辩论稿格式一辩五篇
辩论是汉语词汇，拼音是biàn lùn，意思是彼此用一定的理由来说明自己对事物或问题的见解，揭露对方的矛盾，以便在最后得到共同的认识和意见；辩论（赛）旨在培养人的思维能力。该词语出自《史记·平津侯主父列传》， 以下是为大家整理的关于辩论稿格式一辩5篇 , 供大家参考选择。
辩论稿格式一辩5篇
【篇一】辩论稿格式一辩
反方一辩：
Respected judicators, Ladies and gentlemen, good evening!
In the first part of my speech, I would like to make my rebuttal. Patents do not costs lives, they save more.Our government side have proposed a radical solution to their problem: they want to ignore intellectual property, one of our most important constructs to encourage innovation. On the opposition, we believe the status quo of allowing a medicine company to patent something and profit from it is necessary for them to have an incentive and ability to create life-saving medicines now and in the future, and it is saving lives in the long-term that concerns us.
Now I’d like to provide my statements. This house would not abolish patents for life-saving medicines. For the first reason, it takes away the Incentive to Produce Life-saving medicines.Ron Pollack said,The pharmaceutical industry"s repetitious cry that research and development would be curtailed if medicine prices are moderated is extraordinarily misleading.
Yes, research and development costs money. Yet only 14% of pharmaceuticals" budgets go to research and development. Reports have linked "high medicine prices to advertising, profits and enormous executive salaries. The report documents that medicine companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration.”
Firms are incentivized to undertake research in life-saving drugs because now they have a guaranteed return on their R&D investment. Regardless of the course of drug production and distribution they will be profit from their research.
In addition , Scientists are principally motivated by the desire for peer recognition and also by the fact that they want to have achieved something more with their lives than reduce some teenager’s pimples by 30%. We are not dissuading research into live-saving illnesses we’re invigorating it by offering inciting profit that is tied to results and is cost-effective.
Creating a brand new medicine requires enormous amounts of money and failed attempts, and therefore involves a large amount of risk. If a person can"t be guaranteed some kind of control or return to that risk and expense, they are unlikely to want to invest in it. In particular, if a medicine company can make more money by patenting medicines that cure hair loss, they will take that option.
For the second aspect, consequences of the loss of incentives is awful.Medicine companies are trying to develop cures for cancer, diabetes and more, and will likely want to develop more cures for illnesses that come up in the future, as they did for swine flu, if they can get a return on the investment. If there is not a significant return to investment, a company will not bother to continue to research and develop these medicines. Even if the current medicines were released for generic development, lack of future medicines would cost far more lives in the long run, and save money on alternative treatments.
Furthermore, most things that cause illness, such as viruses and bacteria, develop so that they can resist medicines. We have seen this in the case of the increased ineffectiveness of antibiotics. Prop wants to change the focus of medicine production from the development of new medicines to the cheaper production of medicines that already exist. This will happen because any start-up company or investor in the medicines industry will see that it is cheaper to simply create the medicines, rather than put money into research and development, which is the most expensive part of the medicines creation process. If there is a greater focus on this, then less new medicines will be created to combat the illnesses. This structure begins to look very flawed as the illnesses develop resistances to old medicines. There needs to be a continuing incentive to create new medicines for any illness, not to simply focus on old medicines being created in larger, cheaper amounts. It is worth slightly more expensive medicines if new innovation is constantly able to happen.
In conclusion, if we abolish those patents,no one would continue researching and developing new medicines,thus,abolishing patents for life-saving medicines seems to save more lives at the beginning, it would kill more lives in the long run.
【篇二】辩论稿格式一辩
反方一辩：
Respected judicators, Ladies and gentlemen, good evening!
