大學生英語辯論賽由來和發展

　　大學生英語辯論賽大家知道它的由來和發展嗎?下面是小編搜集整理的大學生英語辯論賽由來和發展，歡迎閱讀。更多資訊請繼續關注辯論賽欄目!

　　“外研社杯”全國英語辯論賽創始于1997年，每年舉辦一屆，是目前國內規模最大、水平最高的英語口語賽事。2019年的第xx屆”外研社杯”全國大學生英語辯論賽由團中央學校部、全國學聯、北京外國語大學(招生辦)主辦，外語教學與研究出版社及中國教育電視臺承辦。歷經十幾年品牌積淀和不懈努力，“外研社杯”英語辯論賽的權威性、規模以及品牌影響力已被全國廣大的英語教師及在校大學生所認可，在高校中享有盛譽。十幾年來，已有累計1000余所高校精心培訓選拔優秀人才組隊參賽。

　　1997-2019年，大賽初創時的規模僅限于邀請全國范圍內的8-16支高校代表隊直接參賽，比賽有幸邀請到時任英國駐華公使夫人，優雅的Lady Appleyard作為主持人。上海交通大學(微博)獲得首屆”外研社杯”冠軍。此后的幾年內，北京外國語大學、復旦大學和對外經濟貿易大學分別奪得冠軍殊榮。決賽辯題涉及諸多社會關注熱點，如：

　　1997年的 Examinations do more harm than good.

　　2019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大，越來越多的學校渴望加入”外研社杯”參賽。地區預賽制度因運而生。每年全國開設6-8個賽區，每個賽區容納12支隊伍報名。如此一來，參賽名額明顯增加，極大滿足了高校英語學習者的需求也鼓舞了大家的熱情。

　　與此同時，外交部、教育部(微博)和文化名人也開始關注和出席”外研社杯”的總決賽。2019年，當時的英國駐華大使Sir. William Ehrman出席決賽并致辭;2019年，時任外交部翻譯室主任的張建敏先生和陽光傳媒集團總裁楊瀾女士參與了評判工作并為獲獎隊頒發獎杯。

　　辯題的深度和廣度也與時俱進。如，

　　2019年的Urbanization helps improve the quality of living.

　　2019年的Nationalism is a positive sentiment.

　　2019年， “外研社杯”大膽向國際化賽制邁出第一步，轉制為全美大學生辯論賽的通用模式——美國議會制(American Parliamentary Style，也稱AP)。外研社經過4年的持續推廣和培訓，最終使廣大英語學習者熟悉了賽制、磨練了語言、鍛煉了思維!由此開始，被”外研社杯”贊助出國參賽的冠、亞、季軍隊伍，屢屢代表中國在各項國際和洲際辯論賽中獲得大獎!

　　比賽也同時走上了商業化合作的道路。卡西歐(上海)有限公司、劍橋大學出版社等高端品牌先后成為”外研社杯”的贊助單位。大賽為合作伙伴儲備了優秀的人力資源，也將良好的企業形象植根于高校學子心中。

　　辯題凸顯“議會制”本色，緊密貼合當代大學生所關注的時事和政策新聞。如，

　　2019年的 This house believes that advertisement is a curse rather than a blessing.

　　2019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”——世界大學生辯論賽制度接軌，2019年經過大規模的賽前培訓，“外研社杯”更上一層樓，采用”四隊辯論制”(British Parliamentary style，亦即BP 賽制)這一世界最先進的賽制。至此，比賽的賽制和日程安排真正實現了國際化，并將長期保持下去。

　　“外研社杯”繼續獲得外交部、英國駐華使館的大力支持。前外交部長李肇星先生親臨總決賽現場并致辭，肯定了英語辯論在口語學習和思辨能力培養方面的重要性和實用性。廣大的英語辯論愛好者極受鼓舞!

　　這些年來，大賽成為優秀大學畢業生的搖籃。許多“外研社杯”出身的優秀辯手，如今已奮斗在大公司、大企業的一線崗位上。外交部、歐盟商會、《環球時報》、路透社……都能見到辯手的身影。今年，“外研社杯”將更加強調人才儲備和培養，繼續以社會發展為己任，貢獻力量!

　　BP規則

　　第xx屆全國大學生英語辯論賽BP賽制介紹

　　1. 辯論隊

　　每輪英國議會制辯論比賽中有4支辯論隊同場，每隊2人。支持辯題的隊伍稱為”正方”，駁斥辯題的隊伍稱為”反方”。正、反兩方分別由兩支隊伍構成，并分別發表開篇陳述和總結陳詞。每一支隊伍都需要與另3隊進行競爭，最后決出1至4名。

　　2. 選手發言順序

　　每位選手都應按以下順序進行發言：

　　發言者發言者的稱呼發言時間

　　正方開篇陳述第一辯手“首相”或”正方領袖”7分鐘

　　反方開篇陳述第一辯手“反方領袖”7分鐘

　　正方開篇陳述第二辯手“副首相”或”正方第二領袖”7分鐘

　　反方開篇陳述第二辯手“反方第二領袖”7分鐘

　　正方總結陳詞第三辯手(即正方二隊一辯)“正方成員”7分鐘

　　反方總結陳詞第三辯手(即反方二隊一辯)“反方成員”7分鐘

　　3. 發言計時

　　每位辯手的發言的時間均為7分鐘。辯手提出”質詢”的時間應在第2到第6分鐘之間。”質詢”是指在對方發言時，針對發言者正在申述的論點提出的本方觀點。

　　發言計時從辯手開始說話為始;所有必要內容(包括說明、介紹等)都在計時范圍內。計時人員將在以下時間點向選手示意：

　　時間標示：

　　第一分鐘末 響鈴一次(允許開始提出”質詢”)

　　第六分鐘末 響鈴一次(提出”質詢”的時間結束)

　　第七分鐘末7：00 連續響鈴兩次(發言時間結束)

　　超時15秒之后7：15 連續響鈴(發言緩沖時間結束)

　　在連續兩次響鈴結束后辯手有15秒”緩沖”時間，在這段時間內允許選手總結已出具論點。”緩沖”時間內不允許出具新論據，在”緩沖”時間內提出的新論據可以被裁判判為無效。在”緩沖”時間后仍繼續發言的辯手將被裁判團扣分。

　　英語辯論賽技巧

　　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. (歷屆辯論賽中出現最多的問題)

　　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. (運用科學方法)

　　· Cite relevant personal experience. (合理引用相關的個人經歷)

　　· Be polite. (辯論過程中有禮待人)

　　· Organize your response. (Beginning， middle， end.) (對你辯詞進行合理的組織)

　　· 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.