Simple Debates 簡單辯論
進階簡單辯論。
- 辯論分工：proposition 正方支持 motion · opposition 反方反對
- 發言公式：I disagree. Phones are useful tools for…（立場 + 論點）
- Rebuttal 反駁：Tablets cannot make calls, so our safety point still stands.
文體小知識：Win with reasons, not volume.
§課文原文 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.
§逐句中文翻譯 Sentence-by-sentence translation
Chair: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our class debate.
主席：各位早晨，歡迎參加我們班的辯論。
Today's motion is: “Students should be banned from bringing smartphones to school.”
今日的辯題是：「學生應否被禁止帶智能手機回校？」
Chair: We will hear from both sides, then a rebuttal round, and finally the judge's decision.
主席：我們會先聽雙方的論點，然後進行反駁環節，最後由評判裁決。
1st Proposition Speaker: We believe phones should be banned because they distract students from lessons.
正方第一位發言人：我們認為應禁止帶手機，因為手機令學生上課分心。
Phones also encourage students to compare expensive models, which makes some classmates feel unhappy.
手機也令學生比較昂貴的型號，使部分同學感到不開心。
1st Opposition Speaker (Kelly): I disagree.
反方第一位發言人（Kelly）：我不同意。
Phones are useful tools for research and safety.
手機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.
很多學生獨自回家，需要聯絡父母。
A total ban treats students like small children, and it ignores these real needs.
全面禁止把學生當成小孩子，也忽視了這些真實需要。
Chair: Thank you.
主席：謝謝。
We now move to the rebuttal round.
我們現在進入反駁環節。
2nd Proposition Speaker: Most schools already provide tablets, so personal phones are not necessary.
正方第二位發言人：很多學校已提供平板電腦，所以個人手機並非必要。
Tablets are for learning; phones are mainly for games and social media.
平板電腦用於學習；手機則主要用於遊戲和社交媒體。
Kelly: Tablets cannot make calls, so my safety point still stands.
Kelly：平板電腦不能打電話，所以我的安全論點仍然成立。
Besides, teaching students to use phones responsibly is better than banning them.
再者，教學生負責任地用手機，比禁止他們更好。
Rules alone cannot teach responsibility.
單靠規則不能教會人負責任。
Judge: Both teams spoke clearly, and I remind everyone to focus on evidence.
評判：雙方都說得清楚，我提醒大家要聚焦於證據。
The proposition gave rules, but the opposition gave examples that the audience could relate to.
正方提出了規則，反方的例子卻更能引起觀眾共鳴。
My decision is that the opposition wins today's debate.
我的裁決是：反方勝出今日的辯論。
Chair: Thank you, everyone.
主席：謝謝大家。
The conclusion is clear: a good debate is won with reasons, not volume.
結論很清楚：好的辯論靠道理取勝，而不是聲量。
1重點摘要 Summary
簡單辯論。
2生字卡 Vocabulary
Formal argument。
Agree side。
Disagree side。
Topic。
Counter argument。
Debater。
Decides winner。
Final speech。
3逐步講解 Steps
- Proposition正方開論：We believe phones should be banned because they distract students from lessons. Phones also encourage students to compare expensive models.
- Opposition反方反駁：I disagree. Phones are useful tools for research and safety. Many students travel home alone, and they need to contact their parents.
- Rebuttal反駁點名回應：Tablets cannot make calls, so my safety point still stands.——證據反證據，不是鬧大聲。
- Conclusion評判裁決：My decision is that the opposition wins today's debate. The conclusion is clear: a good debate is won with reasons, not volume.
- motion主席先讀辯題：Today's motion is: 'Students should be banned from bringing smartphones to school.'——proposition 支持它，opposition 反對。
- 升華論點由個案推原則：teaching students to use phones responsibly is better than banning them. Rules alone cannot teach responsibility.
- 評判準則Both teams spoke clearly… focus on evidence.——用例打動觀眾的一方贏：the opposition gave examples that the audience could relate to.
5例題示範 Example
根據辯論課文，以反方（opposition）身份寫一段發言：反對『學生應該被禁帶智能手機回校』，要有立場、理由和反駁。
- 第一步：表明立場——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：反駁對方（rebuttal）——Tablets cannot make calls, so our safety point still stands.
- 第四步：升華論點——Teaching students to use phones responsibly is better than banning them.
- 第五步：結語——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常見錯誤 Mistakes
75 題快測 Quick check
Q1What is a debate?
Q2What is proposition?
Q3What is opposition?
Q4What is rebuttal?
Q5What is a judge?
8重點回顧 Recap
- 辯論分工：proposition 正方支持 motion · opposition 反方反對
- 發言公式：I disagree. Phones are useful tools for…（立場 + 論點）
- Rebuttal 反駁：Tablets cannot make calls, so our safety point still stands.
- 升華論點：teaching responsibility is better than banning
- 評判準則（課文）：A good debate is won with reasons, not volume.