英语辩论赛题目口语

① 英语口语重要英文辩论稿，给例子即可谢咯！

亲。。你把上面的换一下就好了嘛 - -不过上面的有点点错误。。额 修改下。比方这样的：
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 英语辩论赛的常用语（英语的）给几句吧。

1如何强烈同意意见
I这绝对是真的！
绝对正确！
我同意你的观点。
我会和你一起去那里。
我和你在一起。
我也这么觉得。
这是一个很好的点。
这正是我的意思。
这正是我的意见。
2如何半同意意见
是的，也许。
嘿.可以.
是的，在某种程度上。
嗯，可能。
是的，我同意了。
嘿.你说得挺有道理的。
有道理，我想。
我想你是对的。
是的，我也这么认为。
这是值得思考的事情。
3如何礼貌地反对对方意见
我不是真的很确定。
你这样认为吗？
噢，这得看情况。
我不那么肯定。
嗯……，我不太同意.
我倾向于同意。
不，我不这么认为。
4如何强烈反对意见
我不赞成！
我完全不同意你的看法。
我恐怕我不能同意。
我恐怕那是你的错。
我不相信一分钟。
你不可能是真的。
你不是认真的吧。
你一定是在开玩笑。
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 英语辩论赛辩词大全

- 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 英语辩论赛题目：外表很重要

英语辩论赛题外表很重要，也也会有给你加分的一个卷子的工整程度也能看出你这个人对做事的处理。

⑤ 英语辩论赛

西方国家自古以来就有论辩的传统。大家熟悉的古希腊三贤，也就是苏格拉底、柏拉图、亚里士多德，就擅长通过论辩修辞，来启迪人们，思考哲学问题。这种影响也贯穿到了现代的生活。比如在美国，大到总统竞选，小到一个活动的组织者，都要通过演讲来打动支持者，通过辩论来驳倒竞争者，这样才能获得成功。

要参加英语辩论赛那么就要提高个人的口语水平，在国内找外教一对一练习口语跟出国效果差不多，但费用会省很多。现在中国外国人很多，特别是一些大城市，如北京、上海等，外国人随处可见。可以主动上去跟他们用英语交流，或者花钱找一个外教一对一专门陪练口语。

点击蓝字免费领取，阿西吧欧美外教试课：【https://www.acadsoc.com】跟着外教学习地道英语

阿西吧外教网，提供纯正地道口，10000多位全球外籍教师团队，来自美国、英国、菲律宾等国家，具有国际专业英语教学资格认证TESOL及各行业工作背景。根据中国学生的特点，甄选多年执教经验的优秀外教给每一位学习者带来互动式学习体验，能够采取各类有针对性的教学方式。

还有其他什么学习问题，可以网络搜“阿西吧vivi老师”为您分析解答。

想要更多的英语学习资源，可以网络搜“阿西吧官网论坛”免费下载。

⑥ 英语口语辩论赛有用句型

你这个题目很宽泛。。有个英语辩论赛技巧的帖子，希望能对你有用 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. （历届辩论赛中出现最多的问题） 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(逻辑退化):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. （运用科学方法） · Cite relevant personal experience. （合理引用相关的个人经历） · Be polite. （辩论过程中有礼待人） · Organize your response. (Beginning, middle, end.) （对你辩词进行合理的组织） · 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 辩论赛题目为“流利的英语口语是从事外贸的必要条件”-反方怎么辩呀

1。专业的知识是从事外贸的基础，没有外贸相关的专业知识，你空有口语，行么？那为什么要分英语专业和国际贸易专业呢？
2.其实做外贸不一定要非常流利的口语，只要能够进行普通的对话，对方能够了解你的意思就可以了。
3.并不是所以的外国商人都是以英语为母语的国家，你口语再流利，讲的再怎么行云流水，可是人家听不懂还不是照样没用。所以有时候尽量慢点说不定更好些，尽量简单的词汇，人家更容易懂。有些老外不懂怎么问价格的，他就直接“money,。
所以综合起来，做外贸有着流利的口语，当然是非常好的，但是不是必要条件，只是条件之一，因为即使口语不流利，但是能进行普通交流即可。

⑧ 英语辩论赛题目

美国学校VS中国学校：老师和学生的文化及行为差异

有一所小学校的校长，在倡导孩子们自觉培养读书习惯的时候，脱口说出一句话是——如果截止到某月某日，大家的读书量都达到了15万字，那么我将会高兴得从家里爬到学校去……

