21世纪英语报刊阅读精品和辩论题目

21世纪英语报刊阅读精品和辩论题目

A CLASS assignment at a Guangzhou university has provoked controversy after local press reported that a professor asked students to design a hypothetical plan to rob a bank.

The professor said the same assignment had been used at the Harvard Business School to train students how to manage human resources.

Many shocked commentators have criticized the assignment as absurd. They suggest that it may even encourage students to commit crime. Such a project wouldn't have any educational value, they argue. Others say that robbing a bank is not necessarily an innovative idea for a college class project; it only shows that the educator has run out of legitimate ideas and methods.

However, a greater number of other commentators support the project. They suggest that such unconventional methods will capture students' imaginations and make the class more interesting. Students, too, came to the professor's defense, saying it was a very inventive project from which they learned a lot.

Do you think this is a project that should be assigned to a college class?

Yes

It won't turn students into bank robbers. There's no need to make such a fuss over it.

1. College students are adults with a well-grounded sense of right and wrong. Simply being asked by a professor to write a plan for robbing a bank isn't going to provoke them to do carry it out.

2. Not every lesson in a college class has to be about morals or social values. Academic freedom means professors can give students assignments like this, as long as they are challenging and educational.

3. The main problem with the Chinese educational system is its lack of innovation and fresh ideas. Students have been taught for decades to simply recite and repeat. This project is an example of educational innovation and should be encouraged, not criticized.

No

There are better ways to be innovative in the classroom than designing a bank robbery.

1. A bank robbery, however hypothetical, usually involves violence. Although college students probably wouldn't carry out such an act, encouraging them to plan violence is inappropriate.

2. There are better ways to stimulate students' imagination and critical thinking. The fact that the professor chose this particular case means that he is not sensitive enough to the students' real needs.

3. Just because the assignment was used at a US college doesn't mean it's suitable for a Chinese university class. Borrowing "revolutionary" educational methods from abroad without adapting them to the situation in China can lead to problems.

hypothetical假设的

innovative创新的

legitimate合理的

recite背诵

Internet is no place for foul language

作者：SUSAN CHYN 时间：2008-03-26b 期号：747

PEKING University President Xu Zhihong recently organized a task force to help curb the use of rude language by students in online forums. The task force was set up in response to a series of incidents involving students who had written obscenities or spread vicious rumors.

We don't know what curse words actually tipped the scale–crossing the line from acceptable to unacceptable, but they were probably fairly offensive.

Still, even if we are talking about everyday, run-of-the-mill curse words, I question whether there is a need to use them online in a public forum.

Life is full of exasperating issues and annoying people. It's natural to want to vent a little in a chat room. But there are infinite ways to express one's displeasure without using profanity. Consider the verbal weapons of wit, humor and satire. Humor is my personal favorite, especially if I can make my audience laugh when I am making my point. And we would do well to remember that there are other activities that can help a person let off steam–working out, taking a long walk and singing.

When rude words appear in print, they jump off the page. There is something about the written word that is inexplicably powerful. This can happen at unexpected times, in multiple languages. Not too long ago I was reading a collection of anecdotes about global wine culture. One chapter was devoted to the wines of Ukraine–their rich toasting traditions and their toastmasters–the tamada.

In Ukraine, a tamada plays an important role at banquets, acting as sort of master of ceremonies. I laughed when I read this, but it was also very disturbing, because I kept thinking of the similar Chinese word, tamade. Reading obscene language bothers us because it is, somehow, offensive. Instinctively, we know these words are taboo and are better left unsaid.

Some years ago I was asked to teach Chinese to a class of third graders. A few of the boys kept asking how to say various curse words in Chinese. One of them already knew the "F-word" in Chinese and kept saying the phrase again and again. The boys were quite excited, and I wasn't able to explain how offensive it was to hear an 8-year-old say this phrase.

Obscene language may be exhilarating to write, but that feeling is rarely shared by the reader. University students enjoy many freedoms. Using obscene language in public forums does not need to be one of them.

---------------------------------------

anecdote轶事

exasperating激怒人的

exhilarating爽快的

obscenity 猥亵的话

profanity咒骂

satire讽刺

taboo禁忌

vicious恶意的

Bonus

jump off the page 惹眼

The photo of that movie star who loves to dress in crazy clothes jumped off the page of the newspaper.

那位衣着奇特的影星的照片在报纸上非常惹眼。

let off steam 发泄

leave him alone. He is just letting off steam by shouting in the meeting room.

别管他，他在会议室里大喊大叫只不过是发泄罢了。

run-of-the-mill 普通的

Though the pay is OK, he thinks his run-of-the-mill job as a civil servant is not exciting enough. 虽然薪水还不错，但他还是觉得当一个普通的公务员太没劲

婚前性行为是件坏事吗?(英语辩论题目)

作者：21ST 时间：2008-04-16 期号：750

More than 100 students signed up for an unconventional class at Zhejiang University last week. Instead of listening to lectures, students at the two-day session participated in group discussions and "metaphor" games. They watched video materials, all aimed at persuading them to refrain from premarital sex.

The organizers of the "chastity" seminar said it encouraged students to discuss and debate the consequences of premarital sex. They hoped students would also develop a greater awareness of the threat of AIDS and learn about alternatives to premarital sex. Two dozen students signed up directly and more than 100 registered by text message.

News about this seminar gave rise to fierce debate online. Supporters say such seminars serve as helpful counterweight to the wave of "sexual liberty" that has changed many young Chinese in recent years. They say the seminars can teach them to behave responsibly. Opponents argue

that such seminars represent an outdated view of sex. They say they may impinge on young people's natural right to have sex.

Do you think "chastity seminars" are good for college students?

Yes

The threat of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases is real. Such seminars help young people protect themselves.

1. Such seminars don't just discourage premarital sex; they also teach students about responsible and safe sex. This is very useful knowledge, and for this purpose alone such seminars is positive.

2. Many seriously negative social phenomena have come about because people are having sex at increasingly younger ages these days. They often lack an adequate understanding of what they are doing. If college students voluntarily signed up for the seminar, they probably wanted to learn something about sex.

