正方陈词： Hello everyone! We are here now debating about whether environment protection or economy growth should take priority in China. Our opinion is that economy growth should be put first. I have four reasons to support this view. Firstly, a complicated and deep change of international situation is happening nowadays. The security situation around our country is becoming worse and worse. To survive in such a special stage, we should persist in the policy of “Everything serves for the economy development.” Only in this way can we ensure the prosperity and peace of our nation. Secondly, according to the basic state of our country, China is still a developing country with a lot of social, political and economical problems such as high rate of unemployment, the loss of faith, dear price of houses and other life materials. All of these problems must be solved by virtue of developing economy. Thirdly, economy growth doesn’t necessarily conflict with environment protection. We can develop our economy without environment pollution. Fourthly, when our economy strength becomes strong, we can spend more money and energy on environment protection, till then it will be a win-win. In a word, considering the current situations, economy growth should take priority in China.

反方陈词：We agree economic growth is needed. But think about the past decades, we followed the old model of “first pollution, last treatment”, however, how did it come out? The environment problems have become increasingly prominent, and some local regions’ environment has been polluted to a dangerous extent that poses a great threat to our existence. What’s more, the cost was too high and the effect was not up to much. By this means, it placed us in a completely passive position. At the same time the people started voicing new values: quality of life, urban conservation and the environment. So, we must get to the bottom of the problem and learn from the past. That is, in the course of development, we should consider the effect of pollution and receive environment protection in first priority. Only in this way can we solve the environmental problems in the future reasonably. That’s all I want to say.

正方二辩：We all know that in many places of China like many poor countries, the environment is pretty good, but there are thousands of people lack of money ,food, and other In rural areas poverty leads to a lack of the basics: food, water, primary schools, simple health care. need to live. Then, opponent debaters, do you think we still need to develop our economies?

反方二辩：But opponent debaters can’t ignore the fact that most areas of China have solved the problem of food and clothing at present . Furthermore, the level of economic development in many cities in eastern China is very high .But the pollution is pretty serious accordingly. We have money, but being under the sub health condition. Does it make any sense, opponent debaters?

正方二辩：There do exist some eastern cities whose economy is quite developed, but

you forget that China has 130 million people. The eastern cities can’t stand for the whole China. We know that environment protection need high-technology, High-tech personnel, and science research. They all need a lot of money, and money is created by economy. I want to ask my fellow debater that can we protect our environment well without strong economy strength.

反方二辩：Environmental protection needs economy . But we can’t sacrifice the environment for the economic growth. If you drink polluted water, eat the toxic food, can we have a high quality of life? Economic development must be on the premise of environmental protection. The policy of “returning farmland to forests and grass” slow down the speed of economic development to protect the environment. Doses it show that the environmental protection is more important?

正方三辩：Opponent debaters have referred the returning farmland to forest policy. We admit our country has paid a lot of money for the environment even sacrificing the profit .But we should still take economic construction as the central task.

反方三辩： Excuse me, my fellow debaters. If economic development receives priority then it is likely to cause the environmental costs to be larger than the economic efficiency, such economy develops or backs up?

正方三辩： This kind of situation is there truly, but not every moment. The situation in each industry is different; we cannot draw conclusions from one part. But according to your point, in this case the economic benefit is negative, then if we changed environment first, we can turn it into profit? I don't think so. The responsibility of economic development is to let people enjoy a rich life, including the basic necessities and entertainment, isn't it now the people's universal desire?

反方： People’s expectation is not necessarily that good. I believe that people tend to live in a life of happiness, and at the same time, survive in a healthy and harmonious natural environment.

反方总结陈词：Nowadays , our demands on materials are basically satisfied , so our central goal is life in good quality . What we need is a happy and comfortable life environment, in which people can enjoy beautiful scenery, drink clean water, breathe clean air and have a healthy body. In order to reach this goal, we have to delay economic growth sometimes .Since environment condition is so serious, economic delays in a short time do no matter; compared with environment delays .So we think environment protection should receive priority.

正方总结陈词：Nowadays, environmental protection has become the hottest(热门的) topic all around the globe. Not only the governments, but also enterprises企业 and individuals have paid their great attention to it. However, we have to admit that we are living in a realistic society, and there are too many goals that we're not able to achieve

effectively without enough funds, in which, unfortunately, environmental protection is included. Environmental protection and pollution control have high requirements for high-tech and top talents. Without these supports, the process of one pollution control may not only be effectiveness, but also become the cause of another pollution.

 

