大学生英语辩论赛由来和发展

时间：2020-12-12 12:04:31 辩论赛我要投稿

大学生英语辩论赛由来和发展

　　大学生英语辩论赛大家知道它的由来和发展吗?下面是小编搜集整理的大学生英语辩论赛由来和发展，欢迎阅读。更多资讯请继续关注辩论赛栏目!

大学生英语辩论赛由来和发展

　　“外研社杯”全国英语辩论赛创始于1997年，每年举办一届，是目前国内规模最大、水平最高的英语口语赛事。2015年的第十七届”外研社杯”全国大学生英语辩论赛由团中央学校部、全国学联、北京外国语大学(招生办)主办，外语教学与研究出版社及中国教育电视台承办。历经十几年品牌积淀和不懈努力，“外研社杯”英语辩论赛的权威性、规模以及品牌影响力已被全国广大的英语教师及在校大学生所认可，在高校中享有盛誉。十几年来，已有累计1000余所高校精心培训选拔优秀人才组队参赛。

　　1997-2001年，大赛初创时的规模仅限于邀请全国范围内的8-16支高校代表队直接参赛，比赛有幸邀请到时任英国驻华公使夫人，优雅的Lady Appleyard作为主持人。上海交通大学(微博)获得首届”外研社杯”冠军。此后的几年内，北京外国语大学、复旦大学和对外经济贸易大学分别夺得冠军殊荣。决赛辩题涉及诸多社会关注热点，如：

　　1997年的 Examinations do more harm than good.

　　2001年的 The opportunity cost of attending graduate school is too high for college students.

　　随着比赛名声的迅速扩大，越来越多的学校渴望加入”外研社杯”参赛。地区预赛制度因运而生。每年全国开设6-8个赛区，每个赛区容纳12支队伍报名。如此一来，参赛名额明显增加，极大满足了高校英语学习者的需求也鼓舞了大家的热情。

　　与此同时，外交部、教育部(微博)和文化名人也开始关注和出席”外研社杯”的总决赛。2002年，当时的英国驻华大使Sir. William Ehrman出席决赛并致辞;2003年，时任外交部翻译室主任的张建敏先生和阳光传媒集团总裁杨澜女士参与了评判工作并为获奖队颁发奖杯。

　　辩题的深度和广度也与时俱进。如，

　　2003年的Urbanization helps improve the quality of living.

　　2004年的Nationalism is a positive sentiment.

　　2005年， “外研社杯”大胆向国际化赛制迈出第一步，转制为全美大学生辩论赛的通用模式——美国议会制(American Parliamentary Style，也称AP)。外研社经过4年的持续推广和培训，最终使广大英语学习者熟悉了赛制、磨练了语言、锻炼了思维!由此开始，被”外研社杯”赞助出国参赛的冠、亚、季军队伍，屡屡代表中国在各项国际和洲际辩论赛中获得大奖!

　　比赛也同时走上了商业化合作的道路。卡西欧(上海)有限公司、剑桥大学出版社等高端品牌先后成为”外研社杯”的.赞助单位。大赛为合作伙伴储备了优秀的人力资源，也将良好的企业形象植根于高校学子心中。

　　辩题凸显“议会制”本色，紧密贴合当代大学生所关注的时事和政策新闻。如，

　　2005年的 This house believes that advertisement is a curse rather than a blessing.

　　2007年的 This house believes that China should establish English as an official language.

　　为使“外研社杯”辩论赛与“辩论界的奥林匹克”——世界大学生辩论赛制度接轨，2015年经过大规模的赛前培训，“外研社杯”更上一层楼，采用”四队辩论制”(British Parliamentary style，亦即BP 赛制)这一世界最先进的赛制。至此，比赛的赛制和日程安排真正实现了国际化，并将长期保持下去。

　　“外研社杯”继续获得外交部、英国驻华使馆的大力支持。前外交部长李肇星先生亲临总决赛现场并致辞，肯定了英语辩论在口语学习和思辨能力培养方面的重要性和实用性。广大的英语辩论爱好者极受鼓舞!