No

Such seminars unfairly confuse responsible sex with unsafe and irresponsible sex.

1. College students are adults who have sexual needs. As long as they understand their responsibilities, they can make their own choices about whether to have sex or not. This seminar conveys a conservative message to today's young people.

2. Encouraging young people to avoid having sex before marriage will only make them more curious and obsessed with it. It is natural for some college students to try sex; at the same time, they should learn about responsibility and protection.

chastity 贞节

impinge撞击

metaphor 隐喻

obsess 使困扰

premarital 婚前的

Expressions

counterweight n.平衡物

This negative review is a counterweight to the praise the book has won since publication. 那篇负面的评论是对这本书出版以来所赢得的褒扬的平衡。

refrain from 避免

Though she is curious about his past, she refrains from asking too many questions. 尽管她对他的过去很好奇，但她尽量避免问他过多的问题。

辩论题目大全

个人的命运是由个人掌握 网络经济是泡沫经济 高校产业化利大于弊 人和自然可以和谐相处 企业用人才为先 企业用人才为先 在校大学生创业利大于弊 便利器具便利 发掘人才需要考试 民族技艺应该保密 理想人才以仁为主 网络对大学生的影响利大于弊 金钱的追求与道德可以并行 杜绝盗版， 杜绝盗版，消费者扮演比政府更重要的角色 个性需要刻意追求 宽松式管理对大学生利大于弊 留学归国是个人问题不是社会问题 通俗文学比文学名著影响大 网络的娱乐性比实用性强 网络的发展对文学弊大于利 相处容易相爱难 外来文明对中国文明利大于弊 青年成才的关键是自身能力 环境保护应该以人为本 企业发展需要无私奉献精神 成大事者不拘小节 审判时参考判例在我国利大于弊 杜绝盗版， 杜绝盗版，政府比消费者扮演更重要的角色 送子女进名校， 送子女进名校，利大于弊 避免人才外流，是政府的责任 避免人才外流，是政府的责任 爱的教育比体罚更有效

个人的命运是由社会掌握 网络经济不是泡沫经济 高校产业化弊大于利 人和自然不能和谐相处 企业用人德为先 在校大学生创业弊大于利 便利器具不便利 发掘人才不需要考试 民族技艺不应该保密 理想人才以智为主 网络对大学生的影响弊大于利 金钱的追求与道德可以并行 杜绝盗版， 杜绝盗版，政府扮演比消费者更重要的角色 个性不需要刻意追求 个性不需要刻意追求 宽松式管理对大学生弊大于利 留学归国是社会问题不是个人问题 文学名著比通俗文学影响大 网络的实用性比娱乐性强 网络的发展对文学利大于弊 相爱容易相处难 外来文明对中国文明弊大于利 青年成才的关键是外部机遇 环境保护应该以自然为本 企业发展不需要无私奉献精神 成大事者也拘小节 审判时参考判例在我国弊大于利 杜绝盗版， 杜绝盗版，消费者比政府扮演更重要的角色 送子女进名校， 送子女进名校，弊大于利 避免人才外流， 避免人才外流，不是政府的责任 体罚比爱的教育更有效

合作比竞争， 合作比竞争，更能使文明进步 天灾比人祸更可怕 重奖大学新生利大于弊 以暴制暴是打击恐怖主义最有效的途径 文化建设应先于经济发展 大学私营化的利大于弊 强权胜于公理 新闻价值比新闻道德重要 劳心者比劳力者对社会更有贡献 男性比女性更需要关怀 银行合并对国家未

来经济发展利大于弊 教育应注重人格培训多于知识培训 博彩事业的兴旺是社会进步繁荣的象征 道义比利益对人际关系的影响更大 性教育是科学教育 性教育应列为中学课程 全球化能为我国带来经济发展 新闻自由是社会改革的最大动力 远亲不如近邻 相爱容易相处难 乱世应用重典 人的功利色彩增强是社会进步的体现 文才比口才更重要 文才比口才更重要 同性恋是个人问题， 同性恋是个人问题，不是社会问题 仁者无敌 电子商务将会改变现有营销模式 大学生谈恋爱利大于弊 实体法比程序法更重要 克隆人有利于人类发展 类似川剧变脸这样的民族技艺应当保密

竞争比合作， 竞争比合作，更能使文明进步 人祸比天灾更可怕 重奖大学新生弊大于利 以暴制暴不是打击恐怖主义最有效的途径 经济发展应先于文化建设 大学私营化的弊大于利 公理胜于强权 新闻道德比新闻价值重要 劳力者比劳心者对社会更有贡献 女性比男性更需要关怀 银行合并对国家未来经济发展弊大于利 教育应注重知识培训多于人格培训 博彩事业的兴旺不是社会进步繁荣的象征 利益比道义对人际关系的影响更大 性教育是道德教育 性教育不应列为中学课程 全球化不能为我国带来经济发展 新闻自由不是社会改革的最大动力 近邻不如远亲 相处容易相爱难 乱世不应用重典 人的功利色彩增强不是社会进步的体现 口才比文才更重要 同性恋是社会问题， 同性恋是社会问题，不是个人问题 仁者未必无敌 电子商务不会改变现有营销模式 大学生谈恋爱弊大于利 程序法比实体法更重要 克隆人不利于人类发展 类似川剧变脸这样的民族技艺不应当保密

名人拍商业广告可以虚构 代沟的主要责任在父母 社会安定主要靠法律维持 美丽是福不是祸 钱是万恶之源 网络的实用性比娱乐性大 情在理先 用和平手段可以遏止恐怖主义 真正的爱情一定是天长地久的 善心是真善 个性需要刻意追求 保护弱者是社会的倒退 传播中国酒文化应靠酒乡 市场经济条件下财政需要向企业输血 辩论赛新形式利大于弊 不破不立 “盗版 折价换购 正版 活动利大于弊 盗版”折价换购 正版”活动利大于弊 盗版 折价换购“正版 艾滋病是医学问题， 艾滋病是医学问题，不是社会问题 医学问题 在校大学生积累知识更重要 实现男女平等主要应该依靠男性的努力 在人生路上乘胜追击好 强将手下无弱兵 当今世界合作高于竞争 管理比收费重要 人类应加强对海洋资源的开发 功可以补过 广告竞争对经济发展利大于弊 纪律会促进个性的发展 机遇是成功的关键 革新技术更重要

