as thestatement becomes more and more rigorous) an example will be used. Let's consider intelligence testing. 1.Perhaps we have a drug that is supposed to raise the IQ of mentallyretarded kids. So we give a thousand intelligence tests and select the30 lowest scoring indivials. 2. We then give these low scoring kids our drug and test them again. 3. We find that there has been an increase in the average of their IQ scores. 4. Is this evidence that the drug increased the IQ? Notnecessarily! Suppose we want to show that smoking marijuana lowers theIQ. Well, we take the 30 highest scoring kids in our sample and givethem THC and test them again. We find a lower average IQ. Is this evidence that marijuana lowers the IQ? Notnecessarily! Any statistician knows that if you make some kind of ameasurement of some attribute of a large sample of people and thenselect the highest and lowest scoring indivials and make the samemeasurement again, the high scoring group will have a lower averagescore and the low scoring group will have a higher average score thanthey did the first time. This is called "regression to the mean" and itis a perfectly universal statistical principle. Thereare undoubtedly more points to be made here. Suggestions will begratefully received. Larry has made the following suggestions: · Apply the scientific method. （運用科學方法） · Cite relevant personal experience. （合理引用相關的個人經歷） · Be polite. （辯論過程中有禮待人） · Organize your response. (Beginning, middle, end.) （對你辯詞進行合理的組織） · Treat people as indivials. · Cite sources for statistics and studies used. · Literacy works. Break posts into sentences and paragraphs. · Read the post you are responding to. Stay open to learning

⑦ 辯論賽題目為「流利的英語口語是從事外貿的必要條件」-反方怎麼辯呀

1。專業的知識是從事外貿的基礎，沒有外貿相關的專業知識，你空有口語，行么？那為什麼要分英語專業和國際貿易專業呢？
2.其實做外貿不一定要非常流利的口語，只要能夠進行普通的對話，對方能夠了解你的意思就可以了。
3.並不是所以的外國商人都是以英語為母語的國家，你口語再流利，講的再怎麼行雲流水，可是人家聽不懂還不是照樣沒用。所以有時候盡量慢點說不定更好些，盡量簡單的詞彙，人家更容易懂。有些老外不懂怎麼問價格的，他就直接「money,。
所以綜合起來，做外貿有著流利的口語，當然是非常好的，但是不是必要條件，只是條件之一，因為即使口語不流利，但是能進行普通交流即可。

⑧ 英語辯論賽題目

美國學校VS中國學校：老師和學生的文化及行為差異

有一所小學校的校長，在倡導孩子們自覺培養讀書習慣的時候，脫口說出一句話是——如果截止到某月某日，大家的讀書量都達到了15萬字，那麼我將會高興得從家裡爬到學校去……

也許孩子們都已望著看到他們的校長是怎麼樣從家裡爬到學校來的吧，總之，到了那一個日子，每人的讀書量都達到了15萬字，有的孩子還超過了……
於是他們在學校里給校長打電話，問他是否還記得自己說過的話？當然，首先是通報了他們的讀書情況……

校長聽了很高興，欣然答道：「那麼你們等著吧，我這就從家裡爬到學校去！」
於是他開始了他平生第一次長距離的爬行。

馬路上自然是不允許一個能夠行走的人按自己的路線爬行的，他只得繞路從一塊草坪爬向另一塊草坪，曲折接近學校……

過往車輛的司機們明白了他為什麼爬行以後，紛紛鳴笛向他致意，為他加油。
許多孩子得知自己的校長說到做到，離開學校迎接他，陪伴他爬行。

他磨破了幾雙手套，磨破了褲子，磨破了膝蓋。三個多小時以後，當他終於爬到了學校，全校小學生為之歡呼，爭著與他親吻，擁抱……
這件事發生在美國。

我知道這件事，是因為它登在《意林》雜志2007年第10期；非原發之文，摘自《天津日報》。很短，題目是《信守承諾》。

有些短文受我喜歡，乃因使我聯想多多。
此短文便使我聯想多多，而且都與信守承諾的榜樣無關。
首先我想到的是孩子們和大人們的關系。

說到底我們人類的社會也是由幾種人類關系構成的。主要是男人和女人的關系；其次是「治」和「被治」的關系；再其次是強者和弱者的關系；當然，還有窮與富的關系，精英者與平凡者的關系等等，不一而足。

