Should people improve their appearance through plastic surgery? Should or shouldn’t? It’s a question. But I and all of my teammates hold the view that it’s not really necessary. As the development of economics, more and more people enjoy a happier life with beautiful clothes, delicious foods, all kinds of transportation tools and so on. In recent years, plastic surgery is getting more and more popular. As a result, the question should people improve their appearance by cosmetic means is hot discussed. Should people have a liposuction to dissolve fat? Can people have a face-lift to remove the crow’s-feet around one’s eyes? Is it necessary to change your looks to get a good job? Such questions are asked, here, my answer is no. First and most importantly, as we are ready for an operation, few of us realize that we are facing a terrible fight despite the high medical technology. Once failed, not only you will get more and more ugly, but also it does damage to your physical body. Second, it takes plenty of time to complete and costs a lot of money. What's more, it can even make people get lost in it. From then on, people are addicted to it and have no interests in doing the other things. It’s so terrible! Yes or no? Third, it’s not really necessary. After the plas tic surgery, you might look gorgeous, but it’s against nature, it won’t be the real one as you are. If you get more beautiful after the plastic surgery, then you will get more and more concerned about your appearance day after day until you are breakdown. Honestly, with surgery, you may get to be a beauty, but, it can give you confidence and encourage only some time but not the whole life time. When you are looking for a good job, no one can deny the fact that ability counts more any time and any where. So please be yourself, learn to be satisfied with your natural appearance. Believe yourself, and you are your best self. In summary, I and all my teammates firmly take stoke in that people needn’t improve their appearance through plastic surgery. That’s all, thank you. If someone improves their appearance by cosmetic means, then it’s undoubtedly that you are telling others, I am ugly and I’m short of confidence. Also, plastic surgery needs a large number of time, energe and medical expenses. Having plastic surgery is running a risk. Even just a small operation will have the wounds .And as changes with age, the scar which the plastic surgery brings will gradually reveal. So, keeping the man-made beauty all lifetime may not come true. In a word, it’s no use to have the plastic surgery.
辩论赛反方总结陈词 辩论赛Fan方总结陈词 的竞争与合作的机会.Xian代社会到底是竞争多于合作还是合作多于竞争? Wo觉得是竞争多于合作. 竞争是一个国家、一个Min族赖以生存和发展的永恒动力。一个国家、一个Min族没有竞争，就没有进步，没有发展。一Ge人没有竞争的压力，也就没有前进的动Li。当今世界，当今社会是竞争的世界，竞争的社Hui。市场经济就是竞争的经济，市场经济的核心He基本原则就是竞争。 竞争从内涵上讲: Shi指人们为自身利益所进行的争夺、较量，Huo参加公开竞赛。竞争的结果是优胜劣汰。Ji优者胜，劣者败;胜者获利，败者失利。Zheng如达尔文生物进化论所说的那样: “Shi者生存，不适者淘汰。”可见，竞争是一种实力De较量，实力强者得以生存发展，实力弱Zhe被淘汰或灭亡;竞争也是智慧的较量，有才Neng者得胜利，平庸者遭失败。在现实生活中、Jing争无处不在，无时不有。如植物间争阳光、争水分、Zheng养料;动物间争地盘、争配偶、争食物;Qi业间争原料;争市尝争销售等。 特别是市Chang竞争不仅普遍存在，且有着不可避免的Ji烈性和残酷性。一个企业、一个单位能在竞争Jiao量中获胜，就能生存发展;反之，在竞争中失Li，则破产倒闭。 “物竟天则,适者生Cun”指明竞争才能导致强者生存,以至于社会的不断Jin步和发展.就在我们身边，媒体竞争愈演愈Lie，电波大战、报业大战、期刊大战、跨地Yu竞争、跨媒体竞争„„ NBA的赛场上,Jing争成为选拔球队的唯一方法,球员们筋Pi力尽为的是什么,就是为了与对手争个输赢,Fen个高下.从以上的例子中,我们能够深切体会竞Zheng在我们生活中的重要地位.我们说社会竞Zheng多于合作,并不是说合作就不存在.我们的社Hui中也存在着合作,只是小范围的合作,大范围的Jing争,竞争始终多于合作.如果合作压倒Jing争,你如此做我也照葫芦画瓢,社会将Wu法发展,人类将无法进步.没有竞争就不Hui有百家争鸣的盛世,不会有百花齐放的社会,更不Hui有幸福美好的未来. 竞争推动社会发展,推动Ren类进步.所以,我觉得现代社会是竞争大于He作,竞争大于合作也是现代社会发展的Bi然.
反方一辩： Respected judicators, Ladies and gentlemen, good evening! more.Our government side have proposed a radical solution to their problem: they want to ignore intellectual property, one of our most important constructs to encourage innovation. On the opposition, we believe the status quo of allowing a medicine company to patent something and profit from it is necessary for them to have an incentive and ability to create life-saving medicines now and in the future, and it is saving lives in the long-term that concerns us. Now I’d like to provide my This house would not abolish patents for life-saving medicines. For the first reason, it takes away the Incentive to Produce Life-saving medicines.Ron Pollack said,The pharmaceutical industry's repetitious cry that research and development would be curtailed if medicine prices are moderated is extraordinarily misleading. Yes, research and development costs money. Yet only 14% of pharmaceuticals' budgets go to research and development. Reports have linked "high medicine prices to advertising, profits and enormous executive salaries. The report documents that medicine companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration.” Firms are incentivized to undertake research in life-saving drugs because now they have a guaranteed return on their R&D investment. Regardless of the course of drug production and distribution they will be profit from their research. In addition , Scientists are principally motivated by the desire for peer recognition and also by the fact that they want to have achieved something more with their lives than reduce some teenager’s pimples by 30%. We are not dissuading research into live-saving illnesses we’re invigorating it by offering inciting profit that is tied to results and is cost-effective. Creating a brand new medicine requires enormous amounts of money and failed attempts, and therefore involves a large amount of risk. If a person can't be guaranteed some kind of control or return to that risk and expense, they are unlikely to want to invest in it. In particular, if a medicine company can make more money by patenting medicines that cure hair loss, they will take that option. For the second aspect, consequences of the loss of incentives is awful.Medicine companies are trying to develop cures for cancer, diabetes and more, and will likely want to develop more cures for illnesses that come up in the future, as they did for swine flu, if they can get a return on the investment. If there is not a significant return to investment, a company will not bother to continue to research and develop these medicines. Even if the current medicines were released for generic development, lack of future medicines would cost far more lives in the long run, and save money on alternative treatments. Furthermore, most things that cause illness, such as viruses and bacteria, develop so that they can resist medicines. We have seen this in the case of the increased ineffectiveness of antibiotics. Prop wants to change the focus of medicine production from the development of new medicines to the cheaper production of medicines that already exist. This will happen because any start-up company or investor in the medicines industry will see that it is cheaper to simply create the medicines, rather than put money into research and development, which is the most expensive part of the medicines creation process. If there is a greater focus on this, then less new medicines will be created to combat the illnesses. This structure begins to look very flawed as the illnesses develop resistances to old medicines. There needs to be a continuing incentive to create new medicines for any illness, not to simply focus on old medicines being created in larger, cheaper amounts. It is worth slightly more expensive medicines if new innovation is constantly able to happen. medicines,thus,abolishing patents for life-saving medicines seems to save more lives at the beginning, it would kill more lives in the long run.