名人拍商业广告不可以虚构 代沟的主要责任在子女

社会安定主要靠道德维持 美丽是祸不是福 钱不是万恶之源 网络的娱乐性比实用性大 理在情先 用和平手段不能遏止恐怖主义 真正的爱情不一定是天长地久的 善行是真善 个性不需要刻意追求 保护弱者不是社会的倒退 传播中国酒文化应靠“吆喝 传播中国酒文化应靠 吆喝” 吆喝 市场经济条件下财政不需要向企业输血 辩论赛新形式弊大于利 不立不破 “盗版 折价换购 正版 活动弊大于利 盗版”折价换购 正版”活动弊大于利 盗版 折价换购“正版 艾滋病是社会问题，不是医学问题 艾滋病是社会问题，不是医学问题 医学 在校大学生塑造人格更重要 实现男女平等主要应该依靠女性的努力 在人生路上见好就收好 强将手下未必无弱兵 强将手下未必无弱兵 当今世界竞争高于合作 收费比管理重要 人类应限制对海洋资源的开发 功不可以补过 广告竞争对经济发展弊大于利 纪律会限制个性的发展 机遇不是成功的关键 革新思想更重要

高分是高能的体现 法治能消除腐败 法律无情 发展旅游业利多于弊 对于西部开发应当知识优先 读大学， 读大学，长进最大的应该是知识 电视征婚利大于弊 地方保护主义可以克服 当今时代，应当提倡 干一行 爱一行” 干一行， 当今时代，应当提倡“干一行，爱一行 当代社会， 求博 求博“更有利于个人发展 当代社会，“求博 更有利于个人发展 代沟的主要责任在父母 大学生勤工俭学弊大于利 大学生就业实行“双项选择 利大于弊 大学生就业实行 双项选择”利大于弊 双项选择 大学生广泛社交利大于弊 大学生打工利大于弊 大学教育应以市场为导向 挫折有利于成才 实体法比程序法更重要 知足常乐 应对女性就业实行保护 应当允许名人免试就读名牌大学 经济发展应该以教育发展为前提 金钱追求与道德追求可以统一 经济发展可以避免自然环境恶化 经济发展水平的高低能代表文明程度的高低 克隆人有利于人类发展 类似川剧变脸这样的民族技艺应当保密 类似川剧变脸这样的民族技艺应当保密 理想人才以“仁 为主 理想人才以 仁”为主 流动人口的增加有利于城市的发展 留学生归国是个人问题， 留学生归国是个人问题，不是社会问题

高分不是高能的体现 法治不能消除腐败 法律有情 发展旅游业弊多于利 对于西部开发应当资金优先 读大学，长进最大的应该是人格 读大学， 电视征婚弊大于利 地方保护主义不可以克服 当今时代，应当提倡 爱一行 干一行” 爱一行， 当今时代，应当提倡“爱一行，干一行 当代社会， 求专 求专”更有利于个人发展 当代社会，“求专 更有利于个人发展 代沟的主要责任在子女 大学生勤工

俭利大于弊 大学生就业实行“双项造择 弊大于利 大学生就业实行 双项造择”弊大于利 双项造择 大学生广泛社交弊大于利 大学生打工弊大于利 大学教育不应以市场为导向 挫折不利于成才 程序法比实体法更重要 不知足常乐 不知足常乐 不应对女性就业实行保护 不应当允许名人免试就读名牌大学 教育发展应该以经济发展为前提 金钱追求与道德追求不可以统一 经济发展不能避免自然环境恶化 经济发展水平的高低不能代表文明程度的高低 克隆人不利于人类发展 类似川剧变脸这样的民族技艺不应当保密 理想人才以“智 为主 理想人才以 智”为主 流动人口的增加不利于城市的发展 留学生归国是社会问题， 留学生归国是社会问题，不是个人问题

名人拍商业广告可以虚构 目前的彩票发行方式利大于弊 男女平等是可能实现的 女性比男性更需要关怀 女性比男性更需要关怀 逆境有利人才成长 评价行为善恶的标准是效果， 评价行为善恶的标准是效果，不是动机 人类和平共处是一个可能实现的理想 人类社会应重义轻利 人类是环境的保护者 人为自己活着快乐 人性本善 儒家思想可以抵御西方歪风 社会发展应重利轻义 社会发展主要靠法制 个人需要对于大学生择业更重要 社会秩序的维系主要靠法律 社会主义市场经济能避免拜金主义 生态危机可能毁灭人类 实行学分制利大于弊 市场经济有利于道德发展 提倡购买国货有利于经济发展 外来文化对民族文化的发展利大于弊 外行能够管好内行 网恋能成为婚姻的有效途径 网络爱情是真正的爱情 网络影响人际关系 网络对大学生的的影响利大于弊 温饱是谈道德的必要条件 文凭能够代表知识水平 现代社会女人更需要关怀

名人拍商业广告不可以虚构 目前的彩票发行方式弊大于利 男女平等是不可能实现的 男性比女性更需要关怀 逆境不利人才成长 评价行为善恶的标准是动机，不是效果 评价行为善恶的标准是动机， 人类和平共处是一个不可能实现的理想 人类社会应重利轻义 人类是环境的破坏者 人为别人活着快乐 人性本恶 儒家思想不能抵御西方歪风 社会发展应重义轻利 社会发展主要靠德制 社会需要对于大学生择业更重要 社会秩序的维系主要靠道德 社会主义市场经济不能避免拜金主义 生态危机不可能毁灭人类 实行学分制弊大于利 市场经济不利于道德发展 提倡购买国货不利于经济发展 外来文化对民族文化的发展弊大于利 外行不可能管好内行 网恋不能成为婚姻的有效途径 网络爱情不是真正的爱情 网络不影响人际关系 网络对大学生的的影响弊大于利 温饱不是谈道德的必要条件 温饱不是谈道德的必

要条件 文凭不能够代表知识水平 现代社会男人更需要关怀

Staying in China or going aboard for education

Is Education Losing Its Value

better husband or better job

Money and personality, which one is more imporant

Five-day Work Week Better than Six-day Work?