In the first part of my speech, I would like to make my rebuttal. Patents do not costs lives, they save more.Our government side have proposed a radical solution to their problem: they want to ignore intellectual property, one of our most important constructs to encourage innovation. On the opposition, we believe the status quo of allowing a medicine company to patent something and profit from it is necessary for them to have an incentive and ability to create life-saving medicines now and in the future, and it is saving lives in the long-term that concerns us.
Now I’d like to provide my statements. This house would not abolish patents for life-saving medicines. For the first reason, it takes away the Incentive to Produce Life-saving medicines.Ron Pollack said,The pharmaceutical industry"s repetitious cry that research and development would be curtailed if medicine prices are moderated is extraordinarily misleading.
Yes, research and development costs money. Yet only 14% of pharmaceuticals" budgets go to research and development. Reports have linked "high medicine prices to advertising, profits and enormous executive salaries. The report documents that medicine companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration.”
Firms are incentivized to undertake research in life-saving drugs because now they have a guaranteed return on their R&D investment. Regardless of the course of drug production and distribution they will be profit from their research.
In addition , Scientists are principally motivated by the desire for peer recognition and also by the fact that they want to have achieved something more with their lives than reduce some teenager’s pimples by 30%. We are not dissuading research into live-saving illnesses we’re invigorating it by offering inciting profit that is tied to results and is cost-effective.
Creating a brand new medicine requires enormous amounts of money and failed attempts, and therefore involves a large amount of risk. If a person can"t be guaranteed some kind of control or return to that risk and expense, they are unlikely to want to invest in it. In particular, if a medicine company can make more money by patenting medicines that cure hair loss, they will take that option.
For the second aspect, consequences of the loss of incentives is awful.Medicine companies are trying to develop cures for cancer, diabetes and more, and will likely want to develop more cures for illnesses that come up in the future, as they did for swine flu, if they can get a return on the investment. If there is not a significant return to investment, a company will not bother to continue to research and develop these medicines. Even if the current medicines were released for generic development, lack of future medicines would cost far more lives in the long run, and save money on alternative treatments.
Furthermore, most things that cause illness, such as viruses and bacteria, develop so that they can resist medicines. We have seen this in the case of the increased ineffectiveness of antibiotics. Prop wants to change the focus of medicine production from the development of new medicines to the cheaper production of medicines that already exist. This will happen because any start-up company or investor in the medicines industry will see that it is cheaper to simply create the medicines, rather than put money into research and development, which is the most expensive part of the medicines creation process. If there is a greater focus on this, then less new medicines will be created to combat the illnesses. This structure begins to look very flawed as the illnesses develop resistances to old medicines. There needs to be a continuing incentive to create new medicines for any illness, not to simply focus on old medicines being created in larger, cheaper amounts. It is worth slightly more expensive medicines if new innovation is constantly able to happen.
In conclusion, if we abolish those patents,no one would continue researching and developing new medicines,thus,abolishing patents for life-saving medicines seems to save more lives at the beginning, it would kill more lives in the long run.
THANKS !!!
致力为企业和个人提供合同协议，策划案计划书，学习课件等等
打造全网一站式需求
欢迎您的下载，资料仅供参考
【篇三】辩论稿格式一辩
反方一辩：
Respected judicators, Ladies and gentlemen, good evening!
In the first part of my speech, I would like to make my rebuttal. Patents do not costs lives, they save more.Our government side have proposed a radical solution to their problem: they want to ignore intellectual property, one of our most important constructs to encourage innovation. On the opposition, we believe the status quo of allowing a medicine company to patent something and profit from it is necessary for them to have an incentive and ability to create life-saving medicines now and in the future, and it is saving lives in the long-term that concerns us.
Now I’d like to provide my statements. This house would not abolish patents for life-saving medicines. For the first reason, it takes away the Incentive to Produce Life-saving medicines.Ron Pollack said,The pharmaceutical industry"s repetitious cry that research and development would be curtailed if medicine prices are moderated is extraordinarily misleading.
