大學(xué)生英語(yǔ)辯論賽由來(lái)和發(fā)展

時(shí)間：2020-12-12 12:04:31 辯論賽我要投稿

　　大學(xué)生英語(yǔ)辯論賽大家知道它的由來(lái)和發(fā)展嗎?下面是小編搜集整理的大學(xué)生英語(yǔ)辯論賽由來(lái)和發(fā)展，歡迎閱讀。更多資訊請(qǐng)繼續(xù)關(guān)注辯論賽欄目!

大學(xué)生英語(yǔ)辯論賽由來(lái)和發(fā)展

　　“外研社杯”全國(guó)英語(yǔ)辯論賽創(chuàng)始于1997年，每年舉辦一屆，是目前國(guó)內(nèi)規(guī)模最大、水平最高的英語(yǔ)口語(yǔ)賽事。2015年的第十七屆”外研社杯”全國(guó)大學(xué)生英語(yǔ)辯論賽由團(tuán)中央學(xué)校部、全國(guó)學(xué)聯(lián)、北京外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)(招生辦)主辦，外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究出版社及中國(guó)教育電視臺(tái)承辦。歷經(jīng)十幾年品牌積淀和不懈努力，“外研社杯”英語(yǔ)辯論賽的權(quán)威性、規(guī)模以及品牌影響力已被全國(guó)廣大的英語(yǔ)教師及在校大學(xué)生所認(rèn)可，在高校中享有盛譽(yù)。十幾年來(lái)，已有累計(jì)1000余所高校精心培訓(xùn)選拔優(yōu)秀人才組隊(duì)參賽。

　　1997-2001年，大賽初創(chuàng)時(shí)的規(guī)模僅限于邀請(qǐng)全國(guó)范圍內(nèi)的8-16支高校代表隊(duì)直接參賽，比賽有幸邀請(qǐng)到時(shí)任英國(guó)駐華公使夫人，優(yōu)雅的Lady Appleyard作為主持人。上海交通大學(xué)(微博)獲得首屆”外研社杯”冠軍。此后的幾年內(nèi)，北京外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)、復(fù)旦大學(xué)和對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué)分別奪得冠軍殊榮。決賽辯題涉及諸多社會(huì)關(guān)注熱點(diǎn)，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.

　　隨著比賽名聲的迅速擴(kuò)大，越來(lái)越多的學(xué)校渴望加入”外研社杯”參賽。地區(qū)預(yù)賽制度因運(yùn)而生。每年全國(guó)開(kāi)設(shè)6-8個(gè)賽區(qū)，每個(gè)賽區(qū)容納12支隊(duì)伍報(bào)名。如此一來(lái)，參賽名額明顯增加，極大滿(mǎn)足了高校英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者的需求也鼓舞了大家的熱情。

　　與此同時(shí)，外交部、教育部(微博)和文化名人也開(kāi)始關(guān)注和出席”外研社杯”的總決賽。2002年，當(dāng)時(shí)的英國(guó)駐華大使Sir. William Ehrman出席決賽并致辭;2003年，時(shí)任外交部翻譯室主任的張建敏先生和陽(yáng)光傳媒集團(tuán)總裁楊瀾女士參與了評(píng)判工作并為獲獎(jiǎng)隊(duì)頒發(fā)獎(jiǎng)杯。

　　辯題的深度和廣度也與時(shí)俱進(jìn)。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”大膽向國(guó)際化賽制邁出第一步，轉(zhuǎn)制為全美大學(xué)生辯論賽的通用模式——美國(guó)議會(huì)制(American Parliamentary Style，也稱(chēng)AP)。外研社經(jīng)過(guò)4年的持續(xù)推廣和培訓(xùn)，最終使廣大英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者熟悉了賽制、磨練了語(yǔ)言、鍛煉了思維!由此開(kāi)始，被”外研社杯”贊助出國(guó)參賽的冠、亞、季軍隊(duì)伍，屢屢代表中國(guó)在各項(xiàng)國(guó)際和洲際辯論賽中獲得大獎(jiǎng)!

　　比賽也同時(shí)走上了商業(yè)化合作的道路�？ㄎ鳉W(上海)有限公司、劍橋大學(xué)出版社等高端品牌先后成為”外研社杯”的.贊助單位。大賽為合作伙伴儲(chǔ)備了優(yōu)秀的人力資源，也將良好的企業(yè)形象植根于高校學(xué)子心中。

　　辯題凸顯“議會(huì)制”本色，緊密貼合當(dāng)代大學(xué)生所關(guān)注的時(shí)事和政策新聞。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.

　　為使“外研社杯”辯論賽與“辯論界的奧林匹克”——世界大學(xué)生辯論賽制度接軌，2015年經(jīng)過(guò)大規(guī)模的賽前培訓(xùn)，“外研社杯”更上一層樓，采用”四隊(duì)辯論制”(British Parliamentary style，亦即BP 賽制)這一世界最先進(jìn)的賽制。至此，比賽的賽制和日程安排真正實(shí)現(xiàn)了國(guó)際化，并將長(zhǎng)期保持下去。

　　“外研社杯”繼續(xù)獲得外交部、英國(guó)駐華使館的大力支持。前外交部長(zhǎng)李肇星先生親臨總決賽現(xiàn)場(chǎng)并致辭，肯定了英語(yǔ)辯論在口語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)和思辨能力培養(yǎng)方面的重要性和實(shí)用性。廣大的英語(yǔ)辯論愛(ài)好者極受鼓舞!

