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优秀辩论稿范文一辩5篇 , 供大家参考选择。
优秀辩论稿范文一辩5篇
第1篇: 优秀辩论稿范文一辩
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.
第2篇: 优秀辩论稿范文一辩
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
第3篇: 优秀辩论稿范文一辩
谢谢主席，谢谢评委，大家晚上好。今天我方观点是“干一行，爱一行。”所谓“爱”主要是指的一种热爱，一种在完成工作的过程中逐渐产生的对工作的一种热爱，只有有了这种爱我们才能够工作中做到爱岗敬业，服务社会，并逐步实现自己的理想、目标。从而达到个人与社会价值的统一。因此为了支持以上辩题，今天我方将主要从道德、社会、个人三个方面来进行我方的辩论。
首先“干一行，爱一行”从道德上来讲是必须的。因为人是生活在社会这个大环境中的，人追求自己的兴趣梦想固然没有问题，但是人在追求自己的理想与目标时也应该考虑到社会的问题。当个人的理想目标和社会的需要或现实相冲突时我们应先考虑社会的要求，这是每一个社会中的公民应具备的基本素质。
其次，从社会现实上来讲，当今虽然中国在很多“爱一行、干一行”的奉献者的努力下快速发展，但是社会的大现实却是人口压力使得更大部分人的就业情况不容乐观。在日趋激烈的竞争中，能找到让我们满意的工作实在是难上加难。如果我们只是因为不爱这个行业就不去从事它，那势必会导致一些大家都喜欢的职业人满为患，而一些大家不怎么了解，不很喜欢的职业则门可罗雀。而这样的结果就是社会资源的极大浪费。
再者，从我们自身来看，一、且兴趣是具有不稳定性的，谁也不能够保证你现在有兴趣的职业你一直都能有兴趣，而你本身没有兴趣的职业你将永远没有兴趣。二、人是具有很强的可塑性的，因此兴趣也是可以培养的，当你在从事某个工作时随着你对它的深入，你可能就会不知不觉的发现你已经爱上它了，正如现在很多大学生的专业是被调剂的，但是他们却在随后不断的的学习逐渐产了对本专业的兴趣，并最终取得了成功。三、很多职业我们对之没有兴趣主要是因为我们对其的不了解，仅仅因为不了解就不去从事它很可能导致这个适合我们的职业就与我们擦肩而过，古语有云“觉知此事要躬行”，只有切切实实的去做了，我们才能够了解它，深入它，进而爱上它。因此于道德，于现实，于我们自身，我们都应该“干一行爱一行“谢谢！
第4篇: 优秀辩论稿范文一辩
谢谢主席，尊敬的评委、对方辩友以及各位观众大家好，我是正方一辩，我方所持观点是：逆境易成才！所谓的逆境就是不顺利的境遇。在逆境中我们从摔倒的地方爬起来继续前行，能让我们看到自己身上的力量，每一个问题的解决都会让我们感受成就的快乐，并获得自信和探索的勇气。正是这种勇气和自信使他们提升自己的能力，触类旁通，以积极的心态应对随时出现的问题，遇事不慌。经过逆境的打磨，我们慢慢学会逆事顺办，学会控制自己的情绪，坦然面对失败并很自然地把挫折看成挑战。所有这些经验，都会提升我们承受失败的能力，使我们能始终保持“山穷水尽疑无路，柳暗花明又一村”的积极心态，形成坚持和执著的品性，为人生中的种种困境罩上希望的光环。下面我将从以下方面来阐释我方观点:
一、逆境可造就有志之才。唐后主李煜沉溺于酒色，而兵败后降于宋，在降宋后却仍无越王勾践卧薪尝胆之志，不思复国，终成一代亡国之君。这便是无志之人在困境之中沉沦的典型例子。此外，刘备之子刘禅的乐不思蜀，陈后主陈叔宝的杯妃入井也是最生动的例子。由此可见，胸无大志的人遇到困境非但不会成才，反而会在磨练中逐渐消沉，从此便被时间从历史上轻轻抹去。反观越王勾践，在被吴国打败并成为了俘虏后，虽卧薪尝胆，胸中却仍有着复国之心；虽日夜被当做奴隶般对待，也仍有着灭吴之志。因此他养精蓄锐，抓住时机并且一举消灭掉了吴国，成就了一番霸业。宝剑锋自磨砺出，梅花香自苦寒来。唯有未失本心，胸怀大志之人才能在困境中成才。