Students Need to Watch TV or not

分类：

Philosophical debates： If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth? Does History Matter?

Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?

Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?

Can any man live without some code of morality?

Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Stem Cells: Why or why not

Debate:Why Reason?

Funny, maybe?

Are cats just useless dogs?

Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?

Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)

Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?

Other

Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?

Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?

Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?

Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment

Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?

Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings

Are beauty contests harmful?

正Beauty contests promote an ideal of female beauty to which only a minority of women can realistically aspire, but which adds to the pressure on all women to conform to it. This can be harmful to women by encouraging dieting, eating disorders and cosmetic surgery, or simply by making them feel inadequate and ugly.

Women in beauty contests are judged on their physical appearance rather than on any other qualities they may possess (the existence of a talent‘ element in many such contests is all very well, but ugly women simply aren‘t going to win). Judging women, but not men, primarily on their looks contributes to the subjugation of women because other qualities, such as intelligence, are not seen as part of ideal femininity and therefore not as things to which women should aspire. Ideal masculinity, while in itself potentially damaging to men, tends to be construed in much wider and less restrictive terms - it is notable that male beauty contests, judging men on their physical appearance, are much less popular than female ones.

The image of female beauty promoted by beauty contests is culturally specific and western - it doesn‘t matter how many Asian women win Miss World, they can still only do so if they take part in the swimsuit competition, which may well not be considered appropriate dress in their culture. There were demonstrations against Miss World by feminists and Hindu nationalists when it was held in Bangalore in 1996. Riots in Kaduna in northern Nigeria over Miss World 2002 left more than 200 dead and led to the contest being moved to London.

Beauty contests fail to challenge harmful political attitudes to women. Despite paying lip-service to feminist keywords such as empowerment and self-confidence, they do nothing concrete to aid the liberation of women; indeed, by reinforcing looks as the most important feminine quality, they harm women‘s liberation in general. The fact that the organisers of Miss World 2002 had no problem with holding the contest in Nigeria at the same time as a high-profile case in which a woman was due to be stoned for adultery exposes the competition‘s hypocrisy; it was only relocated after rioting made it unsafe to hold it in Nigeria.

反People enjoy beauty contests. Many women enjoy entering them. Many people enjoy watching them. Nobody is forced to do either. The beauty of a fit, healthy, well-proportioned human form is something from which we can all take pleasure, and beauty contests, along with other forms of art, are vehicles which enable us to do so.

There is nothing wrong with judging people primarily on their physical prowess - we do this all the time in competitive sport, where fitness and strength are major determinants of success. Every competition, of every kind, values certain qualities over others - we recognise that being able to lift heavy weights isn‘t the prime definition of human worth, but we can still give prizes for weightlifting; similarly, we can give a prize to a beautiful woman for her beauty without implying that beauty is all that matters about anyone.

Beauty contests, like sport, can be an important focus of national or regional pride. Despite the declining popularity of competitions such as Miss World in the UK, they hold an important cultural place in many parts of the world. The victories in recent years of Miss India, Miss Turkey and Miss Nigeria in Miss World competitions made many Indians, Turks and Nigerians proud, and were seen as symbolic of those countries‘ progress in competing with more powerful countries on their own terms.

In a society in which women really are valued on the basis of their looks, and in which there really are fewer opportunities for women than for men, beauty contests give women a chance to get noticed and to improve their situations. Winning a beauty contest can be a route to success. Many Hollywood actresses, such as Halle Berry, Michelle Pfeiffer and Sharon Stone, are former beauty queens who simply would not have had the opportunities they have had without the beauty contests they won. In addition, the winners of high-profile beauty contests are able to publicise charities and causes they feel strongly about - they have a public platform they could not otherwise have gained. 是否应该全面禁酒Should the sale and consumption of alcohol

Summary: Should the sale and consumption of alcohol – the world‘s favourite drug – be further restricted, or even banned?

Context

In almost all countries in the world, adults are allowed to buy and consume alcohol with very little

restriction (although there are often laws about the exact hours that bars and shops are allowed to sell alcohol, and laws against drinking and driving). This is in marked contrast to the legal situation with regard to other

mind-altering (or psycho-active‘) drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy, acid, and heroin. However, the

experience of Prohibition‘ in the USA in the 1920s and 1930s, when there was a huge black market in alcohol run

by a powerful criminal underworld, makes most people very wary of trying that solution again. In this debate the proposition can argue either for tighter restrictions or for complete prohibition. This debate is one that boils

down to a debate about what balance should be struck between the need to protect society on the one hand and the need to preserve individual liberties on the other.

正Alcohol is just as potentially addictive as many illegal drugs. Those who do become addicted to alcohol often lose their marriages, jobs, families, even their lives. A large proportion of homeless people find themselves in that position as a result of their alcoholism. Any drug this addictive and destructive should be illegal.

Alcohol is a contributory factor to a huge proportion of crimes. Exact figures vary from country to country, but in many countries alcohol is a contributory factor in 60-70% of violent crimes, including child abuse, domestic violence, sexual assault, and murder. Alcohol is far and away the leading cause of public disorder, street fights, etc. In short, alcohol is one of the prime causes of violence and crime in modern society, and its banning would reduce the incidence of these crimes at a strike.

Despite the fact that advertising campaigns such as those run in the UK over the past 30 years have been successful in reducing the incidence of drink driving, this success has not been mirrored in all countries. And even where it has, deaths and serious injuries caused by drunk drivers still run to the thousands each year. This is an unacceptable situation - alcohol should simply be banned.

We need consistency in our drug laws. If cannabis, which is not very addictive and which results in virtually no violent crime or public disorder, needs to be banned because of its mind-altering effects, then how much more so should alcohol be banned.

It is true that currently thousands of people are employed by the alcoholic drinks industry. However the fact that an immoral industry employs a lot of people is never a good argument to keep that immoral industry going (similar arguments apply to the cases of prostitution, arms dealing, fox hunting, battery farming, etc.) Instead, a gradual process would have to be implemented, which would include governments providing funding for training for alternative careers.