Yes, research and development costs money. Yet only 14% of pharmaceuticals" budgets go to research and development. Reports have linked "high medicine prices to advertising, profits and enormous executive salaries. The report documents that medicine companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration.”
Firms are incentivized to undertake research in life-saving drugs because now they have a guaranteed return on their R&D investment. Regardless of the course of drug production and distribution they will be profit from their research.
In addition , Scientists are principally motivated by the desire for peer recognition and also by the fact that they want to have achieved something more with their lives than reduce some teenager’s pimples by 30%. We are not dissuading research into live-saving illnesses we’re invigorating it by offering inciting profit that is tied to results and is cost-effective.
Creating a brand new medicine requires enormous amounts of money and failed attempts, and therefore involves a large amount of risk. If a person can"t be guaranteed some kind of control or return to that risk and expense, they are unlikely to want to invest in it. In particular, if a medicine company can make more money by patenting medicines that cure hair loss, they will take that option.
For the second aspect, consequences of the loss of incentives is awful.Medicine companies are trying to develop cures for cancer, diabetes and more, and will likely want to develop more cures for illnesses that come up in the future, as they did for swine flu, if they can get a return on the investment. If there is not a significant return to investment, a company will not bother to continue to research and develop these medicines. Even if the current medicines were released for generic development, lack of future medicines would cost far more lives in the long run, and save money on alternative treatments.
Furthermore, most things that cause illness, such as viruses and bacteria, develop so that they can resist medicines. We have seen this in the case of the increased ineffectiveness of antibiotics. Prop wants to change the focus of medicine production from the development of new medicines to the cheaper production of medicines that already exist. This will happen because any start-up company or investor in the medicines industry will see that it is cheaper to simply create the medicines, rather than put money into research and development, which is the most expensive part of the medicines creation process. If there is a greater focus on this, then less new