英语辩论赛常用语

10Prime Minister(正方一辩)Mr.Speaker, members of the House , ladies and gentlemen:It is quite simply no longer fit for purpose . We argue that the reasons for this are that .We do not think that the way to do that is to . ,but rather to . and question whether X is .If X is ., it is because .We offer a number of arguments in support of this , regarding: 1, 2,3,4I will be dealing with the first of these ,and mu deputy will expand on the others , but first ,so some key definitions . We define “ ” to be .We think thats clear ,and unambiguous ,and we hope the Opposition accepts it as such .We will expand on this when we discuss our first argument.The model we put forward is also simple. According to the above definition,.So, to our first argument : what is the purpose of prison , how does it correspond to the broader aims of the criminal justice system , and how does it work for violent offenders in these regards , but not for other types of offenders ?It is .that.To continue :.So, Mr.Speaker , because .,because.,and because,as my partner will go on to explain ,.,we stand firmly by the proposal that.Leader of Opposition(反一）Mr.Speaker, members of the House , ladies and gentlemen:On opposition today , we will talk to you about .we will also talk to you about .Before we do ,we would like to move to some rebuttal of specific points made by Prime Minister,We challenge the Prime Ministers assertion that .and we wait to hear what justification or evidence the Government has for this .On our side of the House ,we point to .We have only to look at.Second,we think .On this point ,we have two responses .And so we move, Mr.Speaker, to our positive matter:.Mr.Speaker ,we wish you to consider.I will deal with each of these ideas separately.To get back to my speechFinally ,if you want.if you want. If you want.If you hope for, and believe in better , you know you have to side with the Opposition in this debate.Deputy Prime Minister(正二)Mr.Speaker, members of the House , ladies and gentlemen:what we have told you from Government today is that .and some needs to be done. We have told you that.and we provided a solution:.Oppositions response to that has been simplistic ,and short -sighted. They tell us simply to. And they fail completely to address the idea that . Instead ,they argue that .I have two major points to bring to this debate. First,I will show exactly why .is due significantly to 1.2.; I will then move the discussion to what might be done better for non-violent offenders. Before I do , I would like to address specifically the points coming from Opposition. The Opposition Leader raises two potential consequences of our policy .We agree with him that .but we reject .We think it far more likely that .Mr.Speaker, it is still the fact that So ,to the remaining points of Government today, these being:1,2It is not as simple as .We have to accept that.We are proud to propose.Deputy Leader of Opposition（反二）Mr.Speaker, members of the House , ladies and gentlemen:Government today has told us that. Presumably, if they decided the numbers of road accidents were too large ,they would restrict private car use ,and if they decided children too fat ,they would ban everyone from eating McDonalds,because when they tell us that prison isnt working for non-violent offenders,their solution is to punish everyone in society .I have two major arguments in Opposition today: first , I will argue that.and second, I will consider.Before that ,I will address a few points of rebuttal that do not fit as neatly into my constructive material.What we have heard from the Opening Government has been an unsubstantiated contention that.we have heard that.but we havent heard why. Why cant we debate why.Further ,Mr.Speaker,what we have heard from Government has been vague and imprecise. All the meaningful data have been absent from this debate, and we are left with the idea that some things from the Government might be true,if other things are also true;we just have noo way of knowing.From Opposition,we have told you that.Mr.Speaker, the gulf between the two sides of todays debate is clear. On the one hand,we have a Government unclear as to the true nature or purpose of prison.we have a Government vague on details ,and full of wishful thinking. On the other ,we have an Opposition that understands the nature of prison,and of rehabilitation,and how these aims are harmed by this policy .We have an Opposition that considers the feelings of those outside the system ,and not just the criminal. We have an Opposition that lives in the real world ,and we invite you to to stand with us. We oppose!Member of Government(正三）Mr.Speaker, members of the House , ladies and gentlemen:Government today has sought to tackle two related issues with the same policy. First they tell us that .and equally,that we are not in a position to debate with merit whether funds are correctly allocated in the status quo. Accepting those points means that a large part of Oppositions rebuttal thus far is irrelevant. So far ,the Governments policy works on that level, and we have heard nothing from Opposition to make us believe that it would not. The second issue Government wishes to address is .Rebuttal of the remaining Opposition material will be interwoven.Mr.Speaker,Opposition made much of their idea of a culture of fear being created. They tell us that .We would go further and argue that.All data regarding recidivism show that .For these reasons alone. It would seem that.There might be some vain hope thatSo Mr.Speaker,because.because.and because.we are happy to stand with Governments proposal todayMember of Opposition(反三)Mr.Speaker, members of the House , ladies and gentlemen:apparently we.Sadly,this is not the case. We have been told that What we must do isWe wish to further the arguments of our Opening bench concerning the creation of a perceived criminal class-that is .This is particularly true when we . Second ,we wish to consider some of the alternatives that.Finally ,we would consider . And that ,Mr.Speaker ,is what we vehemently oppose.Government Whip（正四）Mr.Speaker, members of the House , ladies and gentlemen:when we come to look at this debate, and the arguments you have heard from Government and Opposition today, it is clear that one team has been more consistent in its approach ,clearer in its definition of a problem and what might be done to solve this issue or these issues ,and has put forward cogent and reasoned arguments regarding policy and principle to come to a considered conclusion about what might be done.On the other hand,.Mr. Speaker,we have a Government trying to deal with the issue, and an Opposition that cannot run away from it quickly enough. I am going to summarize this debate looking at two broad areas ,namely:1,2In doing so, I will seek to address four questions upon which I believe the debate hinges. These are:This is where we on Closing Government believe the bulk of this debate lies ,and where the arguments are most developed. I shall therefore be spending most of my summary looking at these final two questions.To begin,we ask: .we say that there is . We have said it consistently from the opening of the Prime Ministers speech and we did not hear much contention to it from Opposition.well,from half the Opposition.We are confused by this , we think they are a little confused,and we would like the Opposition Whip to resolve this if she is able .it might be a little late for them by now,though.