|
Поря
док выс-
туплений
|
Спикер, его задачи
|
Время
|
Содержание
|
|
1
|
Тайм-кипер (Time-keeper):
-приветствует команды;
-открывает дебаты.
|
1 мин.
|
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
It’s a very real pleasure that I welcome you here this afternoon. I feel sure
we are going to have a most interesting and pleasant meeting today.
Let me open the debate. The motion is that “Smoking E-cigarettes deserves
punishment”. It is proposed by the first team. So, the floor is given to
Alena M. Time: 4 min.
|
|
2.
|
Первый спикер утверждающей
команды (Рroposer1):
– представляет утверждающую команду; –
формулирует тему дебатов;
– объясняет ключевые понятия;
– заявляет позицию своей команды;
– представляет все аргументы команды;
– заканчивает четкой формулировкой общей линии.
|
4 мин.
|
Good afternoon, Honorable Jury, Time-Keeper. Good afternoon, dear
colleagues.
Let me introduce myself and my team. I am Alena M., the first speaker. The
second speaker in our team is Alex S. and the third speaker is Nikita S.
The problem of smoking is really serious nowadays and 75% of the teachers
and pupils questioned stated that they share our opinion. This shows that
more and more people understand the importance of the problem. Our team
presents the points for the motion of the debate.
We’d like to begin with the definition of the words smoking and punishment.
There are some different definitions but we suggest that we should follow
the definitions given in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.
It defines smoking as the activity of breathing in tobacco smoke from
a cigarette, pipe etc.
Punishment – something that is done in order to punish someone, or
the act of punishing them. Our team think that smoking is dangerous and it
should be punished. We have found a lot of facts that can justify our
arguments.
Our fist point is that smoking deserves punishment because it does
a lot of harm to people’s health and kills about 3 million people every year.
Smoking causes bronchial troubles, heart disease and lung cancer. Statistics
shows that smokers are 22 times more likely to die of lung cancer than
non-smokers. In fact, 30% of all cancer deaths are caused by smoking. But
nicotine is not the only bad thing in cigarettes, there are over 400
chemicals in one cigarette that are known to be harmful. So, a smoker really
suffers harm breathing in tobacco smoke.
More than that, 35% of all heart-disease deaths are caused by smoking. By
the way, heart disease is now the number-one killer in our country. Besides,
nicotine is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Seven out of ten smokers want
to quit but can’t. Many people think they can easily give up smoking whenever
they decide on. That’s hardy possible. There is also psychological dependence
on smoking. The cigarette enables a person to concentrate or to relax
depending on a situation. But, nevertheless, serviceability decreases with
the number of smoked cigarettes. Thus, smoking is dangerous for people’s
health and it should be considered as evil to be punished.
Our second argument in favour of the motion is that smoking breaks
non-smokers’ rights. In our everyday life we often communicate with smokers
and whether we want it or not, we have to breath in the smell of tobacco
around us. It is known that smoking is more dangerous for so-called passive
smokers because it does a lot of harm to their health although they are
unwilling to do it. So, we believe everyone should have the right not to be a
passive smoker.
Smoking is officially banned in all public places in 114 countries. Russia joined them about two years ago. Nowadays people are not allowed to smoke on board
the plane, in buses, on the trains, in school, theatres, cinemas etc. This
fact shows that these governments understand the importance of the problem
and take certain measures to protect non-smokers’ rights.
Our third argument for the motion is that smoking is economically
unprofitable. Needless to say, smokers spend a great deal of money buying
cigarettes every day. An average smoker spends about 500 roubles a month. The
cheaper cigarettes are, the more dangerous they are. So, a person who chooses
less dangerous cigarettes should spend more money buying them.
Then, a smoker has to spend a lot of money buying medicine in case he has
trouble with his health. All our findings speak for the motion that smoking
is evil and it deserves punishment. We think it is true and we’ve done our
best to justify it.
|
|
3.
|
Тайм-кипер:
-напоминает о времени;
-предлагает взять тайм-аут отрицающей
команде.
|
0, 5 мин.
|
Time is up. Thank you. Now the floor is given to the second team. Would
you like to take time-out to discuss questions to the speaker?
|
|
4.
|
Тайм-аут
отрицающей команды.
|
2 мин.
|
Оpposer3: Yes, I’d like to take
time-out for
2 minutes.
Обсуждают вопросы в команде.
|
|
5.
|
Тайм-кипер:
-напоминает о времени;
-переходит к первому раунду вопросов.
|
0, 5 мин.
|
Time is up. I welcome Kate T. Your questions, please. Time:
1,5 min.
|
|
6.
|
Третий спикер отрицающей команды (Оpposer
З) задает перекрестные вопросы первому спикеру
утверждающей команды (Рroposer1)
с целью принизить значение аргументов Р1.
|
1,5 мин.
|
I раунд вопросов.