　　这些年来，大赛成为优秀大学毕业生的摇篮。许多“外研社杯”出身的优秀辩手，如今已奋斗在大公司、大企业的一线岗位上。外交部、欧盟商会、《环球时报》、路透社……都能见到辩手的身影。今年，“外研社杯”将更加强调人才储备和培养，继续以社会发展为己任，贡献力量!

　　BP规则

　　第十七届全国大学生英语辩论赛BP赛制介绍

　　1. 辩论队

　　每轮英国议会制辩论比赛中有4支辩论队同场，每队2人。支持辩题的队伍称为”正方”，驳斥辩题的队伍称为”反方”。正、反两方分别由两支队伍构成，并分别发表开篇陈述和总结陈词。每一支队伍都需要与另3队进行竞争，最后决出1至4名。

　　2. 选手发言顺序

　　每位选手都应按以下顺序进行发言：

　　发言者发言者的称呼发言时间

　　正方开篇陈述第一辩手“首相”或”正方领袖”7分钟

　　反方开篇陈述第一辩手“反方领袖”7分钟

　　正方开篇陈述第二辩手“副首相”或”正方第二领袖”7分钟

　　反方开篇陈述第二辩手“反方第二领袖”7分钟

　　正方总结陈词第三辩手(即正方二队一辩)“正方成员”7分钟

　　反方总结陈词第三辩手(即反方二队一辩)“反方成员”7分钟

　　3. 发言计时

　　每位辩手的发言的时间均为7分钟。辩手提出”质询”的时间应在第2到第6分钟之间。”质询”是指在对方发言时，针对发言者正在申述的论点提出的本方观点。

　　发言计时从辩手开始说话为始;所有必要内容(包括说明、介绍等)都在计时范围内。计时人员将在以下时间点向选手示意：

　　时间标示：

　　第一分钟末响铃一次(允许开始提出”质询”)

　　第六分钟末响铃一次(提出”质询”的时间结束)

　　第七分钟末7：00 连续响铃两次(发言时间结束)

　　超时15秒之后7：15 连续响铃(发言缓冲时间结束)

　　在连续两次响铃结束后辩手有15秒”缓冲”时间，在这段时间内允许选手总结已出具论点。”缓冲”时间内不允许出具新论据，在”缓冲”时间内提出的新论据可以被裁判判为无效。在”缓冲”时间后仍继续发言的辩手将被裁判团扣分。

　　英语辩论赛技巧

　　On Debating

　　Clarity: Avoid use of terms which can be interpreted differently by different readers. When we are talking to people who substantially agree with us we can use such terms as "rednecks" or "liberals" and feel reasonably sure that we will be understood. But in a debate， we are talking to people who substantially disagree with us and they are likely to put a different interpretation on such words.

　　Evidence: Quoting an authority is not evidence. Quoting a majority opinion is not evidence. Any argument that starts with， "According to Einstein..." is not based on objective evidence. Any argument that starts with， "Most biologists believe..." is not based on objective evidence. Saying， "The Bible says..." is not evidence. Authorities and majorities can be wrong and frequently have been. (历届辩论赛中出现最多的问题)

　　Emotionalism: Avoid emotionally charged words--words that are likely to produce more heat than light. Certainly the racial， ethnic， or religious hate words have no place in rational debating. Likewise， avoid argumentum ad hominem. Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. Also， slurs directed at groups with whom your opponent is identified are usually nonproductive. Try to keep attention centered on the objective problem itself. There is a special problem when debating social， psychological， political， or religious ideas because a person's theories about these matters presumably have some effect on his own life style. In other words， rather than saying "and that's why you are such an undisciplined wreck" say， "a person adopting your position is， I believe， likely to become an undisciplined wreck because ..."