也许孩子们都已望着看到他们的校长是怎么样从家里爬到学校来的吧，总之，到了那一个日子，每人的读书量都达到了15万字，有的孩子还超过了……
于是他们在学校里给校长打电话，问他是否还记得自己说过的话？当然，首先是通报了他们的读书情况……

校长听了很高兴，欣然答道：“那么你们等着吧，我这就从家里爬到学校去！”
于是他开始了他平生第一次长距离的爬行。

马路上自然是不允许一个能够行走的人按自己的路线爬行的，他只得绕路从一块草坪爬向另一块草坪，曲折接近学校……

过往车辆的司机们明白了他为什么爬行以后，纷纷鸣笛向他致意，为他加油。
许多孩子得知自己的校长说到做到，离开学校迎接他，陪伴他爬行。

他磨破了几双手套，磨破了裤子，磨破了膝盖。三个多小时以后，当他终于爬到了学校，全校小学生为之欢呼，争着与他亲吻，拥抱……
这件事发生在美国。

我知道这件事，是因为它登在《意林》杂志2007年第10期；非原发之文，摘自《天津日报》。很短，题目是《信守承诺》。

有些短文受我喜欢，乃因使我联想多多。
此短文便使我联想多多，而且都与信守承诺的榜样无关。
首先我想到的是孩子们和大人们的关系。

说到底我们人类的社会也是由几种人类关系构成的。主要是男人和女人的关系；其次是“治”和“被治”的关系；再其次是强者和弱者的关系；当然，还有穷与富的关系，精英者与平凡者的关系等等，不一而足。

所有之人类关系，说到底无非是两种关系，即现实关系和心理关系。现实关系主要由政治和经济所决定，心理关系则大受文化的影响。有时文化对人类之心理关系的影响，反而要强大过由政治和经济所决定的现实关系。进言之，没有文化作用的介入，人类对和谐社会的祈愿，是可望不可及的。法国的《人权宣言》和美国的《独立宣言》，不仅是政治纲领，更是文化纲领。

而孩子们和大人们的关系，在我们中国人这儿，虽然当下已被研究很多，关注很多，但基本立场往往是大人们的立场，即强者和优势者的立场。一方面，大人们对孩子们的越来越自我中心，甚至越来越霸悍忧虑重重；另一方面，孩子们却一向觉得，相对于大人，她们普遍是弱者，是“被治”之人。从心理学上分析，全世界的孩子都或多或少有一种接近着受大人们“压迫”的“小人儿”心态。这一种心态所巴望的，往往不是“再多爱我几分”或“我们是平等的”，有时直接就是变弱为强，让大人们也尝尝弱者“下场”的机会。连所谓“女权主义”的产生，那也根本不是因为全世界的男人们爱女人爱得不够了；或人类社会到了近当代，男女平等的意识反而比古代还倒退了。它也直接就是女人们企图“也让男人们尝一尝弱者滋味”之心理的社会反映。

女人们尚且如此“要小孩儿脾气”，何况孩子们本身？

美国的孩子们伺机“报复”大人们的心理最强烈。美国佬深谙他们的孩子们的此种心理。他们以大人们的“老谋深算”应对之，方式方法之一便是以大量的娱乐文化加以抵消。所以美国拍出了世界上最多的儿童电影。而在不少美国版的儿童电影中，儿童不但是当之无愧的主角，还是强者、优势者、大人们的同情者、爱者和义不容辞的拯救者。他们足智多谋、临危不惧、举重若轻、英勇果敢；往往比大人更有责任感、使命感、道义精神。那一类美国儿童电影的主题一言以蔽之便是--“感谢孩子们！没有孩子们，大人们可怎么办？美国可怎么办？”甚至“世界可怎么办？”

同时，一切类型的，形形色色的，通常不被普遍的孩子们所喜欢尤其被他们所嫌恶的大人们，又尤其是在大人们看来也很坏的大人们，几乎皆在影片中被调侃过、捉弄过、帮助教育过和被惩罚过了……

再回到《信守承诺》这一篇短文来谈--老实说，我不太相信那是一件真事，猜测其很可能是某一部影视剧中的情节。但不管真实与否，都不妨碍我们籍此来分析一下孩子们的心理。

为什么当校长承诺“自己将会高兴地从家里爬到学校去”，孩子们读书的“热忱”就那么高涨那么一致起来了呢？

起码有一部分孩子，肯定是为了看到校长从家里爬到了学校才下决心读书读够15万字的。
预示事情成了一场心理战争；许多是小学生的孩子和一位是小学校长的大人之间的。

在许多孩子一方，为了看到一位他们生活中的一号权威人物在光天化日之下的爬行，他们宁愿完成一项希望于他们的自己们并不情愿的“任务”；在校长亦即大人一方，你寄希望于某种结果，你就得为自己那一种希望付出一定代价。