所有之人類關系，說到底無非是兩種關系，即現實關系和心理關系。現實關系主要由政治和經濟所決定，心理關系則大受文化的影響。有時文化對人類之心理關系的影響，反而要強大過由政治和經濟所決定的現實關系。進言之，沒有文化作用的介入，人類對和諧社會的祈願，是可望不可及的。法國的《人權宣言》和美國的《獨立宣言》，不僅是政治綱領，更是文化綱領。

而孩子們和大人們的關系，在我們中國人這兒，雖然當下已被研究很多，關注很多，但基本立場往往是大人們的立場，即強者和優勢者的立場。一方面，大人們對孩子們的越來越自我中心，甚至越來越霸悍憂慮重重；另一方面，孩子們卻一向覺得，相對於大人，她們普遍是弱者，是「被治」之人。從心理學上分析，全世界的孩子都或多或少有一種接近著受大人們「壓迫」的「小人兒」心態。這一種心態所巴望的，往往不是「再多愛我幾分」或「我們是平等的」，有時直接就是變弱為強，讓大人們也嘗嘗弱者「下場」的機會。連所謂「女權主義」的產生，那也根本不是因為全世界的男人們愛女人愛得不夠了；或人類社會到了近當代，男女平等的意識反而比古代還倒退了。它也直接就是女人們企圖「也讓男人們嘗一嘗弱者滋味」之心理的社會反映。

女人們尚且如此「要小孩兒脾氣」，何況孩子們本身？

美國的孩子們伺機「報復」大人們的心理最強烈。美國佬深諳他們的孩子們的此種心理。他們以大人們的「老謀深算」應對之，方式方法之一便是以大量的娛樂文化加以抵消。所以美國拍出了世界上最多的兒童電影。而在不少美國版的兒童電影中，兒童不但是當之無愧的主角，還是強者、優勢者、大人們的同情者、愛者和義不容辭的拯救者。他們足智多謀、臨危不懼、舉重若輕、英勇果敢；往往比大人更有責任感、使命感、道義精神。那一類美國兒童電影的主題一言以蔽之便是--「感謝孩子們！沒有孩子們，大人們可怎麼辦？美國可怎麼辦？」甚至「世界可怎麼辦？」

同時，一切類型的，形形色色的，通常不被普遍的孩子們所喜歡尤其被他們所嫌惡的大人們，又尤其是在大人們看來也很壞的大人們，幾乎皆在影片中被調侃過、捉弄過、幫助教育過和被懲罰過了……

再回到《信守承諾》這一篇短文來談--老實說，我不太相信那是一件真事，猜測其很可能是某一部影視劇中的情節。但不管真實與否，都不妨礙我們籍此來分析一下孩子們的心理。

為什麼當校長承諾「自己將會高興地從家裡爬到學校去」，孩子們讀書的「熱忱」就那麼高漲那麼一致起來了呢？

起碼有一部分孩子，肯定是為了看到校長從家裡爬到了學校才下決心讀書讀夠15萬字的。
預示事情成了一場心理戰爭；許多是小學生的孩子和一位是小學校長的大人之間的。

在許多孩子一方，為了看到一位他們生活中的一號權威人物在光天化日之下的爬行，他們寧願完成一項希望於他們的自己們並不情願的「任務」；在校長亦即大人一方，你寄希望於某種結果，你就得為自己那一種希望付出一定代價。

這是那些小學生們頭腦里的公平法則。

在大人一方，初衷是良好的。在「小人兒」們一方，心態很有些「吊詭」。而結果呢，同樣是良好的，可謂「雙贏」。並且，每一方都獲得了雙份的正面收獲。於「小人兒」們，皆讀了15萬字的書籍（我想那位校長的希望是以讀好書為前提的），還被大人信守承諾的誠意所感動了。於那一位校長，他倡導孩子們自覺培養讀書習慣的願望實現了（起碼實現了一次），同時還提高了聲望，贏得了意料之外的愛戴……

