英文辯論賽主持稿

時間：2020-11-28 10:46:51 辯論賽我要投稿

2017英文辯論賽主持稿

　　一場精彩的辯論賽除了離不開我們辯手的.功勞和策劃的功勞，更是離不開我們主持人精彩的主持。下面是小編搜集整理的2017英文辯論賽主持稿，歡迎閱讀。

2017英文辯論賽主持稿

　　2017英文辯論賽主持稿一

　　Debater Number 1

　　Debater Number 2

　　評委團：judges

　　題目 Debating Competition

　　開頭：welcome to the debating competition of the issue

　　now lets begin.開始

　　Outline for Beginners

　　Following is a speech outline for (EFL) novice debaters. Too much reliance on this may make your speech inflexible; still, the expressions and the speech flow below are the basic which every (EFL) debater should keep in mind.

　　■ 1. Greetings

　　■ 2. Presenting the motion and case

　　(Note: of course, this is mainly the task of the Prime Minister)

　　■ 3. Showing the (government / opposition) “stance” (or “team line”) for the round.

　　■ 4. Presenting your speech outline and team allocation.

　　■ 5. Refutation

　　■ 6. Explaining points.

　　■ 7. Conclusion

　　Spend approximately 30 seconds to summarize your speech.

　　Refutation

　　Refutation, which is to point out the weakness of the other side’s arguments, can be formulated into six basic types as below:

　　① Not relevant: “What you said is not relevant with what you are trying to prove. “

　　e.g. [GOV] Korean government should abolish death penalty because Canada abolished.

　　[OPP] It is not relevant because we are debating on Korea not on Canada.

　　② Not true: “You are a liar!”

　　e.g. [OPP] Korean government should not abolish death penalty because it deters crimes.

　　[GOV] It is not true because crime rate is increasing even though we have death penalty.

　　③ Not always true: “What you said is not always true.”

　　e.g. [OPP] Korean government should not abolish death penalty because of the victim families’ feeling.

　　[GOV] It is not always true because peoples’ feelings are case by case.

　　④ Not significant: “What you said is not important at all.”

　　e.g. [OPP] Korean government should have death penalty because life in prison costs much more money.

　　[GOV] It is not significant because those who are sentenced death penalty are put into jail long years before they are actually being executed.

　　⑤ Alternative plan: “There is a better plan to solve the problem” e.g. [GOV] Korean government should abolish death penalty because of the possibility of misjudgments.

　　[OPP] There is a better solution to the problem, which is to have three trial systems and introduce new technology for investigation. ⑥

　　⑥ Flip: ”What you said is the opposite. It is actually our point” e.g. [OPP] Korean government should not abolish death penalty because Koran government should protect its citizens as government role.

　　[GOV]

　　Outline: Reply Speech

　　The purpose of reply speech is quite different from the constructive speeches (e.g. PM speech). In reply speech, you assume the role of adjudicators; to be more precise, you are to explain the reason why your side has won the round.

　　You are expected to do:

　　a. explain the criteria to judge the round

　　b. summarize the round focusing on issues (or “crash point”). c. Provide new illustrations to emphasize your arguments.

　　1. Greetings

　　2. Showing the outline.

　　3. Pointing out the failures of the other side.

　　4. Comparing arguments focusing on issues (crash points).

　　5. Conclusion.

　　2017英文辯論賽主持稿二

　　Should different cultures merge into each other or maintain their unique feature?

　　Good afternoon everyone, welcome to the site of this debate. As we all know, nowadays western cultures are popular in China, at the same time, Chinese ancient culture gets bad influence. So what on earth is right attitude to different cultures ?

　　Ok, let's give our debaters this argument. Attention please, the title of this debate is "Should different cultures merge into each other or maintain their unique features?"

　　There are five phases in this debate, making a point、asking and replying questions、a brief summary、free debate、last summary.

　　Making a point:

　　Let both sides state their own opinion.

　　The positive/negative first debater, please!

　　Asking and replying questions:

　　Every side's second debater can come up with two questions which are replyed by the other side's first and third debater.

　　The negative second debater, please!

　　The positive second debater, please!

　　A brief summary:

　　Welcome every side's second debater to give us a brief summary.

　　The negative second debater, please!

　　Free debate: