英国议会制辩论优秀辩题
英国议会制辩论基本知识
英国议会制辩论基本知识
辩题，是否应该实行普选制度来选举英国的国会议员？
尊敬的主持人、各位评委和各位观众，今天我们聚集在一起，就英国议会制中一个关键的问题展开辩论，是否应该实行普选制度来选举英国的国会议员？
支持者认为，普选制度是民主的基石，它确保了每个公民都有平等的选举权利。
在普选制度下，每个成年公民都有权利投票选举自己认为合适的候选人，而不受到种族、性别、财产或社会地位的限制。
这样一来，国会议员将更加代表人民的意愿，政府也将更加合法和稳固。
然而，反对者则认为，普选制度可能导致民粹主义的抬头，使得政治体系变得不稳定。
在普选制度下，政客可能更倾向于迎合民众的情绪，而非制定长远和理性的政策。
此外，普选制度也可能导致政府的执政能力受到挑战，因为议会中可能出现更多的反对派议员，使得决策变得更加困难。
在这个问题上，我们需要权衡民主和政治稳定之间的利弊，考
虑到英国的国情和历史传统，来决定是否应该实行普选制度来选举
国会议员。
希望各位能够就这个问题进行深入的思考和探讨。
谢谢！。
英国议会制辩论基本知识
英国议会制辩论基本知识
辩题，应该对移民实行更严格的限制。
尊敬的评委、各位辩友们，今天我们要就“应该对移民实行更严格的限制”这一议题展开辩论。
首先，我们认为对移民实行更严格的限制是必要的。
随着全球化的发展，移民人数不断增加，这给接纳国家的社会、经济和文化带来了巨大的挑战。
严格限制移民可以有效控制人口流动，减少社会资源的压力，保护本国劳动力市场，确保国内就业机会。
其次，严格限制移民可以减少犯罪率。
一些移民可能会带来不良影响，包括犯罪行为。
通过限制移民，可以减少犯罪率，保障公民的安全和社会的稳定。
此外，严格限制移民也有利于维护国家的文化和传统。
移民的大量涌入可能会对本国的文化和传统构成威胁，导致社会价值观的混乱和文化冲突。
因此，通过限制移民，可以保护和传承本国的文化遗产。
然而，我们也要看到限制移民可能会带来的负面影响。
一些移民可能是为了逃避战争、迫害和贫困而来到接纳国家，对他们实行严格限制可能会剥夺他们的生存权利。
此外，一些移民也可能为接纳国家的经济和社会发展做出贡献，过于严格的限制可能会影响国家的发展和创新能力。
综上所述，我们认为对移民实行更严格的限制是必要的，但也需要考虑到对移民的人道主义关怀和对国家发展的积极影响。
希望各位评委和辩友们在辩论中能够充分思考，就这一议题做出理性和客观的判断。
谢谢！。
BP英国议会制辩论资料
BP英国议会制辩论资料
辩题，是否应该废除英国议会制度？
正方观点，我们认为英国议会制度已经过时，不再适应现代社
会的需求。
议会制度存在着严重的腐败问题，政客们往往为了个人
利益而忽视民众的利益。
同时，议会制度也导致了决策的拖延和僵化，无法有效解决当下的社会问题。
因此，我们认为应该废除英国
议会制度，寻求更加民主和高效的治理方式。
反方观点，我们认为英国议会制度虽然存在着一些问题，但并
不意味着应该完全废除。
议会制度是英国政治体系的核心，它保障
了民众的代表权利，通过议会选举来实现政治平等和参与。
废除议
会制度将导致政治体系的混乱和不稳定，使得政治决策更加难以达成。
因此，我们主张应该对议会制度进行改革和完善，而不是废除。
英国议会制辩论基本知识
英国议会制辩论基本知识
辩题，应该取消英国议会上议院的贵族制度。
尊敬的评委、各位观众，我是今天的辩手，我将就“应该取消
英国议会上议院的贵族制度”这一辩题进行辩论。
首先，我将从历史、民主和效率等方面进行论证。
首先，贵族制度在英国议会上议院的历史根深蒂固，但随着时
代的变迁，这一制度已经不再适应现代社会的发展。
贵族制度的存
在是对平等和民主的一种隐性歧视，它将权力集中在少数特权阶层
手中，而忽视了广大民众的利益和声音。
取消贵族制度可以使议会
更加民主化，让更多普通人有机会参与政治决策，实现真正的民主。
其次，贵族制度在英国议会上议院中可能会影响决策的效率。
贵族议员通常是因为家族地位或遗传而获得议员职位，而非凭借实
际能力和才华。
这样一来，议会的决策可能会受到贵族议员的个人
利益和偏见的影响，而偏离了公共利益。
取消贵族制度可以使议会
更加专业化和高效，让真正具备能力和经验的人才参与政治决策，
为国家的发展和民众的利益服务。
综上所述，取消英国议会上议院的贵族制度是符合时代潮流和
民主发展的需要的，它有利于提高议会的民主化程度和决策的效率，为国家的长远发展和民众的利益谋福祉。
因此，我强烈主张取消英
国议会上议院的贵族制度。
谢谢！。
BP英国议会制辩论资料
BP英国议会制辩论资料
辩题，是否应该禁止BP在英国议会制辩论中提供资料？
正方观点：
1. BP是英国最大的石油和天然气公司，其在议会制辩论中提供的资料具有重要性和权威性。
2. BP在能源领域拥有丰富的经验和专业知识，其提供的资料有助于议会就能源政策和环境保护等议题做出明智的决策。
3. 禁止BP提供资料将剥夺议会对能源问题进行全面了解的机会，不利于制定健全的政策。
反方观点：
1. 由于BP是能源公司，其提供的资料可能存在利益冲突和偏见，不具客观性。
2. BP曾在环境保护等议题上存在丑闻，其提供的资料可能不
可靠，甚至具有误导性。
3. 应该鼓励议会多方面获取信息，而不是依赖于单一公司的资料，以确保决策的客观性和公正性。
结论：
针对BP在英国议会制辩论中提供资料的问题，应该平衡权威性和客观性的要求。
可以考虑限制BP提供资料的范围，并且鼓励议会多方面获取信息，以确保决策的科学性和公正性。
BP英国议会制辩论资料
第十三届辩题0.Campus Lifea. China abolish English as a compulsory subject in postgraduate entrance examinations。
b。
China make military training compulsory for all college students。
c. All major corporations operating in China should be required to offer student internships。
1。
Culturea. THW require study of the traditional style Chinese writing。
b。
TH opposes the private ownership of artifacts deemed to be national treasures.c。
THBT Shanzhai culture is bad for China。
2. Educationa. THW base teachers？ pay on their students？ performance.b. THW make community service compulsory for all college students。
c。
THBT Chinese compulsory education should be extended to 12 years3。
Economya. TH supports a new international trading currency.b. THB that China should stop buying US debt.c。
China should issue consumption vouchers to stimulate the economy。
英国议会制辩论基本知识
英国议会制辩论基本知识
辩题，应该取消英国议会上议院的贵族制度。
尊敬的评委，各位辩友们，今天我们要就英国议会上议院的贵族制度展开辩论。
贵族制度作为英国议会制度的一部分，一直备受争议。
我们将就此问题展开辩论，探讨是否应该取消英国议会上议院的贵族制度。
支持取消贵族制度的一方认为，贵族制度是一种不公平的特权制度，违背了平等和民主的原则。
贵族们凭借出身和家族背景就能够获得议会上议院的席位，而这与现代社会的价值观不符。
取消贵族制度将有利于建立一个更加公正和平等的议会制度，使每个人都有机会参与国家事务的决策。
然而，反对取消贵族制度的一方认为，贵族制度是英国历史和传统的一部分，具有重要的象征意义。
贵族们在议会上议院的席位上代表了英国的传统和价值观，他们能够为议会带来丰富的经验和智慧。
此外，贵族制度也有利于维护议会的稳定和权威，避免政治的过度民主化和权力过于集中。
在这个问题上，我们需要权衡传统和现代价值观之间的关系，考虑到社会的发展和进步。
我们希望通过这场辩论，能够更好地理解贵族制度对英国议会制度的影响，为未来的改革和发展提供有益的启示。
谢谢。
英国议会辩论简介
英国议会辩论简介
辩题，是否应该提高最低工资标准？
尊敬的议长，尊敬的各位议员们，今天我们聚集在这里，就一个非常重要的议题展开辩论，是否应该提高最低工资标准？
支持者认为，提高最低工资标准可以帮助减少贫困，提高工人的生活质量。
随着通货膨胀和生活成本的上涨，许多工人的工资无法满足基本生活需求，这导致了社会不公平现象的加剧。
提高最低工资标准可以让更多的人脱离贫困，提高他们的生活水平，这对整个社会都是有益的。
然而，反对者认为，提高最低工资标准可能会导致企业增加成本，从而减少雇佣人数，甚至导致裁员。
这将对经济发展产生负面影响，导致失业率上升，反而加剧了社会的不稳定。
此外，一味提高最低工资标准也可能导致通货膨胀，对整个经济带来不利影响。
在这个议题上，支持者和反对者都有他们的理由和观点。
我们需要充分辩论，权衡利弊，找到一个能够平衡社会公平和经济发展
的方案。
希望各位议员们能够就这个议题进行深入的讨论，为我们的国家未来的发展找到最好的解决方案。
谢谢。
英式辩论赛辩题汇总(3篇)
第1篇英式辩论赛，作为一种模拟英国议会辩论的形式，在全球范围内广受欢迎。
这种辩论赛注重逻辑思维、语言表达和团队协作，以下汇总了一些适合英式辩论赛的辩题，涵盖了社会、文化、经济、科技等多个领域，旨在激发辩手们的思辨能力和辩论技巧。
一、社会议题1. 隐私权的边界：是否应限制互联网公司的数据收集和使用？2. 是否应废除死刑？3. 是否应该将安乐死合法化？4. 城市化进程中，传统村落是否应该保留？5. 是否应该限制社交媒体上的言论自由？二、文化议题1. 文学作品改编成影视作品，更应该尊重原著还是创新？2. 艺术作品是否应该承担社会责任？3. 是否应该限制网络游戏时间？4. 在全球化的背景下，本土文化是否应该被保护和传承？5. 是否应该推广国际语言，如英语，以促进全球交流？三、经济议题1. 贸易保护主义是否有利于国家经济发展？2. 是否应该取消最低工资标准？3. 是否应该限制跨国公司的运营？4. 如何平衡经济利益与环境保护？5. 是否应该实施财富税？四、科技议题1. 人工智能是否会取代人类工作？2. 是否应该限制基因编辑技术？3. 是否应该允许无人驾驶汽车在公共道路上行驶？4. 是否应该限制互联网平台的算法推荐？5. 是否应该支持太空探索？五、政治议题1. 是否应该扩大选举权？2. 是否应该限制政治广告？3. 是否应该支持军事干预以维护世界和平？4. 是否应该支持一国两制？5. 是否应该限制政府权力？六、教育议题1. 是否应该实行义务教育？2. 是否应该取消高考？3. 是否应该鼓励学生选择职业教育？4. 是否应该加强学校与企业的合作？5. 是否应该推广在线教育？七、环境议题1. 是否应该限制化石燃料的使用？2. 是否应该限制转基因作物种植？3. 是否应该限制海洋捕捞？4. 是否应该限制工业排放？5. 是否应该支持植树造林？这些辩题涵盖了众多领域，旨在激发辩手们的思维，锻炼他们的辩论技巧。
在英式辩论赛中，辩手们需要充分准备，深入研究辩题，掌握相关知识和论据，以便在辩论中展示自己的观点。
英国议会制辩论赛
1、BP制是British Parliamentary（英国议会制）的简称，是仿照英国议会开会议事模式而设计的一系列辩论赛规则的总称，是全世界范围内使用最广泛的辩论规则，世界大学生辩论赛WUDC（The World Universitie s Debating Championships）及中国辩论公开赛China Open均使用此规则。
2、常见的BP制是四队议会制辩论，每场比赛分正反双方，设“正方上院”、“正方下院”、“反方上院”、“反方下院”四队，每队两人，故可概括为“两方、四队、八人”。
3、胜负评判为排序制，即根据各队表现在四队中排出1、2、3、4名，胜负不以正反方而论，即完全可以出现正方上院第一名而正方下院第四名的情况。
4、BP制的竞赛程序可简单描述为“角色扮演”+“交替演讲”，每位辩手均拥有一个议员角色，均拥有7分钟左右（不同赛事时长不一）发言时长，正反方从上到下交替发言，没有自由辩论等任何快速交替发言环节。
?5、BP制有一种特殊的“质询”规则：Point of Information (“PoI”)。
PoI允许对方辩手在“非保护时间”（每人发言时间中除开第一分钟和最后一分钟之外的所有时间）示意要求提问，经发言者允许后向发言者提问质询。
质询者提问时间计入发言者时长，故针对PoI，发言者有权决定是否接受、何时接受、如何回答等事宜。
?6、BP制区别于常见华语辩论赛制的最大特点在于“角色扮演”，如下表：?正方上院第一位发言者首相(Prime Minister)正方一辩反对党领袖（Leader of the Oppositi反方上院第一位发言者反方一辩on）正方上院第二位发言者副首相（Deputy Prime Minister）正方二辩反对党副领袖（Deputy Leader of the反方上院第二位发言者反方二辩Opposition）正方下院第一位发言者政府阁员（Member of Government）正方三辩反方下院第一位发言者反对党阁员（Member of the Oppositi反方三辩on）正方下院第二位发言者政府党鞭（Government Whip）正方四辩反方下院第二位发言者反对党党鞭（Opposition Whip）反方四辩?7、除一般的“立我方、批对方”的发言责任外，BP制中每个角色还有其独特的角色责任，对该责任的实现程度构成胜负评判的最大因素。
英国议会制辩论基本知识
英国议会制辩论基本知识
辩题，应该对英国议会制度进行改革。
尊敬的评委、各位观众：
今天我们聚集在一起，就英国议会制度是否需要进行改革这一
问题展开辩论。
英国议会制度作为英国政治体系的核心，一直以来
都备受关注。
然而，随着时代的变迁和社会的进步，是否有必要对
英国议会制度进行改革，以适应当今社会的需求呢？
支持者认为，英国议会制度需要进行改革，因为现行的制度存
在一些明显的问题。
首先，议会的上议院成员由任命产生，而非选
举产生，这导致了上议院的合法性和民主性受到质疑。
其次，议会
中的议员多数来自于上层社会，缺乏对社会底层民众的代表性，导
致了决策的偏向性。
最后，议会的程序繁琐，决策效率低下，难以
及时应对社会问题和民众需求。
然而，反对者则认为，英国议会制度并不需要进行改革。
首先，议会制度的稳定性和传统性是英国政治体系的核心价值，改革可能
会破坏这一稳定性。
其次，议会制度的复杂性和程序繁琐是为了确
保决策的充分讨论和审慎考虑，以保障民众的利益。
最后，即使存在一些问题，也可以通过一些小的改进来解决，而不必进行彻底的改革。
在这个问题上，我们需要权衡各方的观点，找到一个既能保障议会制度的稳定性和传统性，又能适应当今社会需求的方案。
希望我们的辩论能够促进对这一问题的深入思考，为英国议会制度的未来发展提供一些新的思路和方向。
谢谢！。
英国议会制辩论基本知识
英国议会制辩论基本知识
辩题，应该取消英国议会上议院的贵族制度。
尊敬的评委、各位观众，今天我们聚集在一起，就英国议会上
议院的贵族制度展开讨论。
贵族制度作为英国议会制度的一部分，
一直备受争议。
一方面，支持者认为贵族制度有其传统和历史价值，能够为议会带来更多的经验和智慧；另一方面，反对者则认为贵族
制度不符合现代民主价值观，导致议会不民主、不公平。
因此，我
们应该取消英国议会上议院的贵族制度。
首先，贵族制度与现代民主价值观不符。
在今天的社会，人们
追求平等、公正和民主。
然而，贵族制度的存在使得上议院的成员
并非通过选举产生，而是凭借出生和家族背景。
这种非民主的方式
产生的议员，难以代表民众利益，导致议会的决策偏离民意。
其次，贵族制度导致议会不公平。
由于上议院的成员凭借家族
背景而非能力和才华获得席位，导致议会的决策偏向于特定的社会
阶层。
这不仅违背了公平竞争的原则，也损害了广大民众的利益。
最后，取消贵族制度能够提升议会的效率和民主性。
如果上议
院的成员由选举产生，将能够更好地代表民众利益，使议会的决策更加公正和民主。
此外，取消贵族制度也能够减少议会内部的腐败和特权现象，提升议会的效率和透明度。
因此，我们应该取消英国议会上议院的贵族制度，以实现更加民主、公平和高效的议会制度。
谢谢。
英国议会制辩论 简介
英国议会制辩论简介
辩题，是否应该对英国议会制度进行改革？
尊敬的评委、各位观众，今天我们将就英国议会制度是否需要
进行改革展开激烈的辩论。
英国议会制度作为英国政治体系的核心，一直备受争议。
一方面，支持者认为英国议会制度具有悠久的历史
和传统，是英国民主制度的基石，不需要进行改革。
另一方面，反
对者则认为英国议会制度存在着一些不足之处，需要进行改革以适
应当代社会的发展。
支持者认为，英国议会制度作为世界上最古老的议会制度之一，具有悠久的历史和传统，是英国政治体系的重要组成部分。
议会制
度的稳定性和成熟性为英国政治提供了可靠的基础，不需要进行大
规模的改革。
此外，议会制度的分权和制衡机制能够有效地保障各
方利益，确保民主决策的合理性和公正性。
因此，支持者认为英国
议会制度不需要进行改革，应该保持现状。
然而，反对者则指出，英国议会制度存在着一些不足之处，需
要进行改革以适应当代社会的发展。
首先，议会制度的精英主义和
权力集中现象较为严重，导致决策过程缺乏透明度和公正性。
其次，
议会制度的代议制度存在着严重的民主赤字，不能充分代表民众的利益和诉求。
因此，反对者呼吁对议会制度进行改革，以建立更加开放、透明和民主的议会制度。
在这场激烈的辩论中，我们将就英国议会制度是否需要进行改革展开充分的讨论和辩论。
我们希望通过这场辩论，能够更加深入地了解英国议会制度的优劣势，找到最合适的改革方案，为英国政治体系的发展提供有益的建议和借鉴。
谢谢！。
英国议会制辩论基本知识
英国议会制辩论基本知识
辩题，应该取消英国议会上议院的贵族制度。
尊敬的评委、各位观众，今天我们聚集在一起讨论一个备受争
议的议题，是否应该取消英国议会上议院的贵族制度。
在过去的几
个世纪里，贵族制度一直是英国政治体系的一个重要组成部分，但
是随着社会的发展和价值观的变化，有人开始质疑这种传统的合理
性和必要性。
支持者们认为，贵族制度是不公平的，因为它赋予了一些人特
权和权力，而这些人并不是因为自己的才能或努力而获得这些特权。
相反，他们的地位是通过出生和继承而来的，这与现代社会的价值
观不符。
此外，贵族制度也容易导致腐败和权力滥用，因为这些贵
族成员并不需要对公众负责，他们的权力是天赋的，而不是通过选
举获得的。
然而，反对者们则认为，贵族制度是英国历史和文化的一部分，它具有重要的象征意义，并且对英国政治体系起到了一定的平衡作用。
贵族们在议会上拥有丰富的经验和智慧，他们可以为政府提供
重要的建议和监督，以防止政府过度集权和滥用权力。
此外，贵族
们也在慈善事业和文化艺术方面做出了重要贡献，他们的存在对社会有积极的影响。
在这个问题上，我们需要认真权衡利弊，考虑到历史、文化和政治的多重因素。
无论最终的决定是什么，我们都希望它能够符合社会的共同利益，并且能够推动英国政治体系朝着更加公正和民主的方向发展。
谢谢大家。
英国议会制辩论基本知识
英国议会制辩论基本知识
辩题，应该实行普选制度还是保留目前的议会选举制度？
尊敬的评委、各位观众，今天我们将就英国的选举制度展开一
场激烈的辩论。
我们将讨论是否应该实行普选制度，还是保留目前
的议会选举制度。
支持实行普选制度的一方认为，普选制度能够让更多的人参与
到选举中来，使选举更具民主性。
普选制度能够确保每个人的选票
都有同等的价值，而不是像目前的议会选举制度那样存在着一些选
区的选票价值更高的情况。
此外，普选制度还能够减少选举过程中
的政治腐败和操纵，使政治更加公正和透明。
然而，反对实行普选制度的一方则认为，目前的议会选举制度
已经经过长期的发展和完善，能够更好地反映各地区的利益和需求。
实行普选制度可能会导致一些地区的利益被忽视，使政府的决策更
加偏向于人口密集地区。
此外，普选制度也可能会导致政府的稳定
性受到影响，因为更多的小政党和独立候选人可能会进入议会，使
政府更难以达成共识和推动议程。
在这场激烈的辩论中，我们将就普选制度和议会选举制度的优
劣势展开深入的讨论，希望能够找到最适合英国的选举制度。
谢谢！。
英国议会辩论简介
英国议会辩论简介
辩题，是否应该实施更严格的枪支管制法律？
尊敬的议长和各位议员们，今天我们聚集在这里，讨论一个备
受关注的议题——枪支管制。
随着近年来全球范围内发生的枪击事
件频频发生，我们不得不重新审视我们的枪支管制法律是否足够严格，是否能够有效地保护公众的安全。
支持者认为，实施更严格的枪支管制法律能够有效地减少枪支
暴力事件的发生。
他们指出，一些国家已经通过严格的枪支管制法
律取得了明显的成效，比如澳大利亚和加拿大。
他们认为，英国应
该向这些国家学习，加强对枪支的管控，以保护公众的生命安全。
然而，反对者则认为，实施更严格的枪支管制法律可能会损害
合法枪支所有者的权益，而且并不能完全阻止枪支暴力事件的发生。
他们认为，更重要的是加强对犯罪分子和精神病患者的监控和管理，以防止他们获取枪支进行犯罪活动。
在这个辩题上，我们需要权衡公众的安全与合法枪支所有者的
权益，我们需要思考如何在保护公众安全的同时，不损害合法枪支
所有者的权益。
希望各位议员们能够就这一议题展开深入的讨论，共同寻求最佳的解决方案。
谢谢。
英国议会制辩论 简介
英国议会制辩论简介
英国议会制辩论简介。
辩题，是否应该对英国议会制度进行改革？
尊敬的评委和各位观众，今天我们将就英国议会制度是否需要进行改革展开激烈的辩论。
一方面，支持者认为英国议会制度已经存在了数百年，是英国政治体系的重要组成部分，应该保持传统和稳定；另一方面，反对者则认为现行的议会制度存在着种种弊端，需要进行改革以适应现代社会的需要。
支持者认为，英国议会制度是历史悠久的，经过数百年的演变和完善，已经成为一套相对成熟的政治体系。
议会制度的稳定性和传统价值应该得到尊重和保护，而不是轻易改动。
此外，议会制度的权力分立和议会监督政府的功能也是其优点之一，有利于保障民主和权利的平衡。
然而，反对者则认为，现行的议会制度存在着一些问题，需要进行改革。
首先，议会的选举制度存在着不公平和不合理的地方，导致一些地区的选民代表权受到削弱。
其次，议会内部的程序和规
则也存在着僵化和官僚化的现象，影响了议会的效率和透明度。
最
重要的是，议会制度在面对现代社会的挑战时，可能已经不再适用，需要进行相应的改革以适应时代的需要。
因此，我们需要就英国议会制度是否需要进行改革展开深入的
讨论和辩论，以期找到最适合英国国情的解决方案。
感谢各位评委
和观众的聆听。
英国议会辩论简介
英国议会辩论简介
辩题，是否应该实行全面的医疗保健免费制度？
尊敬的议长，各位议员们：
我们今天聚集在这里，就一个备受争议的议题展开辩论，是否应该实行全面的医疗保健免费制度？这个问题牵涉到每个英国人的利益，因此我们必须认真地思考并提出合理的观点。
支持者认为，实行全面的医疗保健免费制度将使所有人都能够获得及时的医疗服务，无论他们的经济状况如何。
这将有助于减少社会不平等，保障每个人的基本权利。
此外，免费医疗也可以鼓励人们更早地寻求医疗帮助，从而减少疾病的严重程度和医疗费用。
然而，反对者则认为，实行全面的医疗保健免费制度将给国家的医疗系统带来巨大的财政压力。
他们担心，这样的政策可能会导致医疗资源的过度使用，从而增加医疗等待时间，并对医疗质量造成负面影响。
此外，他们还指出，政府应该更多地鼓励个人自己承担医疗费用，而不是依赖于纳税人的资金。
在这个问题上，我们需要权衡个人权利和国家财政的重要性。
我们必须认真思考，找到一个既能够保障每个人的基本权利，又能够保持国家财政的可持续性的方案。
希望今天的辩论能够为这个问题提供一些启发和思路，让我们能够做出明智的决策。
谢谢。
英国议会制辩论基本知识
英国议会制辩论基本知识
辩题，应该取消英国议会上议院的贵族制度。
尊敬的评委和各位观众，今天我们聚集在一起，讨论一个备受
争议的话题，是否应该取消英国议会上议院的贵族制度。
贵族制度
在英国议会中有着悠久的历史，但随着社会的发展和价值观的改变，我们需要重新审视这一制度是否还适应当今的社会需求。
首先，让我们来看看贵族制度的优势。
贵族们通常具有丰富的
经验和知识，他们可以为议会带来不同的视角和智慧。
此外，贵族
也代表了英国的传统和历史，他们的存在可以维护和传承英国的文
化遗产。
然而，贵族制度也存在一些明显的问题。
首先，贵族们的身份
通常是通过世袭获得的，这意味着他们的权力和地位是基于出生而
非能力和表现。
这与现代社会的价值观相悖，违背了平等和公正的
原则。
其次，贵族们的数量相对较少，这导致他们的代表性受到质疑，很难真正代表整个社会的利益。
因此，我们认为应该取消英国议会上议院的贵族制度。
取消贵
族制度可以使议会更加民主和代表性，确保每个人都有平等的机会参与政治。
同时，我们也可以通过其他方式保留贵族们的经验和知识，例如设立专门的咨询机构或者委员会，让他们继续为国家和社会做出贡献。
在结束之前，我们要呼吁大家一起思考，重新审视贵族制度在当今社会的意义和价值。
我们相信，只有通过深入的讨论和辩论，我们才能找到最适合英国的议会制度，让每个人都能获得公平和正义的代表。
谢谢。
英国议会制辩论规则和辩题
第十三届辩题0.Campus Lifea. China abolish English as a compulsory subject in postgraduate entrance examinations.b. China make military training compulsory for all college students.c. All major corporations operating in China should be required to offer student internships.1. Culturea. THW require study of the traditional style Chinese writing.b. TH opposes the private ownership of artifacts deemed to be national treasures.c. THBT Shanzhai culture is bad for China.2. Educationa. THW base teachers? pay on their students? performance.b. THW make community service compulsory for all college students.c. THBT Chinese compulsory education should be extended to 12 years3. Economya. TH supports a new international trading currency.b. THB that China should stop buying US debt.c. China should issue consumption vouchers to stimulate the economy.4. Global climate changea. Developed nations should accept global warming refugeesb. Those affected by global climate change should have the right to sue major carbon-emitting nations.c. China should cap its carbon emissions.a. Immediate elections are in Thailand抯best interest.b. ASEAN should expel Myanmarc. Direct negotiations between the US and North Korea are preferable to the Six-Party Talks.6. Family & Populationa. THBT women should be allowed to sell their eggsb. TH would require the father抯consent for abortions.c. China should legalize marriage between homosexuals.7. Crime & Punishmenta. Criminals sentenced to life imprisonment without parole should be allowed to choose death instead.b. China should establish a national DNA database of all citizens for the purposes of criminal investigations.c. This house would make parents liable for their children抯crimes.8. Governing & Governmenta. THW make one-year military service a qualification for public servants.b. TH would require government officials to make full financial disclosure to the public.c. THW make all NPC representatives full-time, professional legislators.Octofinals: Medical servicea. China should ban hymen reconstruction surgeries.b. China should legalize physician-assisted suicide.c. The World Health Organization (WHO) should have the authority to quarantine in times of health crises. Quarterfinals: Judiciarya. China should apply capital punishment only to homicide cases.b. China should fully establish a jury-by-peers system.c. Judges should be elected.Semifinals: International IssuesSEMIFINAL #1a. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization should admit Iran as a full member.b. The United Nations should take control of Jerusalem.c. NATO should fully withdraw from Afghanistan before 2012.SEMIFINAL #2a. The USA should stop promoting democracy as part of their foreign policy.b. Pre-emptive strikes on Somalia to curb piracy are justified.c. This house supports Spain抯criminal prosecution of members of the Bush administration.FinalsThe PRC should ban the production, sale and consumption of all tobacco products.The Charter of FLTRP Cup National English Debating CompetitionAll speakers, except the final speakers for the Proposition and Opposition (Proposition and Opposition Whips), should introduce new material. All debaters should refute the opposing teams‟ arg uments, except the Prime Minister.5 .The MotionsMotions typically focus on current issues or timeless controversies (争论) and are phrased in a way that is intended to be specific and unambiguous.6.Focus and content of debatesBritish Parliamentary debating is a contest of ideas in which the Proposition teams are responsible for providing reasons why themotion is true and the Opposition teams are responsible for providing reasons why the motion is not true or why the Proposition has failed to prove the motion true. All teams have a responsibility to refute, either directly or indirectly, arguments presented by the opposing side.Motions are written in plain language. The debaters—particularly the Opening Proposition team—should respect the meaning and focus of the motion. While the Opening Proposition team may clarify the meaning of terms in the motion, they should not attempt to alter the meaning of the motion. The Leader of the Proposition should provide any clarification of terms at the beginning of his or her speech.In the majority of cases, the clarification provided by the Opening Proposition team will serve as an adequate foundation for the rest of the debate. Should the Opening Proposition fail to make clear the focus of the debate, or if the interpretation offered by the Opening Proposition team completely inhibits（抑制）meaningful debate or completely misinterprets the meaning the motion, the Opening Opposition may offer clarification of the terms of the motion. No teams beyond the Opening Proposition and Opening Opposition may substantially modify the terms of the motion.7. PreparationDebaters may consult any written materials during the preparation time. Except for the designated CASIO electronic dictionary, no access to other electronic media or electronic storage or retrieval devices is permitted after motions have been released. Printed and prepared materials may be accessed during a debate.Debaters may confer with (交换意见) their debate partner during preparation time. Debaters may also confer with one tutor from their university during the preparation time. Debaters may not confer with any other individuals (i.e.: coaches, other debaters, trainers, adjudicators, etc.) during the preparation time.The Opening Proposition shall have the right to prepare in the debating venue.All other teams must prepare in separate locations.Teams must arrive at their chamber within five minutes of the time of commencement of debate. Teams failing to arrive in time will forfeit the debate, at the discretion of the Chair of the panel.8. Points of InformationDebaters may request a point of information (either verbally or by rising) at any time after the first minute, and before the last minute, of any speech.The debater holding the floor may accept or refuse any points of information within this time. If accepted, the debater making the request has fifteen seconds to make a statement or ask a question. During the point of information, the speaking time of the floor debater continues. Management of Points of Information—for both the debaters offering and answering Points of Information—will be considered in the adjudicators’ ranking of teams and assignment of individual speaker points.No other parliamentary points such as points of order or points of personal privilege are allowed.Competition Administration1. Structure of the competitionThe Competition shall be run in two main phases: phase one, known as the …Preliminary‟ rounds and phase two, known as the …Elimination‟ rounds.There shall be one mock round, eight Preliminary rounds and four Elimination rounds. All teams entered in the Competition shall participate in the Preliminary rounds.2.The Mock RoundThe mock round will be held as part of the training for the FLTRP Cup. The pairing of the mock round will be random and the results of the mock round will not count for the Preliminary or Elimination rounds.3.Pairing the Preliminary RoundsIf the total number of teams entered in the Competition is not divisible by four, or during the Competition the withdrawal of teams results in a total number of teams not divisible by four, the tournament administrators shall employ “swing teams” to fill va cant slots. The swing teams shall be ranked in each round relative to the teams against whom they compete (i.e.: if a swing team is the best team in a round they should be ranked 1st) but will be ineligible to advance to the Elimination rounds.The first round of the Competition will be paired randomly.At the conclusion of each preliminary round (except for the last round) teams shall be ranked in order of their aggregate team points accumulated by the team; from highest aggregate to lowest.The teams should then be divided up into pools of teams with the same amount of aggregate team points, with pools being ranked from highest aggregate to lowest.If any pool (the “Upper Pool”) consists of an amount of teams equivalent to a number that is not divisible by four, then team s from the pool r anking immediately below that pool (the “Lower Pool”) may be promoted to the Upper Pool so that the Upper Pool consists of a number of teams that is divisible by four. The team selected for promotion must be selected randomly from the Lower Pool. If promotion of a team to the Upper Pool results in a number of teams in the Lower Pool not divisible by four, each consecutive pool should be adjusted in the same fashion until all pools have a number of teams divisible by four.Once the pools have been adjusted, the pools are paired into debates of four teams in such a way that equalizes the team positions in which each team will debate. The pairing should promote, to the greatest extent possible, equality of distribution of team positions over the Preliminary rounds.Preliminary rounds 1-6 shall be “open adjudication,” with oral adjudications given by the adjudication panel following each debate. Preliminary rounds 7 & 8 shall be “closed,” with no oral adjudication (including any disclosure of the results of the round) permitted.3. Selection of teams for the Elimination RoundsAt the conclusion of the Preliminary rounds, the teams shall be ranked in order according to 1) their aggregate team points from the eight preliminary rounds; 2) their aggregate team scores, as determined by combining the individual speaker scores for each team member; 3) head-to-head matches between two teams tied for a rank; and 4) preponderance of first place rankings. If, after these tie-breakers are applied, a tie still exists, the rankings of the tied teams shall be determined by drawing lots. The topthirty-two (32) teams ranked by this method shall be selected to compete in the Elimination rounds.4. Pairing of Elimination RoundsThere shall be four elimination rounds: Octofinals, Quarterfinals, Semifinals and Finals. Each Elimination round shall be paired by “folding” the bracket of the top 32 teams as determined by their aggregate team points.For example, the first Octofinal round would be comprised of the teams ranked 1st, 16th, 17th and 32nd. The second Quarterfinal round would be comprised of the teams ranked 2nd, 15th, 18th and 31st, and so on.5. Advancement of teams through elimination roundsAt the conclusion of each Elimination round debate (with the exception of the Final round), the adjudication panel shall select two of the four teams to advance to the next Elimination round. Those teams assume the highest rankings available in their room (i.e.: for the purposes of ranking, the two teams to emerge from the first Octofinal round will be ranked 1st and 16th, regardless of their ranking prior to the Octofinal round).For the Final round, the adjudication panel shall select one Championship team. All other teams in the Final round will be designated “Finalists.”6 .Access to debatesIn preliminary rounds, observers may watch a debate round with the consent of the teams participating in the round. Similarly,those interested in photographing or recording video of the preliminary rounds must obtain the consent of the debaters participating in the round.Elimination rounds are open to all observers subject to the restrictions of the tournament administration and the constraints of the debating venue.7. Tabulation staffA tabulation staff shall be appointed and shall be responsible for the pairing and scheduling of the tournament according to the provisions spelled out in the Charter.Adjudication1. The Adjudication staffIn general, the Chief Adjudicator is responsible for monitoring the quality and efficacy of adjudication at thecompetition. Specifically, the Chief Adjudicator will participate in the training of adjudicators, administer and mark the adjudication test, rank adjudicators, oversee the placement of adjudicators into panels, oversee on-going evaluation of the adjudicators in the pool, identify the pool of Elimination Round adjudicators and Chair the Final Round.The Chief Adjudicator may select a number of Deputy Chief Adjudicators to assist with these responsibilities.The adjudication pool may be comprised of guest adjudicators, independent adjudicators, and others as deemed qualified by the Adjudication staff.The tutor from each university must serve as an adjudicator for the competition.2. The role of the adjudicatorsPrior to the competition, ad judicators should be ranked as either “Chairs,” “Panelists” or “Trainees.” Each debate should be adjudicated by at least one “Chair” level adjudicator.Ideally, each debate will be adjudicated by a panel comprised of one “Chair” and two “Panelist” level a djudicators.Each Preliminary round will be judged by panel comprised of an odd number of adjudicators, typically 3. Each Elimination round will be judged by a panel of adjudicators comprised of an odd number of adjudicators, typically 5. Each panel will have a designated Chair. Panels may include Trainee adjudicators who will participate in the deliberation of the debate but will not have their decision recorded.Following each round, the debaters will be dismissed and the each adjudicator must confer upon and discuss the debate with the other adjudicators to determine the rankings of the teams and determine the individual