It is also true that tax revenues would be lost if alcohol were banned. However, again, this is not a principled reason to reject the proposition, simply a practical problem. It should be pointed out that governments would save a huge amount of money on police and health spending (through the reduction in crime and alcohol-related illness) which would go at least some of the way to offsetting the decreased tax revenues.

反 If one were sitting down to design the perfect society from scratch, one might be tempted not to allow the production and sale of alcohol, However, the main reason why the case of alcohol is different from that of other drugs is a social one rather than an empirical fact about the nature of the drug. Alcohol, unlike other drugs, is socially entrenched. It is an integral part of the social life and culture of most countries and to try to ban it is completely impractical. To criminalise billions of people around the world over night and create the biggest black market the world has ever seen (for the benefit of the criminal underworld) would be crazy.

Human beings are naturally inclined towards violence and conflict. Sex and violence are primal parts of our genetic make-up and we do not need alcohol to bring them to the surface. At worst, alcohol may slightly exaggerate these tendencies - but that makes it the occasion not the underlying cause of violent crimes. The underlying causes are biological and social. Making rape and murder illegal does not eradicate rape and murder, so it is unlikely that making drinking alcohol illegal will do so either.

The progress made against drink driving in recent decades has been very encouraging. We should continue to campaign against it and have every reason to hope that the current trend towards its eradication by a process of attitude-change and stigmatisation will continue. The fact that there are still some injuries and deaths is not a good enough reason to take away the civil liberties of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens by depriving them of the pleasure of drinking alcohol.

Yes, we should have consistent drug laws, which is why it is absurd for cannabis to be illegal. Cannabis and alcohol should both be legal drugs since the vast majority of people know how to use them safely and responsibly.

Not only would banning alcohol infringe people‘s civil liberties to an unacceptable degree, it would also put thousands of people out of work. The drinks industry is an enormous global industry. There are not good enough reasons for wreaking this havoc on the world economy.

Currently governments raise large amounts of revenue from taxes and duties payable on alcoholic drinks. To ban alcohol would take away a major source of funding for public services. In addition, the effect of banning alcohol would call for additional policing on a huge scale, if the prohibition were to be enforced effectively. If would create a new class of illegal drug-users, traffickers, and dealers on an unprecedented scale.

关于食品安全 Food labeling

Summary: Would warning labels on food make people eat better?

Context

Food is essential for your health: eat healthy food, and you will be healthier. Eat unhealthy food, and

you‘ll be a lot less healthy. Eating unhealthy food is closely linked to severe health risks and leads to the 21st

century‘s biggest public health problems. There is a global epidemic of obesity (being very overweight) and

diabetes is on the rise worldwide. The number one cause of death worldwide, cardiovascular disease (i.e. heart

failure) is also caused for the most part by an unhealthy diet.

But some say that eating well is not just eating healthily. Eating well is also eating sustainably. What this exactly means is still a little bit unclear: according to some, it means eating vegetarian food only. According to others it

means eating food which was produced in such a way that it released less carbon-dioxide. Still others say that it means only eating food which was produced under ―fair‘ labour conditions.

This means that when you are debating ―making people eat better‖, you need to be very careful about what

―better‖ actually means. Does it mean eating more healthily, more climate friendly, more animal friendly or…?

This casefile will focus mostly on healthy eating but many of the arguments will also be relevant for the other

possible definitions of ―eating better‖.

―Food labelling‖ is often proposed as the main solution to help people eat more healthily. The goal of food

labelling is to provide people with good information about the health-effects of the food they are eating. It is thought that providing this information will help people make better decisions about what food they buy and eat. Generally, there are two types of labelling proposed: one is the so-called ―traffic light system‖, the other is the ―GDA-system‖. The traffic light system would display traffic light colours for key ingredients of which we

should eat less, like sugar, fat and salts. The GDA-system (GDA = Guideline Daily Amounts) would display the

amount of a certain key ingredient per portion (e.g. ―2.1 grams of salt per serving‖), along with a percentage

which shows how that amount compares to the maximum what you should eat of that ingredient per day (the

guideline daily amount, e.g. ―23%‖). These two systems are often set against each other but there are also some systems which combine the two.

In this casefile, I will start by providing arguments about food labelling in general. After that, I will go into the arguments for and against each of the two labelling-systems.

正 Food labelling is an excellent way to make people eat better. People don‘t want to become obese and unhealthy, so if you provide them with the right information, they will make a different choice. To make sure the information is actually read, it needs to be clear, specific and understandable. It also needs to be visible at the moment of choosing to buy the product, so that consumers can actually pick an alternative.

People are able to make rational decisions, once they‘re given the relevant information. Take a look at smoking: a study by the World Bank has shown that the more educated someone is about the health risks of smoking, the more likely they are to quit. And they quit even though smoking is addictive and thus gives them a very powerful biological push to continue. If people can quit smoking, why should they be unable to start eating more healthily?

The information on a food-label can indeed be very complicated, but that‘s not an argument against food labelling per se. There are several proposals which aim to simplify this complex information, like for example the traffic light system and the GDA-system. These are simple labelling systems which can tell the consumer at a glance if something is healthy or not.

The impact of bad diet on people throughout the world is leading to a global health emergency. For the first time, teenagers in richer countries may now enjoy less healthy lives and may die younger than their parents. Not only is there a strong moral case to act to change the way people eat, unless something happens governments soon won‘t be able to afford the extra healthcare costs. Clearly banning certain foods or forcing people to eat more vegetables would be too harsh. But passing labelling laws will nudge people in the right direction and push food companies to provide healthier choices for fear of losing business.

The Traffic Light system is the best way to provide consumers with health information about food, because it provides very clear visual information which can help a consumer decide without having to read the fine print. Suppose you‘re choosing between two bags of potato chips, and one has ―red‖ and the other has ―orange‖. Without having to read percentages of fat and salt for each bag, you can immediately see that the one labelled orange is the better choice. It requires the least effort for consumers and will therefore be the most effective.

The GDA-system is the best way to provide consumers with health information about food because it allows consumers to understand how a portion of food will measure up to their Guideline Daily Amount. So, unlike the traffic light system, it won‘t lead to overeating of ―healthier‖ products because it provides more factual information. It says

clearly how much of your maximum recommended daily dose of sugar, fat and salts you will have eaten once you‘ve eaten this specific product, and will thus give you better information as to whether you should eat that second bag of chips or not.

The two systems (traffic and GDA) are not in competition. Combining them creates a system that carries the benefits of both systems and deals with the disadvantages of each system. It provides at-a-glance information, helping people make quick decisions, and it provides factual information, helping consumers to calculate their daily intake.

反 Food labelling is a pretty poor way of making people eat more healthily. The idea assumes that people actually read the label – which quite often, they don‘t. Reasons for this can vary: consumers might be in a hurry when buying groceries or don‘t understand the information. A lot of consumers don‘t really care enough about the long-term dangers of eating unhealthily and find it too much of a fuss.

Even if people would read the label, they probably won‘t change their behaviour. This is because humans are not very rational: they often sacrifice a longer term benefit for a short term gain. Take a look at smoking: even though everyone knows that smoking is a serious health risk, people still smoke. ―Bad choices‖ may be a result of peer pressure, maybe because they think it looks cool or because they like the kick of the nicotine in the here and now.

The same goes for food: the short term satisfaction of a tasty supersized, extra-fat hamburger will outweigh the longer term health benefits of eating a salad instead. This is all the more so because there are very powerful biological factors leading us to prefer fat, salty or sweet foods. In times of food scarcity these foods are the most essential for our survival because they provide the most energy. Thus after millions of years of evolution, we‘ve become hard-wired to prefer salty, sweet and fatty foods.

But even if people would read the label and are rational enough to change their behaviour, they probably won‘t understand the information on the label. For example, what is the difference between saturated fat and trans fat, and why is that relevant? What are ―carbohydrates‖ and are they good or bad? Is what is healthy for an elderly person also good for an active, growing teenager? Being able to understand what‘s in your food requires a lot of specialist knowledge which the average consumers doesn‘t have.

Putting labels on food packages may actually have a bad impact on diet. In Michael Pollan‘s words, what people should be doing is: ―Eat Food. Mostly Plants. Not too much‖. And they should be cooking food themselves, from fresh, raw ingredients - they shouldn‘t be having a lot of processed, packaged foods made in factories. Labels that suggest that certain processed foods are in some way healthy may actually push people away from cooking from scratch, which would almost always be better for them.

The Traffic Light system is the worst way to provide consumers with health information. The colours are unnecessarily judgemental: they suggest for example that even the smallest bag of crisps is inherently ―bad‖ – which it isn‘t. One small bag doesn‘t lead to serious negative health effects. Moreover, it leads to misunderstanding. In reality, it‘s not the amount of fat, salt or sugar that every serving of food contains that makes you unhealthy – it‘s the amount of fat, sugar and salt that you consume over an entire day that counts. But when one bag of crisps is coded ―orange‖ and another is coded ―red‖, you might take home the orange one, but you are very likely to take home more than just one, because you believe them to be ―healthier.

The GDA-system is the worst way to provide health information, because it is takes more time to read and understand it. Purchasing decisions are made in a split second, and reading the GDAs costs too much time. Moreover, there is a risk that consumers interpret the GDA as a target instead of a maximum, encouraging them to eat more instead of less salt, fat and sugars. Lastly, it assumes that consumers are good enough at Maths to be able to add up all the percentages over the day and decide at the end if they‘ve had too much or not. Most consumers aren‘t up to this, and even if they are, they‘ll probably wouldn‘t like the hassle of counting every calorie.

Even if it would generate all the benefits of both systems and leave out all of the disadvantages, consider the amount of information that one label now has to carry. That amount of information will never fit on, let‘s say, a candybar.

Moreover, it will deliver mixed messages: a small portion of food could be coded red but still contribute only a very small percentage to your GDA – what should a consumer decide? And is it fair to ask producers to do all this work when we‘re not sure the consumer even understands it?

英语辩论题目：English language spelling reform

Debatabase Junior Topic

Summary: Should we change the way words in the English language are spelled, to make them more like the way they are spoken?

Context

Everyone finds some parts of being at school difficult, but seems that students find learning the English language

harder than most. Both English-speakers and people learning English as a foreign language have complained about how

hard it is to spell English words correctly. Compared to other languages English does seem to be more tricky, as many

words do not seem to be said out loud (pronounced) the way they are spelled on paper. For example, ―cough‖ is

pronounced ―coff‖, ―women‖ is pronounced ―wimmen‖ and ―nation‖ is pronounced ―nayshun‖. Rules of spelling are taught in schools, but there are many exceptions – ―tomb‖, ―bomb‖ and ―comb‖ do not rhyme with each other. And some words

which are said the same way have different spellings for different meanings, like ―to‖, ―two‖ and ―too‖, or ―their‖ and

―there‖. One reason for these problems is that English has roots in both Latin and Germanic languages. Another is that the way English vowels (a, e, i, o, u) are pronounced also changed a lot five hundred years ago, but spelling never

caught up with these changes. Finally, there has never been an agency in charge of updating English in the way that there

has been for some languages like French, Spanish, Chinese and Swedish.Of course, other languages are different

from each other, but most seem to be easier to read, write and spell correctly than English. Languages like Spanish,

Italian and Swedish are usually written phonetically – meaning groups of letters represent sounds in a predictable way, so that if you can say a word you can also spell it correctly. Other ways of writing like Japanese and Chinese use

characters to communicate meaning so each usually stands for a whole word rather than sounds making up part of it.

Again, this prevents confusion.Over the years many people have argued that the spelling of English should be made simpler and more logical. Those in favour include Benjamin Franklin, George Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain and Prince Philip. This topic looks at whether such a spelling reform would be a good idea.

正 The way in which many English words are spelled does not make sense. Over hundreds of years the way words are written down has become very different from the way they are said. This means that there are very many difficult rules to learn about English spelling – and still some words don‘t fit into the rules. Many other languages are phonetically written – they follow simple rules so that words are spelled in the same way that they are spoken. We should change the spelling of English so that it too is phonetic. Such a reform would modernise English for the use in the 21st century.