The speaker claims that smoking does a lot of harm to people’s health and
it should be punished. But would the speaker answer some questions?
- What sources of information did you use?
- Are they reliable/official?
- Do any of your close relatives smoke? How long? Do they
have any problem with health (I mean heart disease, lungs, bronchial
troubles)?
- Do your friends smoke? What would you do in case they
smoke next to you? Рroposer1 отвечает на вопросы
|
|
7.
|
Тайм-кипер:
-передает слово отрицающей команде.
|
0, 5 мин.
|
Time is up. Thank you. The motion is
opposed by the second team. The floor is given to Dimy S. Time: 4 min.
|
|
8.
|
Третий спикер отрицающей команды
(Оpposer1):
– представляет команду; – отрицает тему,
формулирует тезис отрицания;
– принимает определение, предложенное
утверждающей командой;
– опровергает аргументы и выдвигает
контраргументы;
– заканчивает четкой формулировкой общей
линии команды.
|
4 мин.
|
Good afternoon, Honourable Jury, Time-Keeper and dear colleagues! I’d
like to introduce myself and our team. I’m Dimy S., the first speaker. This
is Eugene K., the second speaker and Kate T. is our third
speaker. We agree
on the definitions given by the speaker and we’ll try to follow them in
general. But we can’t agree on the motion of the debate.
Firstly, as my honorable friend Alena has said smoking does a lot
of harm to people’s health and therefore it deserves punishment. The speaker
gave convincing examples to support the points for the motion. But these are
not the only justifications to be considered, however.
To return to this point, I dare to say that smoking doesn’t do much harm
to people’s health and we can give you some opposite justifications. To begin
with, there is no accurate information about a definite link between smoking
and the number of smokers died of lung cancer, heart disease or bronchial
troubles. The data published in the Internet can’t be reliable because they
are not checked.
Then, smoking doesn’t deserve punishment as it is not evil. It helps
people to relax and it’s excellent for relieving stress, there. Besides,
smoking promotes to becoming slim. What is more, there are some “safe”
cigarettes with filter that have a low level of nicotine (such as Winston, Salem).
It follows from this that smoking doesn’t do much harm to people’s health.
The second argument doesn’t seem to be convincing either. The
speaker has said that a smoker breaks a non-smoker’s rights while smoking
near the latter. But on the other hand, if people don’t like the smell of
tobacco and don’t want to damage their health, they can leave the room or
step aside. And what about smokers? They have the right to smoke and when smoking
is banned in public places they suffer greatly because they have no choice
and it is as punishment for them. That’s why we think that governments break
smokers’ rights as well. So, smoking does not deserve punishment because both
smokers and non-smokers break each other’s rights.
The third argument is not true. As my dear friend Alena claims,
smoking is economically unprofitable. On the contrary, we can give some
opposite facts.
Due to statistics, tobacco in grown in 120 countries and the tobacco industry
has been successfully developing nowadays. That is why, firstly, smoking is
economically profitable for tobacco producers. The more tobacco they produce,
the more profit they get. For example, company Marlboro had an income of 30
billion dollars in 2006. Secondly, the tobacco industry provides many people
with jobs. Statistics shows that 600 000 people are involved in the
process of growing tobacco and about 100 000 people are involved in the
process of cigarette production. Besides, many people are busy transporting
and selling cigarettes and tobacco.
Furthermore, smoking is profitable for any state as it collects great
taxes. And our new counter-argument is that it’s absurd to suggest we
ban smoking after so many hundreds of years. It is historically excused.
The most important conclusion to be drawn from all these
findings is that smoking doesn’t deserve punishment because there is no basis
for being accused.
|
|
9.
|
Тайм кипер:
-напоминает о времени;
-предлагает взять тайм- аут утверждающей
команде.
|
0, 5 мин.
|
Time is up. Thank you. Now the floor is given to the second team. Would
you like to take time-out to discuss questions to the speaker?
|
|
10.
|
Тайм-аут
утверждающей команды.
|
2 мин.
|
Proposer 3: Yes, I’d like to take time-out for 2
minutes. Обсуждают вопросы в команде.
|
|
11.
|
Тайм спикер:
-переходит ко второму раунду вопросов.
|
0, 5 мин.
|
Your time out is over. Welcome with your questions, please. Time: 1, 5
min.
|
|
12.
|
Третий спикер утверждающей команды (Р3) задает перекрестные вопросы первому спикеру отрицающей команды (О1)
с целью принизить значение аргументов О1.
|
1,5 мин.
|
II раунд вопросов. The
speaker was trying to change our minds saying that smoking doesn’t deserve
punishment. But I’d like to hear the answers to the following questions.