speaker marks. The panel will attempt to reach consensus in their adjudication. Should the panel be unable to reach consensus, the will of the majority of adjudicators on the panel will prevail.3. The role of the ChairThe Chair will be responsible for administering the round (calling the house to order, acknowledging the speakers, maintaining order, etc.). Following the debate, the Chair should facilitate the panel‟s deliberation to promote participation and input from the other panelists.Following the deliberation, the Chair should complete the ballot provided by the tournament administrators, noting particularly that the ballot accurately reflects the will of the panel with regard to team rankings and speaker scores. The ballot should be returned to the tournament staff prior to the oral adjudication. Once the ballot has been delivered, the Chair should invite the debaters back into the venue and provide an oral adjudication to the teams.Ranking teams in Preliminary RoundsFollowing each Preliminary round and as a result of the adjudication panel‟s consideration, teams should be ranked from 1st p lace to 4th place. Ties in rank are not permitted.Teams automatically may receive 4th when they fail to arrive at the debate more than five minutes after the scheduled time for debate. Teams automatically may receive 4th place where the adjudicators unanimously agree that the team or one member of a team has harassed another debater on the basis of religion, sex, race, color, nationality, sexual orientation or disability. In any case, the debate should continue to provide all teams in the round the opportunity to earn a rank.Teams should be ranked on the basis of their matter and manner.Matter refers to the content and substance of a team‟s arguments.Matter includes arguments and reasoning, evidence, examples, case studies, facts, statistics and any other material that a team uses to further the case. Matter includes both positive (or substantive) material and refutation (arguments specifically aimed to counter the arguments of the opposing team(s)).Matter should be relevant, logical and consistent. It should relate to the issues of the debate: positive material should support the case being presented and refutation should engage the material presented by the opposing team(s). Arguments should be developed logically in order to be clear and well reasoned and therefore plausible. The conclusion of all arguments should support the member‟s case. Members should ensure that the matter they present is consistent within their speech, their team and the remainder of the members on their side of the debate. All members should present positive matter (except the final two members in the debate) and all members should engage in refutation (except the first member in the debate). The Government Whip may choose to present positive matter if it is relevant to refuting the Member of the Oppo sition‟s extension.Manner refers to the strategy and presentation of a team‟s arguments.Manner includes elements such as argument choice, speech structure, vocal and physical delivery, use of POIs, and so forth.Manner should enhance the team‟s effort to prove or disprove the motion and should be compelling. To enhance their effort, the team should appropriately prioritize and apportion time to the dynamic issues of the debate, present their arguments in an order that is clear and logical, engage the arguments of the opposing side through direct or indirect refutation. Compelling manner is that which presents the material in a way that demonstrates a concern for vocal and physical presentation. Compelling teams deliver arguments with appropriate levels of passion, present their material in a way that attends to appropriate vocal and physical delivery, and avoid behaviors that detract from the force and effectiveness of their arguments.This description of matter and manner is necessarily incomplete. The adjudication panel should assess the totality of each team‟s efforts (including, but not limited to, matter and manner) to achieve a just and fair decision.Participants in FLTRP CUP must be aware that they will experience many different debating styles from the different universities and experience levels represented therein. There is no single …correct‟ or …right‟ style to adopt in this competition.1.Assigning speaker scoresAfter the adjudicators have agreed upon the ranking for each team, the panel should determine the speaker scores for each debater. Individual speaker scores should be assigned as follows, where a score of 75 would reflect an average effort at the tournament.The aggregate of the two team members‟ individual speaker scores will comprise their team‟s team score.Each team must receive a team score appropriate to their rank in the debate; no “low point wins” may be assigned.For example, if the 2nd pla ce team in the round is