Spelling needs to change so that children‘s reading and writing (literacy) can get better. At the moment English-speaking children are held back by the need to learn and remember huge numbers of odd spellings. Research suggests that English-speaking children take three times as long to learn to read as the European average. No wonder countries like England and the USA do badly in international comparisons of reading ability. As different English-speaking countries have different schooling systems, this suggests that it is the language itself which is to blame. And poor literacy means students do badly in other subjects, like literature, history and science.

Spelling reform would save money over time. At the moment many children need extra support to help them with reading, writing and spelling. This costs money and time that could be better spent on other parts of their education. And more children would leave school with good reading and writing skills, giving them the chance to get better jobs and earn more money. At present 20% of adults in Britain cannot read and write easily – a much larger number than in countries like Sweden that have easier spelling systems. This represents a lot of wasted ability and holds our economy back.

Spelling reform is quite possible. In the last forty years Britain changed its currency from the traditional pounds, shillings and pence (with 4 farthings to the penny, 12 pennies to a shilling and 20 shillings to a pound). This was a complicated system that

made learning mathematics very difficult for children. It was replaced with the modern system with 100 pennies to a pound. Around the same time the old imperial system of measurements (inches, feet, yards, furlongs, miles; ounces, pounds, stones, hundredweights and tons, etc.) was also changed to the simpler modern metric system. If big changes like these have been made already, it should not be too hard to reform English spelling too. All it needs is some government strength of mind.

It is difficult for non-English speakers to learn English as a second language. Students can never be sure from reading a word how it is pronounced. They have to hear it aloud at the same time as seeing it written down. Then they have to learn by heart the many difficult spelling rules and exceptions to them. If English is to hold its own as a global language it must become easier to learn.

Spelling reform would help to break down the barriers that still exist in British society. ―Correct‖ spelling is so difficult that it is used as a means of entry into the educated upper classes. Those who cannot spell so well are looked down upon as ―ignorant‖ and ―thick‖. No matter how good the ideas are in anything they write, if it is not correctly spelled then it is rejected as worthless. So people with certain types of memory or education are more likely to get into good colleges or get top jobs, even if they are not so able in other ways. And there is still a lot of unfairness towards dyslexic people who find spelling very difficult.

反 Language and its spelling carries our history and culture. For example, ―Wednesday‖ is not a phonetic spelling, but it reminds us that the weekday was named for Woden, the Anglo-Saxon god. Changing the spelling to ―Wensday‖ throws that link away. Other words link us to the French culture of Norman invaders, to the Latin of the Christian church, and to Britain‘s past as a colonial power gaining new words from Africa, India and elsewhere. These roots make English a hugely rich language of 700 000 words, even if it also means that spelling is not always straightforward. So simplifying spelling might make words easier to spell, but they could end up being harder to understand.

Actually English-speaking countries have similar school systems, so it is quite likely that teaching methods are the real problem. In any case, English is not totally illogical – there are clear patterns that most children learn easily. And phonetics is not the only or best way to learn spelling – most children learn hundreds of words as a whole (the ―look-say‖ method) rather than breaking them down into phonetic syllables.

So we don‘t need reform. If people are still worried about spelling problems, we could just be more relaxed about common misspellings. As long as the meaning is clear, misspellings could be accepted as alternative spellings. This would allow children to get on with learning history, science, etc. without everyone getting hung up on a few letters here or there. After all, Shakespeare commonly spelled words in different ways, including different versions of his own name!

The cost of change would be huge. Billions of people who speak some English would need to be taught a new system. Trillions of books would need to be thrown away and replaced with new versions. Computers and websites would all need to be changed. And hundreds of years of English literature would have to be translated into the new system, or people would soon be cut off from their literary birthright.

Change will be very hard to achieve. Unlike in countries like France and Italy, there is no agreed authority to make changes to the English language. When Germany and Portugal tried to reform their spelling there was a lot of resistance, both inside the country and from places like Austria and Brazil where the language was also spoken. And English is a much more international language – why should one English-speaking country have the right to bring in changes and make others follow them? Should it be Britain because it is where English began? Or the USA because it is the biggest and richest English-speaking country? Or India because it has the most people speaking English as a second language?

Why then is English so widely and easily learnt by so many students and adults around the world? It may be hard to learn to write like a native speaker, but it is quick and easy to learn enough English to communicate well. All languages have their own difficulties – English at least doesn‘t go in for compound-word-building in the way German does, or have masculine and feminine like French. It has many fewer verb tenses than Russian. Chinese and Japanese have thousands of characters which have to be learnt. And in many languages like Danish the spoken and written forms have moved apart over the past two hundred years or so. Trying to change the way English is spelled would raise up new barriers between people. What version of English should be

used as the standard one for spelling purposes? Southern British English might change the spelling of ―anyone‖ to ―ennywun‖, but a northerner would prefer ―ennywon‖. What about American and British accents (potaytoe or potartoe?)? What about Irish, African, Caribbean, Australian and Indian accented English? Moving to a phonetic system will only end up with one small group forcing their way of pronouncing English on everyone else. This will create division and bad feeling between English speakers. It might even lead to groups with different accents ending up producing different spelling reforms, so we stop being able to understand each other.

英语辩论题目：Should Celebrities get greater protection?

Summary: Should celebrities have greater protection from the media?

Context

We live in a world where celebrities are constantly photographed by the media. Stars like Britney Spears, David

Beckham or Lindsay Lohan cannot go to the supermarket or to a restaurant without media attention. When Tiger Woods crashed his car and was revealed to have had several affairs, this was splashed across newspapers and magazines for

weeks. Photographers (known as paparazzi) often swarm around cars or trespass on property in order to get pictures

that they can sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The courts have used human rights laws to provide these celebrities with some protection. Naomi Campbell, a famous

model, received damages money from a newspaper that published photos taken of her outside a drug rehabilitation clinic.

But these laws have limited effect, and usually do not protect celebrities in public places.

This debate is about whether celebrities should receive better protection. The proposition could suggest a range of

proposals. You might ban publishing any photograph of a celebrity outside a work context without their permission. Or you could introduce a personal safety zone of twenty yards around celebrities, as suggested by a Los Angeles politician (the Britney law‘). However, all of these debates focus on the issue of whether celebrities deserve greater protection of their privacy.