- Do you know if tobacco companies hold any charity
activities?
- If smoking is so profitable, then why Russia
is not among the highly-developed countries?
- Do you have any information if a long period of
non-smoking has negative effect on smokers’ health (for example, on the
plane)? Оpposer1 отвечает на вопросы.
|
|
13.
|
Тайм спикер
объявляет выступление второго cпикера. утверждающей команды.
|
0, 5 мин.
|
Time is up. Thank you.
The floor is given to the second speaker of the proposing team.
|
|
14.
|
Второй спикер утверждающей команды (Р2).
|
3 мин.
|
– опровергает аргументы, выдвинутые О1;
– приводит новые доказательства в защиту
аргументов команды (новых аргументов не приводит).
|
|
15.
|
Тайм-кипер:
-напоминает о времени;
-предлагает взять тайм-аут отрицающей
команде.
|
0, 5 мин.
|
Time is up. Thank you. Now the floor is given to the opposing team. Would
you like to take time-out to discuss the questions to the speaker?
|
|
16.
|
Тайм-аут отрицающей команды.
|
1 мин.
|
Opposer 1: Yes, I’d like to take one-minute-
time-out. Обсуждают вопросы в команде.
|
|
17.
|
Тайм- спикер
переходит к третьему раунду вопросов.
|
0, 5 мин
|
Your time out is over. Welcome with your questions, please. Time: 1, 5
min.
|
|
18.
|
Первый спикер отрицающей команды (О1) задает вопросы второму спикеру утверждающей команды (Р2).
|
1,5 мин.
|
III раунд вопросов.
О1 задает перекрестные вопросы Р2 с целью
принизить значение аргументов и доказательств Р2.
Рroposer 2
отвечает на вопросы.
|
|
19.
|
Тайм кипер
объявляет выступление второго cпикера. отрицающей команды.
|
0, 5 мин.
|
Time is up. Thank you.
The floor is given to the second speaker of the opposing team.
|
|
20.
|
Второй спикер отрицающей команды (О2).
|
3 мин.
|
– опровергает аргументы, выдвинутые О1;
– приводит новые доказательства в защиту
аргументов команды (новых аргументов не приводит).
|
|
21.
|
Тайм-кипер:
-напоминает о времени;
-предлагает взять тайм-аут утверждающей
команде.
|
0, 5 мин.
|
Time is up. Thank you. Now the floor is given to the proposing team. Would
you like to take time-out to discuss the questions to the speaker?
|
|
22.
|
Тайм-аут
утверждающей команды
|
1 мин.
|
Proposer 1: Yes, I’d like to take one-minute-
time-out. Обсуждают вопросы в команде.
|
|
23.
|
Тайм - кипер
переходит к последнему раунду вопросов.
|
0, 5 мин.
|
Your time out is over. Welcome with your questions, please. Time: 1, 5
min.
|
|
24.
|
Первый спикер утверждающей команды (Р1) задает вопросы второму спикеру отрицающей команды (О2).
|
1,5 мин.
|
IV раунд вопросов.
Р1 задает перекрестные вопросы О2 с целью
принизить значение аргументов и доказательств.
Оpposer 2 отвечает на
вопросы.
|
|
25.
|
Тайм - кипер
объявляет выступление третьего cпикера. утверждающей команды.
|
0, 5 мин.
|
Time is up. Thank you.
The floor is given to the third speaker of the proposing team.
|
|
26.
|
Третий спикер утверждающей команды (Р3).
|
3 мин.
|
– акцентирует основные моменты дебатов,
следуя своим аргументам;
– проводит сравнительный анализ позиций
сторон по ключевым вопросам;
– объясняет, почему аргументы утверждения
более убедительны;
– не приводит новых аргументов;
– делает эффектное заключение.
|
|
27.
|
Тайм - кипер
объявляет выступление третьего cпикера. отрицающей команды.
|
0, 5 мин.
|
Time is up. Thank you.
The floor is given to the third speaker of the opposing team.
|
|
28.
|
Третий спикер отрицающей команды (О3).
|
3 мин.
|
– акцентирует узловые моменты, следуя
структуре отрицающего кейса;
– проводит сравнительный анализ позиций
сторон по ключевым вопросам;
– объясняет, почему приводимые его командой
аргументы более убедительны;
– делает эффектное заключение.
|
|
29.
|
Тайм кипер
объявляет о закрытии дебатов.
|
0, 5 мин.
|
Time is up. Thank you very much for your
participation. The
honorable Jury is going to announce the results of the debate and tell us
whose arguments were more convincing so that we could know the winner.
|
|
30.
|
Жюри объявляет
результаты дебатов.
|
2 мин.
|
|
Оставьте свой комментарий
Авторизуйтесь, чтобы задавать вопросы.