　　Causality: Avoid the blunder of asserting a causal relationship with the popular fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc which declares that because some event A happened and immediately afterward event B happened that event A was the cause of event B.(I knew someone whose car stalled on the way to work. She would get out and open the hood and slam it and then the car would start. Singing a song would have been just as effective to allow time for a vapor lock to dissipate!) Also avoid the popular fallacy that correlation proves causation. People who own Cadillacs， on average， have higher incomes than people who don't. This does not mean that if we provided people with Cadillacs that they would have higher incomes.

　　Innuendo(影射):Innuendo is saying something pejorative about your opponent without coming right out and saying it but by making more or less veiled allusions to some circumstance， rumor， or popular belief. If you want to see some excellent examples of innuendo， watch Rush Limbaugh. Politicians are， unfortunately， frequently guilty of using innuendo. It is an easy way to capitalize on popular prejudices without having to make explicit statements which might be difficult or impossible to defend against rational attack.

　　Be sure of your facts. What is the source of your information? If it is a newspaper or a magazine， are you sure that the information hasn't been "slanted" to agree with that publication's political bias? Where crucial facts are concerned， it is best to check with more than one source. Often international publications will give you a different perspective than your hometown newspaper. Check to see whether the book you are using was published by a regular publishing company or whether it was published by some special interest group like the John Birch Society or a religious organization. These books cannot be trusted to present unbiased evidence since their motivation for publishing is not truth but rather the furtherance of some political or religious view.

　　Understand your opponents' arguments. It is good practice to argue with a friend and take a position with which you do not agree. In this way you may discover some of the assumptions your opponents are making which will help you in the debate. Remember that everybody thinks that his position is the right one， and everybody has his reasons for thinking so.

　　Do not impute ridiculous or malevolent ideas to your opponent.

　　An example of this is the rhetorical statement， "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This imputes or presupposes that your opponent has beaten his wife. One frequently sees references by conservative speakers and writers to the idea that gay activists want "special privileges." This would be ridiculous if it were true. It isn't true， but speaking as if it were true and well known to all is egregiously unfair to listeners or readers who may not be well informed. It is probably always wise to treat your opponent with respect， even if he doesn't deserve it. If he doesn't deserve respect， this will probably soon become obvious enough.

　　Regression to the mean(逻辑退化): Another source of error which occurs very frequently is the failure to take into account regression to the mean. This is a bit technical， but it is very important， especially in any kind of social or psychological research which depends upon statistical surveys or even experiments which involve statistical sampling. Rather than a general statement of the principle (which becomes more and more unintelligible as the statement becomes more and more rigorous) an example will be used.

　　Let's consider intelligence testing.

　　1. Perhaps we have a drug that is supposed to raise the IQ of mentally retarded kids. So we give a thousand intelligence tests and select the 30 lowest scoring individuals.

　　2. We then give these low scoring kids our drug and test them again.

　　3. We find that there has been an increase in the average of their IQ scores.

　　4. Is this evidence that the drug increased the IQ?

　　Not necessarily! Suppose we want to show that smoking marijuana lowers the IQ. Well， we take the 30 highest scoring kids in our sample and give them THC and test them again. We find a lower average IQ.

　　Is this evidence that marijuana lowers the IQ?

　　Not necessarily! Any statistician knows that if you make some kind of a measurement of some attribute of a large sample of people and then select the highest and lowest scoring individuals and make the same measurement again， the high scoring group will have a lower average score and the low scoring group will have a higher average score than they did the first time. This is called "regression to the mean" and it is a perfectly universal statistical principle.

　　There are undoubtedly more points to be made here. Suggestions will be gratefully received. Larry has made the following suggestions:

　　· Apply the scientific method. (运用科学方法)

　　· Cite relevant personal experience. (合理引用相关的个人经历)

　　· Be polite. (辩论过程中有礼待人)

　　· Organize your response. (Beginning， middle， end.) (对你辩词进行合理的组织)

　　· Treat people as individuals.

　　· Cite sources for statistics and studies used.

　　· Literacy works. Break posts into sentences and paragraphs.

　　· Read the post you are responding to.

【大学生英语辩论赛由来和发展】相关文章：

粤语历史和由来09-12

坠子戏的历史由来与发展09-11