結果怎麼會這么良好呢？
結果當然會這么良好！

因為，絕大多數孩子們的心靈本色是良好的。

還因為，世事往往有自己的法則。那法則有時其實並不多麼復雜，倒是某些人的頭腦過復雜，於是將有些世事也攪得復雜了。

比如還是以上一件事，倘發生在中國，將會變得怎樣呢？

首先身為小學校長之人那一句話，就難免會引起腹誹或公開的非議：「當校長的人是可以跟學生那麼隨便說話的么？太沒水平！」

接著興許就會有孩子告密：「×××同學和×××同學暗中串聯了許多同學，他們准備在某月某日集體向校長發難，專等著看校長的校話！」

不幸得很，我們的不少孩子認為只要能在老師和校長心目中成為好孩子，揭發其他孩子的「劣跡」不但是正確的，而且是光榮的。

再接著就會有大人們鄭重其事所進行的調查，很可能如同有關方面調查貪污受賄一樣嚴肅認真。

再再接著大人們就會習慣性地施展大人們的謀略，對孩子們實行分化瓦解，各個擊破，一舉揪出主謀。不獲全勝，決不罷休。家長們也會被動員起來，與校方統一認識，配合行動。孩子們迫於壓力，那也一定會互相揭發，彼此推諉「罪責」，都力爭使大人們相信，自己只不過是盲從，絕不是主謀；並指證主謀是張三，或李四。
然而主謀必定是要揪出來的。一經「坐實」，遂成「反面教員」--公開檢查，當眾警告……

從此是「主謀」的孩子，成了老師們眼裡的「壞孩子」。起碼，是「問題孩子」。於是，彷彿大人有了「前科」。他們以後的一言一行，將受到好孩子和老師們的格外關注。他們等於上了「黑名單」。學校再發生什麼不良事件，他們首先是被懷疑對象……

而年終總結的時候，此事將被重點提及，記載入冊，自我評價為「一場爭奪孩子們心靈的硬仗」雲雲……

也許，還會被當成「經驗」，四處介紹。

不消說，有的學生和老師，將因而受到表揚。

如果事情並不是這么發展的，以上過程都沒有發生--到了某月某日，某一位中國的小學校長，也像那一位美國的小學校長一樣，信守承諾地在光天化日之下從家裡往學校爬去，結果又會怎樣呢？能夠以理解、包容的心態笑對之的人又會有多少呢？趁機起鬨對其羞辱大行惡搞之能事的人又會有多少呢？有人會把他當成瘋子么？交警或治安警察會將他怎麼樣呢？當一切混亂過後，傳媒會甘於寂寞么？家長、教師、學生、學者，將會有多少人介入此一番大討論大辯論之中呢？教育官員們會站出來表態的吧？那將會是怎樣的表態呢？當一切傳媒也沉寂了下去，他將在本校學生和老師心目中變成了一位怎樣的校長呢？依我想來，普遍的中國人將認為他是本年度最拙劣之「作秀」的人吧？那除了是「作秀」，還會是什麼呢？於是，這一位小學校長，差不多也就接近著是小丑了吧？那麼，他以後還怎麼當好一位小學校長呢？

同樣一件事，總體的民族心性不同，文化成因不同，文化的日常形態不同，日常熏染也不同，結果將多麼的大相徑庭啊！套用一句當下說法--在別人那兒起碼是「好玩兒」的事，在我們這兒將被弄得一點兒幽默感都沒有了，一點兒都「不好玩兒」了……

⑨ 英語辯論賽10種主題中那種最好

我覺得第二個好吧，這本身就是一個怎樣說都可以對的論題，正方反方都有充足的論據，評委在因為個人的觀點而給出偏論題分的問題也不是很嚴重，這個論題應該對正反雙方都是公平的