medicines will be created to combat the illnesses. This structure begins to look very flawed as the illnesses develop resistances to old medicines. There needs to be a continuing incentive to create new medicines for any illness, not to simply focus on old medicines being created in larger, cheaper amounts. It is worth slightly more expensive medicines if new innovation is constantly able to happen.
In conclusion, if we abolish those patents,no one would continue researching and developing new medicines,thus,abolishing patents for life-saving medicines seems to save more lives at the beginning, it would kill more lives in the long run.
【篇四】辩论稿格式一辩
尊敬的主席，评委，同学们，大家好，很高兴代表我方发言。我方的观点是心灵毒鸡汤更养人。
首先我们来分析辩题中毒鸡汤的含义。心灵毒鸡汤也可称作反心灵鸡汤。它是指反对那些偏离社会，雾里看花式的语言。而辩题中养人的含义则是指对人有较大好处的事物。我方认为心灵毒鸡汤满足了当代人的需要，可以带给我们更大的好处 。接下来我方将对作出论证。
首先，心灵毒鸡汤可以缓解人的心理压力，达到情感宣泄的目的。 对于写毒鸡汤的人来说，他通过直白却又不失道理的语言来宣泄自己对现实的不满，这种反讽与自嘲，对他的情感宣泄有很大的好处。而对于看毒鸡汤的人来说，也可以从这些带有智慧逗乐的语言中找到乐趣，从而可以更好的调节自己的情绪。
其次心灵毒鸡汤更好的揭露了现实中最真实的东西，可以达到使人自省的目的。英国博学家艾，赫胥黎曾经说过，事实并不因为被忽视而不存在。现实便是客观存在的，人类便是 在欲望，虚拟，现实三者交汇中生存。所以认清现实也就变得至关重要了。而心灵毒鸡汤它之所以会受到追捧，就是因为他的内容虽然直白，看起来很负能量，但是他直面了现实和残酷，一开始就戳中泪点，使人心头为之一振。而真心灵鸡汤他却用温情的语言掩盖了现实，他过分强调某些因素，例如坚持，放下，乐观，努力，而忽略了其他对于达到目标非常重要的因素。这些虚浮的语言很难经得起现实的考验，因为相较于鸡汤文中的远方和梦想，我们接触的更多是现实。而直面现实，我们才会更多的审视自己的错误，明白解决问题的关键在哪里，然后从反方面激励我们不断前进。而不是让我们仅仅陶醉在鸡汤文的大补中，逐步变得疲劳而麻木。
最后，我方认为毒心灵鸡汤对人的长远发展是十分有利的。他从反方面告诉当我们面对挫折时，我们真正需要做的是什么，当我们想要达成某个目标时，我们最需要的要素是什么。而不是让我们仅仅陷入心灵鸡汤的思维陷阱之中，沿着偏离的方向前进，离目标越来越远。 可以说真心灵鸡汤就像是罂粟花，看起来很美，实则是精神鸦片。而毒心灵鸡汤却像是醒酒汤，让我们走出困惑。
综上所述，我方重申心灵毒鸡汤比真心灵鸡汤更养人。我的发言完毕，谢谢主席。
【篇五】辩论稿格式一辩
亲爱的评委，亲爱的对方辩友，你们好~
首先我想强调一下我们今天的辩题是在符合为人的基本价值观和道德底线的前提下展开的。否则，对于固步自封的死教条和趋炎附势的伪君子也不必谈可不可贵了。
那在此前提下，我方重申一下，何谓坚守原则，何又谓审时度势， “坚守”可理解为坚持地守卫，在坚持地同时强调了不主动改变，“原则”是说话或行事所依据的法则或标准，在此辩题下“坚守原则”的含义则是个人坚守着自己的一套言行准则，不轻易因外界原因而改变。
而“审时度势”则更强调“审时”和“度势”也就是研究时事动向和估计发展趋势，在研究了社会时事动向和估计了时代发展趋势后，不断反思，不断修正自我原先建立的标准使之能够更加适应，乃至引领社会的进步，更具有发展的含义。解释完了坚守原则和审时度势的基本定义，那我们再来谈一谈可贵吧。什么是可贵？《辞海》中意为值得珍视，重视。我方基于此给出两个定义，其一是价值高，价高而可贵，其二是难度大，难能而可贵。
（由于字数原因，两个例子删掉，留在质询或盘问环节。）
我方认为，人的一生中不免和外界发生大大小小的无数碰撞，可是这些碰撞造就的是精彩还是遍体鳞伤，这就取决于一个人能否通过审时度势不断改变自己的不足，不断放下我执，使之不偏激，不固执，从而构建自我的和谐。坚守自我，坚守原则固然可贵，但是对个人而言，一味的地坚持自我，往往易于偏激，易于离世，易于其曲弥高，其和弥寡。而在坚守与修正原则之间，体现的就是审时度势之于塑造一个温润，心怀若谷的谦谦君子的价值。
其次，对社会而言，审时度势也是更有价值的。如果没有在启蒙运动中那一批认识到人文主义才是社会发展的主要趋势，因而对天主教会的封建统治口诛笔伐的启蒙思想家们，欧洲的人们至今都只会坚守一个原则——“神权至上”；如果没有在辛亥革命中那一批认识到共和，民主才是一个国家一个民族的立足之本的先烈们，我们至今也只会坚守一个原则“皇权至上”。可见，原则，也就是言行法则是基于时代的，受时代所限，而审时度势是面向未来，拥抱进步的。试问，有什么价值比引领社会进步更大？
关于两者难度，就单谈对社会层面而言，审时度势就因为需要出于社会需求而对自我权利的让渡而更加难以达到。当然，难度和价值是直接相关联的，失去了价值的难度就好像失去了方向的盲目向前，毫无意义可言。而正是因为审时度势的价值和难度更高，才会更加可贵。
何为可贵？体现的在价值和以价值为基础的难度上。所以出于以上三点，我方认为相对坚持原则，审时度势无论是对社会还是对个人而言都是更可贵的。谢谢~