Simple Debates 简单辩论
进阶简单辩论。
- 辩论分工：proposition 正方支持 motion · opposition 反方反对
- 发言公式：I disagree. Phones are useful tools for…（立场 + 论点）
- Rebuttal 反驳：Tablets cannot make calls, so our safety point still stands.
文体小知识：Win with reasons, not volume.
§课文原文 Passage
1Chair: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our class debate. Today's motion is: “Students should be banned from bringing smartphones to school.”
Chair: We will hear from both sides, then a rebuttal round, and finally the judge's decision.
1st Proposition Speaker: We believe phones should be banned because they distract students from lessons.
Phones also encourage students to compare expensive models, which makes some classmates feel unhappy.
1st Opposition Speaker (Kelly): I disagree. Phones are useful tools for research and safety.
Many students travel home alone, and they need to contact their parents.
A total ban treats students like small children, and it ignores these real needs.
2Chair: Thank you. We now move to the rebuttal round.
2nd Proposition Speaker: Most schools already provide tablets, so personal phones are not necessary.
Tablets are for learning; phones are mainly for games and social media.
Kelly: Tablets cannot make calls, so my safety point still stands.
Besides, teaching students to use phones responsibly is better than banning them. Rules alone cannot teach responsibility.
3Judge: Both teams spoke clearly, and I remind everyone to focus on evidence.
The proposition gave rules, but the opposition gave examples that the audience could relate to.
My decision is that the opposition wins today's debate.
Chair: Thank you, everyone. The conclusion is clear: a good debate is won with reasons, not volume.
§逐句中文翻译 Sentence-by-sentence translation
Chair: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our class debate.
主席：各位早晨，欢迎参加我们班的辩论。
Today's motion is: “Students should be banned from bringing smartphones to school.”
今日的辩题是：「学生应否被禁止带智能手机回校？」
Chair: We will hear from both sides, then a rebuttal round, and finally the judge's decision.
主席：我们会先听双方的论点，然后进行反驳环节，最后由评判裁决。
1st Proposition Speaker: We believe phones should be banned because they distract students from lessons.
正方第一位发言人：我们认为应禁止带手机，因为手机令学生上课分心。
Phones also encourage students to compare expensive models, which makes some classmates feel unhappy.
手机也令学生比较昂贵的型号，使部分同学感到不开心。
1st Opposition Speaker (Kelly): I disagree.
反方第一位发言人（Kelly）：我不同意。
Phones are useful tools for research and safety.
手机是研究和安全方面有用的工具。
Many students travel home alone, and they need to contact their parents.
很多学生独自回家，需要联络父母。
A total ban treats students like small children, and it ignores these real needs.
全面禁止把学生当成小孩子，也忽视了这些真实需要。
Chair: Thank you.
主席：谢谢。
We now move to the rebuttal round.
我们现在进入反驳环节。
2nd Proposition Speaker: Most schools already provide tablets, so personal phones are not necessary.
正方第二位发言人：很多学校已提供平板电脑，所以个人手机并非必要。
Tablets are for learning; phones are mainly for games and social media.
平板电脑用于学习；手机则主要用于游戏和社交媒体。
Kelly: Tablets cannot make calls, so my safety point still stands.
Kelly：平板电脑不能打电话，所以我的安全论点仍然成立。
Besides, teaching students to use phones responsibly is better than banning them.
再者，教学生负责任地用手机，比禁止他们更好。
Rules alone cannot teach responsibility.
单靠规则不能教会人负责任。
Judge: Both teams spoke clearly, and I remind everyone to focus on evidence.
评判：双方都说得清楚，我提醒大家要聚焦于证据。
The proposition gave rules, but the opposition gave examples that the audience could relate to.
正方提出了规则，反方的例子却更能引起观众共鸣。
My decision is that the opposition wins today's debate.
我的裁决是：反方胜出今日的辩论。
Chair: Thank you, everyone.
主席：谢谢大家。
The conclusion is clear: a good debate is won with reasons, not volume.
结论很清楚：好的辩论靠道理取胜，而不是声量。
1重点摘要 Summary
简单辩论。
2生字卡 Vocabulary
Formal argument。
Agree side。
Disagree side。
Topic。
Counter argument。
Debater。
Decides winner。
Final speech。
3逐步讲解 Steps
- Proposition正方开论：We believe phones should be banned because they distract students from lessons. Phones also encourage students to compare expensive models.
- Opposition反方反驳：I disagree. Phones are useful tools for research and safety. Many students travel home alone, and they need to contact their parents.
- Rebuttal反驳点名回应：Tablets cannot make calls, so my safety point still stands.——证据反证据，不是闹大声。
- Conclusion评判裁决：My decision is that the opposition wins today's debate. The conclusion is clear: a good debate is won with reasons, not volume.
- motion主席先读辩题：Today's motion is: 'Students should be banned from bringing smartphones to school.'——proposition 支持它，opposition 反对。
- 升华论点由个案推原则：teaching students to use phones responsibly is better than banning them. Rules alone cannot teach responsibility.
- 评判准则Both teams spoke clearly… focus on evidence.——用例打动观众的一方赢：the opposition gave examples that the audience could relate to.
5例题示范 Example
根据辩论课文，以反方（opposition）身份写一段发言：反对『学生应该被禁带智能手机回校』，要有立场、理由和反驳。
- 第一步：表明立场——I disagree. Phones are useful tools for research and safety.
- 第二步：理由一（安全）——Many students travel home alone, and they need to contact their parents.
- 第三步：反驳对方（rebuttal）——Tablets cannot make calls, so our safety point still stands.
- 第四步：升华论点——Teaching students to use phones responsibly is better than banning them.
- 第五步：结语——Rules alone cannot teach responsibility.
- 答案：I disagree with the motion. Phones are useful tools for research and safety. Many students travel home alone, and they need to contact their parents after school. The proposition says schools already provide tablets, but tablets cannot make calls, so our safety point still stands. A total ban treats students like small children and ignores these real needs. Besides, teaching students to use phones responsibly is better than banning them, because rules alone cannot teach responsibility. For these reasons, we believe the motion should be rejected.
6常见错误 Mistakes
75 题快测 Quick check
Q1What is a debate?
Q2What is proposition?
Q3What is opposition?
Q4What is rebuttal?
Q5What is a judge?
8重点回顾 Recap
- 辩论分工：proposition 正方支持 motion · opposition 反方反对
- 发言公式：I disagree. Phones are useful tools for…（立场 + 论点）
- Rebuttal 反驳：Tablets cannot make calls, so our safety point still stands.
- 升华论点：teaching responsibility is better than banning
- 评判准则（课文）：A good debate is won with reasons, not volume.