assigned an aggregate team score of 170 points, the 1st place team must receive at least 171 aggregate points. Ties in team scores are not permitted.2. DeliberationsThe deliberations of the adjudication panel shall be closed; only the members of the adjudication panel and the timer may remain in the room for the panel‟s deliberation.Trainee adjudicators may participate in the deliberation but shall not have their opinion recorded.All notes made of the round or the deliberation are the sole property of the adjudicators. The adjudicators may not be compelled to make available their notes of the round or the deliberation.Adjudicators should confer in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect. The panel‟s deliberations should not exceed 15 minutes.3 .Oral AdjudicationFollowing the adjudication panel‟s deliberation and after the ballot has been returned to the tournament staff, the Chair should offer the teams an oral adjudication that reveals the teams‟ rankings, the reason for the panel‟s decision and comments and suggestions for improvement. Team points should not be revealed during an oral adjudication.Other panelists may participate in the oral adjudication at their discretion and as time permits. The oral adjudication should not exceed 10 minutes.Debaters must not harass the adjudicators following the verbal adjudication.Debaters may approach an adjudicator for further clarification following the oral adjudication; these inquiries must at all times be polite and non-confrontational.Oral adjudications shall be offered only in the Mock round and Preliminary rounds 1-6.4. Adjudication in Elimination RoundsIn the Octofinal, Quarterfinal and Semifinal Elimination Rounds, the adjudication panels shall select two teams from each debate to advance to the next Elimination Round. In the Final Elimination Round, the adjudication panel shall select a single team as the “Champion” team; all other teams in the Final Round shall be designated “Finalists” without a ranking.The Semifinal and Final Round adjudication panels may be comprised, in part, of guest adjudicators. If guest adjudicators are used, they should be familiar with the format of debating and the rules of the competition as expressed in the Charter. In all cases, the number of Chair-level adjudicators should be greater than the number of guest adjudicators on the adjudication panel.Grievance Policy1. Constitution of the Grievance CommitteeThe Grievance Committee will be comprised of two members: one representative from the International Debate Education Association and one representative from the FLTRP. The Chief Adjudicator and the Convenor will act as an ex officio members of the Grievance CommitteeThe Grievance Committee will be responsible for hearing, investigating and resolving grievances brought by the participants in the FLTRP Cup.2. Definition of a GrievanceA grievance is an allegation of a rule violation or a breech of conduct on the part of (a) participant(s), competitor(s) or judge(s) inthe FTLRP Cup. Grievances concern errors in the process of administering or contesting the round.Adjudicators‟ decisions about substantive issues debated in the round are not subject to the grievance policy.With the exception of those decisions that are the product of some defect in procedure, the decision of the adjudicator(s) will not be overturned.To be valid, a grievance must be filed in writing with the Grievance Committee.Any matter may be discussed informally with the Chief Adjudicator or the Convenor prior to a participant filing a grievance.3. Processing a GrievanceFiling a GrievanceA grievance should be filed as soon as possible after the event that gave rise to the grievance. In general, the grievance committee will not consider grievances that address events from a round immediately previous after the subsequent round has begun.The written grievance should contain the following informationa. Name, role (debater, coach, tutor, adjudicator, etc.) and university affiliation of the participant filing the grievance.b. Date, time, location and round in which the event that gave rise to the grievance occurred.c. Participants who observed or participated in the event that gave rise to the grievance.d. A brief description of the event that gave rise to the grievance.e. Identification of the section of the FLTRP Cup Charter that allegedly was violated.f. The remedy sought by the participant who filed the grievanceUpon receiving a written grievance, the Grievance Committee may interview the grievant(s).If the Grievance Committee feels an investigation is warranted, they shall move the grievance to the investigation stage.If the Grievance Committee feels that no further investigation is warranted, they shall declare the grievance dismissed.Investigating a GrievanceThe Grievance Committee may interview any participant whom they believe will help them