这是那些小学生们头脑里的公平法则。

在大人一方，初衷是良好的。在“小人儿”们一方，心态很有些“吊诡”。而结果呢，同样是良好的，可谓“双赢”。并且，每一方都获得了双份的正面收获。于“小人儿”们，皆读了15万字的书籍（我想那位校长的希望是以读好书为前提的），还被大人信守承诺的诚意所感动了。于那一位校长，他倡导孩子们自觉培养读书习惯的愿望实现了（起码实现了一次），同时还提高了声望，赢得了意料之外的爱戴……

结果怎么会这么良好呢？
结果当然会这么良好！

因为，绝大多数孩子们的心灵本色是良好的。

还因为，世事往往有自己的法则。那法则有时其实并不多么复杂，倒是某些人的头脑过复杂，于是将有些世事也搅得复杂了。

比如还是以上一件事，倘发生在中国，将会变得怎样呢？

首先身为小学校长之人那一句话，就难免会引起腹诽或公开的非议：“当校长的人是可以跟学生那么随便说话的么？太没水平！”

接着兴许就会有孩子告密：“×××同学和×××同学暗中串联了许多同学，他们准备在某月某日集体向校长发难，专等着看校长的校话！”

不幸得很，我们的不少孩子认为只要能在老师和校长心目中成为好孩子，揭发其他孩子的“劣迹”不但是正确的，而且是光荣的。

再接着就会有大人们郑重其事所进行的调查，很可能如同有关方面调查贪污受贿一样严肃认真。

再再接着大人们就会习惯性地施展大人们的谋略，对孩子们实行分化瓦解，各个击破，一举揪出主谋。不获全胜，决不罢休。家长们也会被动员起来，与校方统一认识，配合行动。孩子们迫于压力，那也一定会互相揭发，彼此推诿“罪责”，都力争使大人们相信，自己只不过是盲从，绝不是主谋；并指证主谋是张三，或李四。
然而主谋必定是要揪出来的。一经“坐实”，遂成“反面教员”--公开检查，当众警告……

从此是“主谋”的孩子，成了老师们眼里的“坏孩子”。起码，是“问题孩子”。于是，仿佛大人有了“前科”。他们以后的一言一行，将受到好孩子和老师们的格外关注。他们等于上了“黑名单”。学校再发生什么不良事件，他们首先是被怀疑对象……

而年终总结的时候，此事将被重点提及，记载入册，自我评价为“一场争夺孩子们心灵的硬仗”云云……

也许，还会被当成“经验”，四处介绍。

不消说，有的学生和老师，将因而受到表扬。

如果事情并不是这么发展的，以上过程都没有发生--到了某月某日，某一位中国的小学校长，也像那一位美国的小学校长一样，信守承诺地在光天化日之下从家里往学校爬去，结果又会怎样呢？能够以理解、包容的心态笑对之的人又会有多少呢？趁机起哄对其羞辱大行恶搞之能事的人又会有多少呢？有人会把他当成疯子么？交警或治安警察会将他怎么样呢？当一切混乱过后，传媒会甘于寂寞么？家长、教师、学生、学者，将会有多少人介入此一番大讨论大辩论之中呢？教育官员们会站出来表态的吧？那将会是怎样的表态呢？当一切传媒也沉寂了下去，他将在本校学生和老师心目中变成了一位怎样的校长呢？依我想来，普遍的中国人将认为他是本年度最拙劣之“作秀”的人吧？那除了是“作秀”，还会是什么呢？于是，这一位小学校长，差不多也就接近着是小丑了吧？那么，他以后还怎么当好一位小学校长呢？

同样一件事，总体的民族心性不同，文化成因不同，文化的日常形态不同，日常熏染也不同，结果将多么的大相径庭啊！套用一句当下说法--在别人那儿起码是“好玩儿”的事，在我们这儿将被弄得一点儿幽默感都没有了，一点儿都“不好玩儿”了……

⑨ 英语辩论赛10种主题中那种最好

我觉得第二个好吧，这本身就是一个怎样说都可以对的论题，正方反方都有充足的论据，评委在因为个人的观点而给出偏论题分的问题也不是很严重，这个论题应该对正反双方都是公平的