　　這些年來(lái)，大賽成為優(yōu)秀大學(xué)畢業(yè)生的搖籃。許多“外研社杯”出身的優(yōu)秀辯手，如今已奮斗在大公司、大企業(yè)的一線(xiàn)崗位上。外交部、歐盟商會(huì)、《環(huán)球時(shí)報(bào)》、路透社……都能見(jiàn)到辯手的身影。今年，“外研社杯”將更加強(qiáng)調(diào)人才儲(chǔ)備和培養(yǎng)，繼續(xù)以社會(huì)發(fā)展為己任，貢獻(xiàn)力量!

　　BP規(guī)則

　　第十七屆全國(guó)大學(xué)生英語(yǔ)辯論賽BP賽制介紹

　　1. 辯論隊(duì)

　　每輪英國(guó)議會(huì)制辯論比賽中有4支辯論隊(duì)同場(chǎng)，每隊(duì)2人。支持辯題的隊(duì)伍稱(chēng)為”正方”，駁斥辯題的隊(duì)伍稱(chēng)為”反方”。正、反兩方分別由兩支隊(duì)伍構(gòu)成，并分別發(fā)表開(kāi)篇陳述和總結(jié)陳詞。每一支隊(duì)伍都需要與另3隊(duì)進(jìn)行競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，最后決出1至4名。

　　2. 選手發(fā)言順序

　　每位選手都應(yīng)按以下順序進(jìn)行發(fā)言：

　　發(fā)言者發(fā)言者的稱(chēng)呼發(fā)言時(shí)間

　　正方開(kāi)篇陳述第一辯手“首相”或”正方領(lǐng)袖”7分鐘

　　反方開(kāi)篇陳述第一辯手“反方領(lǐng)袖”7分鐘

　　正方開(kāi)篇陳述第二辯手“副首相”或”正方第二領(lǐng)袖”7分鐘

　　反方開(kāi)篇陳述第二辯手“反方第二領(lǐng)袖”7分鐘

　　正方總結(jié)陳詞第三辯手(即正方二隊(duì)一辯)“正方成員”7分鐘

　　反方總結(jié)陳詞第三辯手(即反方二隊(duì)一辯)“反方成員”7分鐘

　　3. 發(fā)言計(jì)時(shí)

　　每位辯手的發(fā)言的時(shí)間均為7分鐘。辯手提出”質(zhì)詢(xún)”的時(shí)間應(yīng)在第2到第6分鐘之間�！辟|(zhì)詢(xún)”是指在對(duì)方發(fā)言時(shí)，針對(duì)發(fā)言者正在申述的論點(diǎn)提出的本方觀(guān)點(diǎn)。

　　發(fā)言計(jì)時(shí)從辯手開(kāi)始說(shuō)話(huà)為始;所有必要內(nèi)容(包括說(shuō)明、介紹等)都在計(jì)時(shí)范圍內(nèi)。計(jì)時(shí)人員將在以下時(shí)間點(diǎn)向選手示意：

　　時(shí)間標(biāo)示：

　　第一分鐘末響鈴一次(允許開(kāi)始提出”質(zhì)詢(xún)”)

　　第六分鐘末響鈴一次(提出”質(zhì)詢(xún)”的時(shí)間結(jié)束)

　　第七分鐘末7：00 連續(xù)響鈴兩次(發(fā)言時(shí)間結(jié)束)

　　超時(shí)15秒之后7：15 連續(xù)響鈴(發(fā)言緩沖時(shí)間結(jié)束)

　　在連續(xù)兩次響鈴結(jié)束后辯手有15秒”緩沖”時(shí)間，在這段時(shí)間內(nèi)允許選手總結(jié)已出具論點(diǎn)�！本彌_”時(shí)間內(nèi)不允許出具新論據(jù)，在”緩沖”時(shí)間內(nèi)提出的新論據(jù)可以被裁判判為無(wú)效。在”緩沖”時(shí)間后仍繼續(xù)發(fā)言的辯手將被裁判團(tuán)扣分。

　　英語(yǔ)辯論賽技巧

　　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. (歷屆辯論賽中出現(xiàn)最多的問(wèn)題)

　　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(邏輯退化): 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. (運(yùn)用科學(xué)方法)

　　· Cite relevant personal experience. (合理引用相關(guān)的個(gè)人經(jīng)歷)

　　· Be polite. (辯論過(guò)程中有禮待人)

　　· Organize your response. (Beginning， middle， end.) (對(duì)你辯詞進(jìn)行合理的組織)

　　· 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.

【大學(xué)生英語(yǔ)辯論賽由來(lái)和發(fā)展】相關(guān)文章：

粵語(yǔ)歷史和由來(lái)09-12

墜子戲的歷史由來(lái)與發(fā)展09-11