understand the events that gave rise to the grievance.Interviews of participants may be conducted in private.The Grievance Committee may review any documents they believe will help them understand the events that gave rise to the grievance.The investigation phase of the grievance processing should be concluded as soon as possible.Resolving a GrievanceThe Grievance Committee has broad discretion when deciding how a grievance will be resolved.In general, the resolution for a grievance will be focused on preventing the circumstances that caused the grievance from arising again.A written notice of the decision of the Grievance Committee shall be provided to the Chief Adjudicator and the Convener, with copies to the affected participants.4. Finality of Decision: Any decision of the grievance committee is final and may not be appealed.Argument is movementmove an audienceadvance positionssway opponentsredirect questioningfollow lines of argumenttake logical leapsretreat from claimspush issuesdrive points homecome to conclusionsarrive at a decisionPoints of StasisPredictable places at which arguments pauseA point of clash between competing arguments.Useful to evaluate opposing argumentsPoints of Stasis2 Types:PROPOSITIONS: The general point in the debate at which the Proposition‟s arguments clash with the Opposition‟sISSUES: The specific points within the proposition over which the Prop and the Opp disagreePropositionsPROPOSITIONS: The general point in the debate at which the Proposition‟s arguments clash with the OppositionsPropositions identify the relevant territory for the debate (and exclude the irrelevant territory) Propositions divide the Prop territory from the Opp territoryIssuesISSUES: The specific points within the proposition over which the Prop and the Opp disagree Issues focus the points of clash within the propositionEmerge as a result of the arguments advanced by the Prop and Opp sidesMay or may not be acknowledged by the teamsIssues“China should ban smoking”Proposition:Smoking creates a significant public health hazardOpposition:Banning smoking will have significant economic consequences for producers and retailersBanning smoking infringes on the rights of smokers.•Debating (argumentation) is a contest of efforts to gain ground on particular issues and, by so doing, on the proposition.•Ground may be gained by advancing (horizontally) against opponents or by expanding (vertically) against other issues.Distribution: Horizontal movement within issuesThe contest between arguments made (construction) and arguments engaged (deconstruction) •Prop: Smoking poses a public health risk•Opp: Smoking poses little public health riskExpansion: vertical movement between issuesComparing and contesting the relative importance of issues (framing). Expansion: vertical movement between issuesComparing and contesting the relative importance of issues (framing).•Prop: Smokers‟ rights are less important than public health•Opp: The economic consequences of this policy far outweigh the minimal gains in public health, particularly when less intrusive means to controlsmoking exist.The Process of AdjudicationPriorities and Guiding Values T abula Rasa: the “blank slate”E ducation: participants should be encouraged to improve and developN on-intervention: let the debaters debate, don‟t make their efforts irrelevant or do their jobs for them3 standards and a model The Standards:Matter and MannerRole FulfillmentBetter DebateThe Model:The movement modelMatter & MannerMatter3.1.1 Matter is the content of the speech. It is the arguments a debater uses to further his or her case andpersuade the audience.3.1.2 Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material thatattempts to further the case.3.1.3 Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal (arguments specifically aimed to refutethe arguments of the opposing team(s)). Matter includes Points of Information.Manner4.1.1 Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the style and structure a member uses to further his or hercase and persuade the audience.4.1.2 Manner is comprised of many separate elements. Primarily, manner may be assessed by examining thespeakers‟ style (delivery) and structure (organization).Role FulfillmentOpening PropClear Model and CaseRefutation and RebuttalOpening OppClear team lineRefutation and RebuttalMember Speakers (Closing Prop & Opp)ExtensionsWhip Speakers (Closing Prop & Opp)Holistic SummaryThe “Better Debate” Standard Who contributed most to (or detracted most from) the quality of this debate?Guiding principles:Inquiry: Are the most germane issues interrogated?Advancement: Does each speech/speaker move the debate forward?Engagement: Do the debaters test the arguments of the opposing side?Performance: Who delivers the most compelling oratorical effort?A model of adjudicationModel: A perspective from which to consider the debate。