第二篇：经济发展与环境保护辩论赛

辩论赛：经济发展和环境保护应何者优先？

正方：环境保护应优先于经济发展

反方：经济发展应优先于环境保护

反方一辩陈述本方观点：从人类发展的终极目标看，我们要彻底地解决环境问题，

必须要标本兼治。要治本，必须优先发展经济，从根本上优化经济结构堵住

产生环境问题的源头，要治标，同样要优先发展经济，为解决眼前的环境问

题提供技术、资金等支持，只有这样，才能为人类生存和发展提供环境保障。

正方一辩陈述本方观点：经济发展是指社会能够提供丰裕的商品来改善人类的物

质生活,环境保护则是采取一定的政策措施来保护生态平衡。经济要发展意味

着企业需要更多的厂房与原材料来保障商品的供应——那便存在一个问题：

自然分给人类的土地与原材料是有限,经济优先发展就一定会侵占原本不属

于人类的自然资源。

二辩手盘问 ：请问对方一辩，经济是一时之事，环境是万代之事，哪个重要？

经济发展慢了，人们还可以吃到饭，环境没了，还能生存吗？

反方一辩：不好意思对方辩友，恐怕我们今天讨论的重点是优先权。并不是说经

济优先就不搞环保了，只是环保处于较次的位置，跟中国现状一样，政策虽

然说要重视环保，但一般县区还是经济发展优先的，也就有资本的大城市才

比较重视搞环保，相信大家心知肚明

正方二辩：请问正方三辩，如果发展经济优先的话，很可能造成环境成本大于经

济效益的情况，这样的经济是发展还是倒退？

反方三辩：这种情况确实有存在，但并不是每时每刻都存在。各个行业情况不同，

我们不能以偏概全。但按你的意思，这种情况下经济效益是负的，那我们改

行环境保护优先，就能转亏为盈？我不这么觉得。

反方四辩补充发言：

反方二辩： 我们知道环境的保护是预防为主，防治结合，而预防和治理都要依

靠技术的发展，那请问对方一辩，如果没有强有力的经济基础支持科学技术

发展，那么以科技为支撑的环保从何谈起呢？

正方一辩：你的问题未免抽象了点。科技发展无止尽，经济发展也没尽头，什么

时候算得上是“强有力”呢？但是环境保护是迫在眉睫，耽误不起。

反方二辩：请问反方三辩，经济发展是让人们享受到丰富的生活内容，包括衣食

住行娱乐，这难道不是现在社会上人们的普遍愿望吗？

正方三辩：人们喜欢的期望的不一定都是好的。我相信，人们更倾向于在一个既

能享受到生活乐趣，同时又是一个健康和谐自然的环境中生存。

正方四辩补充发言：我们生活的环境，我们的子孙后代也要在这里生活。我们发

展经济破坏了环境，有些破坏是无法弥补的，是对子孙后代的犯罪。现在世

界各国都已高度重视可持续发展战略的研究，大力发展绿色工业，无公害产

业。我国是具有悠久历史和文明的大国，在发展经济过程中更应该重视环境

保护，为子孙后代留下美好的生活空间。

正方二辩小结：发展经济必须保护环境是自然规律的要求。经济发展过程中，如

果自然环境受到了严重损害，那么我们将受到自然的严厉惩罚。重大的洪涝

灾害都是破坏环境造成的必然结果。在抗洪救灾中消耗的人力、物力、财务

恐怕已超过了牺牲环境的经济发展成果。自然规律是无情的，谁侵犯了它谁

将受到它的报复。我们必须高度重视发展经济过程中保护自然环境和社会环

境。

反方二辩小结：

自由辩论正方一辩：请问对方辩友，原始社会的人类祖先们环境保护工作做

得可谓好了吧，而他们经济发展很落后，所所以才一直过着钻木取火、茹毛

饮血的生活，按你们的意思我们应该回归这种生活吗？

正方一辩：人类祖先确实需要发展经济，但若是在这个过程中砍完了森林，污染

了河流，使衣食都不再有保障，恐怕也无法发展下去了。我想问的是，核电

站是经济发展的产物，但众所周知，几次核电站的泄漏带来了环境的极度恶

化，请问你怎么看？

反方二辩：首先，我方并没有承诺经济发展就一定会破坏到环境；其次，对方所

说的情况只是凤毛麟角；第三，核电站泄漏是科技不力，而经济是科学研究

的基础。

正方二辩：但是核电站可以再建，那些污染了的土地和地下水怎么办？没有了这

些，我们的生活怎么办？你愿意生活在核电站附近，还是一片山清水秀之

间？

反方三辩：但是对方辩友请注意，核电站的建造，正是为了千千万万人类的生活

用电得到满足。有了电，我们的机器可以运作，生产可以兴起，环境总会有

办法弥补，我也想问，你愿意生活在两小时停一次电的地方还是用电无忧之

处？

正方三辩：你的意思是破坏了环境然后再去弥补。为什么要先污染后治理？为什

么要兜这么大一个圈子呢？而且我国的经济建设里程已经证明，先污染后治

理是错的，行不通的。

反方四辩：我不得不说我方真冤枉。是你给的前提，说核电站泄漏了，严重污染

了环境，而我方坚信是可以挽救的。而且事实上，包括核电站在内的很多工

业厂子，都种有青草绿树，他们在搞经济的同时，并没有放弃环境的保护。

正方四辩：但是仅仅不放弃就可以吗？再怎么注意也无法保证无污染，这样日积

月累下来，依然会是一片惨状。必须把环境保护放在第一位，每个工厂都严

抓，才能从根本上阻止环境的恶化。

反方三辩：对方辩友请从事实出发，经济发展必然会付出代价，我们已经在努力

使代价降到最低。

正方三辩：降低应该有个标准吧，这不是你我能定的，是自然环境定的，等到他

揭示这个标准时，只怕为时已晚了。

四辩总结

反方四辩：首先，我是一个支持环保的人，拥有一个健康的生态环境是可持续发

展得以进行的前提。但是，如果一味的保护环境，而忽视经济发展，那么对

于经济的发展不利，对于人们生活水平的提高也同样不利。同时，我也必须

强调，经济发展绝对不是破坏环境，那样的发展，也是违背自然规律的。在

发展经济的同时，我们要兼顾治理环境，才是当今可持续发展经济的理念。

正方四辩：过去的发展道路走的就是先污染后治理的模式，结果呢，环境问题突

出，局部地区已经到了威胁生存的程度：再者，先污染后治理的模式不但成

本高，而且治理效果也不理想，处于一种被动的境地。因此，必须从源头开

始防止污染，也就是发展过程首先考虑对环境的影响，只有这样，才能有望

在将来解决环境问题。