二、逆境可以使无才之人变有才。爱因斯坦从小便天赋平平，四岁才学会说话，初中成绩十分一般，他考了两次大学才被录取，毕业后在一家当地的小公司当了七年职工，他在如此困境中仍旧没有丧失自我，也可见其性格之坚韧。以众所见，天下众生本无才，只有在困境中磨练过，才能有这种顿悟，从一次次教训中汲取经验，悟出人生真谛，进而厚积薄发。爱因斯坦早年的表现表明它并不是一个天才，然而又有谁敢说他在后半生中非为人才呢？从中可以看出，困境是可将无才之人变为有才之人的天然转换器，只要穷且益坚，也可能在困境中不堕青云之志。因此困境之中，无才之人亦有才。
三、逆境能教人如何面对困难，能让他懂得珍惜，能激发他的潜能。英国的伟大诗人弥耳顿，最杰出的诗作是在双目失明后完成的；德国的伟大音乐家贝多芬，最杰出的乐章是在他的听力丧失以后创作的；世界级小提琴家帕格尼尼是个用苦难的琴弦把天才演奏到极致的奇人。他们被称为世界文史上三大怪杰，居然是一个是瞎子，一个是聋子，一个是哑巴！他们之所以有那样的成就，正是因为他们在逆境中.磨练了自己的意志，是自己更坚强，科学家贝佛里奇说过：“人们最出色的工作往往是处于逆境下做出的。思想上的压力，甚至肉体上的痛苦，都可能成为精神上的兴奋剂。”
四．逆境能磨炼人的心志，增长人生阅历。正如肯德基一生的经历，他在早年失业后，遭受着离异之苦，承受着饥困缠身之苦，在这段窘迫期终，他在一次偶然的散步中找到了芸京快餐店的灵感，从此便开始了自己的事业，成就了世界最大快餐公司之一的肯德基快餐，困境可以造就人才，因为它可以磨练人的意志。
困境造就人才。当遇到困境，不要气馁，更不要沉沦。为困境而坚韧，因磨练而坚强.一个人必须接受磨练，没有磨练的人不是人。
综合上述，我方依然坚持逆境易成才。
第5篇: 优秀辩论稿范文一辩
辩论赛一辩稿一辩
谢谢主席，谢谢评委，大家晚上好。今天我方观点是“干一行，爱一行。”所谓“爱”主要是指的一种热爱，一种在完成工作的过程中逐渐产生的对工作的一种热爱，只有有了这种爱我们才能够工作中做到爱岗敬业，服务社会，并逐步实现自己的理想、目标。从而达到个人与社会价值的统一。因此为了支持以上辩题，今天我方将主要从道德、社会、个人三个方面来进行我方的辩论。
首先“干一行，爱一行”从道德上来讲是必须的。因为人是生活在社会这个大环境中的，人追求自己的兴趣梦想固然没有问题，但是人在追求自己的理想与目标时也应该考虑到社会的问题。当个人的理想目标和社会的需要或现实相冲突时我们应先考虑社会的要求，这是每一个社会中的公民应具备的基本素质。
其次，从社会现实上来讲，当今虽然中国在很多“爱一行、干一行”的奉献者的努力下快速发展，但是社会的大现实却是人口压力使得更大部分人的就业情况不容乐观。在日趋激烈的竞争中，能找到让我们满意的工作实在是难上加难。如果我们只是因为不爱这个行业就不去从事它，那势必会导致一些大家都喜欢的职业人满为患，而一些大家不怎么了解，不很喜欢的职业则门可罗雀。而这样的结果就是社会资源的极大浪费。
再者，从我们自身来看，一、且兴趣是具有不稳定性的，谁也不能够保证你现在有兴趣的职业你一直都能有兴趣，而你本身没有兴趣的职业你将永远没有兴趣。二、人是具有很强的可塑性的，因此兴趣也是可以培养的，当你在从事某个工作时随着你对它的深入，你可能就会不知不觉的发现你已经爱上它了，正如现在很多大学生的专业是被调剂的，但是他们却在随后不断的的学习逐渐产了对本专业的兴趣，并最终取得了成功。三、很多职业我们对之没有兴趣主要是因为我们对其的不了解，仅仅因为不了解就不去从事它很可能导致这个适合我们的职业就与我们擦肩而过，古语有云“觉知此事要躬行”，只有切切实实的去做了，我们才能够了解它，深入它，进而爱上它。因此于道德，于现实，于我们自身，我们都应该“干一行爱一行“谢谢！