正Your private life should remain private regardless of who you are. Privacy is important because it allows people to develop relationships and express themselves without the whole world knowing. When people get divorced or face other difficulties, it is upsetting if the whole world can read about this in magazine and newspapers.

It is unfair to claim that celebrities choose this lifestyle. If you are talented at modelling, sport, singing, or acting it is natural to want to profit from that talent. It is reasonable to choose a career where that talent can be recognised, rewarded and shared with others. This is no different to somebody who is good at mathematics choosing to become a banker. Your personal life should not be exposed to millions of people, just because you choose to exploit your talents.

The fact that some celebrities invite the media into their lives, does not justify abusing the privacy of all. Even where celebrities do allow the media a look into their private life, it is often just an attempt to give their side of the story after being hounded by the press. People should be able to choose the image of themselves that they show to the world.

Media attention can be upsetting for both celebrities and their families. Paparazzi wait outside their homes, jump in front of their cars, and swarm around them in public. The car crash which killed Princess Diana in 1997 was the result of attempts to escape chasing journalists. If photographers can‘t earn hundreds of thousands of dollars for these pictures, they will have no reason to harass celebrities in this way. Media organisations use celebrities as tools to make extra profit. They know that they can sell more magazines if they have photographs of Lindsay Lohan at the beach, or a story about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt‘s breaking-up. It is unfair that celebrities are exploited in this way, against their will.

反 People choose to be celebrities. When they make this choice, they know that it will bring constant media attention. Much of their success depends on the media promoting their films or music. If they are unwilling to deal with this, they should not become celebrities.

Celebrities use the media to promote their careers. Their success often depends on their ability to stay in the public eye. Actors and footballers strive to be stars who are known and recognised worldwide. This increases the success of their films or

their ability to gain well-paid sponsors. It is unreasonable, after using the media in this way, to complain when they do not like the stories published about them. The media should be able to reveal negative stories as well as positive ones.

Celebrities betray the public when they present a false image of themselves in order to sell more CDs, books, shirts, etc. It is fair to bring the truth to light. For example, if a television chef presents himself as a family man, the public deserves to know if he is having an affair. Otherwise they might buy his products on the basis of lies. Celebrities such as Britney Spears and Tiger Woods are also often role models for young people. Those young people deserve to know if their role models are less perfect than they had thought.

Celebrities often use their private lives as a means of generating media attention. Jamie Oliver encouraged cameramen to film his family as part of a TV series. Similarly, Madonna promoted her children‘s book with her seven-year-old daughter, Lourdes, who read extracts from the book to sick children at a hospital. It is unreasonable for celebrities to use the media when it suits them, and then complain when the public becomes interested in their families as a result.

Celebrities make additional profits as a result of the media‘s interest. The more that people see photographs of them in magazines, the more tickets or DVDs they can sell. It is not unfair for the media to make a profit out of celebrities in return.

【英语辩论题目】Should We Diet in Order to Keep Fit?

1. We Should All Grow Fat and Be Happy

Here's a familiar version of the boy-meets-girl situation. A young man has at last plucked up courage to invite a dazzling young lady out to dinner. She has accepted his invitation and he is overjoyed. He is determined to take her to the best restaurant in town, even if it means that he will have to live on memories and hopes during the month to come. When they get to the restaurant, he discovers that this etherial creature is on a diet. She mustn't eat this and she mustn't drink that. Oh, but of course, she doesn' t want to spoil his enjoyment. Lct him by all means eat as much fattening food as he wants: it's the surest way to an early

grave. They spend a truly memorable even:ng together and never see each other again.

What a miserable lot dieters arel You can always recognize them from the sour expression on their faces. They spend most of their tixne turning their noses up at food. 'They are forever consulting calorie charts; gazing at themselves in mirrors; and leaping on to weighing-machines in the bathroom. They spend a lifetime fighting a losing battle against spreading hips, protruding

tummies and double chins Some wage all-out war on fat . Mere dieting is not enough.

They exhaust themselves doing exercises, sweating in sauna baths, being pummelled and massaged by weird machines. The really wealthy diet-mongers pay vast sums for "health cures? For two weeks they can enter a "nature clinic" and be starved to death for a hundred guineas a week. Don't think it's only the middle-aged who go in for these fads either. Many of these bright young

things you see are suffering from chronic malnutrition: they are living on. nothing but air, water and the goodwill of God. Dieters undertake to starve themselves of their own free will so why are they so miserable? Well, for one thing, they're always bungry. You can't be hungry and happy at the same time. All the horrible concoctions they eat instead of food leave, them permanenily dissatisfied. "Wonderfood is a complete food,'~ the advertisement says. "Just dissolve a teaspoonful in water..."

A complete food it may.be, but not quite as complete as a juicy steak. And, of course, they're always miserable because they feel so guilty. Hunger just proves too much for them and in the end they lash out and devour five huge guilt-inducing cream cakes at a sitting. And who can blame them? At least three times a day they are exposed to temptation. What utter torture it is always watching others tucking into piles of mouth-watering food while you munch a water biscuit and sip unsweetened lemon juice!

What's all this self-inflicted torture for? Saintly people deprive themselves of food to attain a state of grace. Unsaintly people do so to attain a state of misery. It will be a great day when all the dieters in the world abandon their slimming courses; when they hold out their plates and demand second helpings!

2. I Feel Better with Vegetarian Food

I grew up in Texas on double cheeseburgers with hickory sauce, chili, fried. chicken, T-bone steaks, and eggs. Many people report that they lose the taste for animal foods after eating a vegetarian diet for a while, but it hasn't fully happened to me. I

still enjoy the way animal foods taste and smell, but I usually don't eat them.

Why not? Because I like the way I feel when I don't eat these foods so much more than the pleasure I used to get from eating them. I have much more energy, I need less sleep, I feel calmer, I can maintain an ideal body weight without worrying about how

much I eat, and I can think more clearly (although some might debate the last point).

I began making some dietary and lifestyle changes during my second year of college and have been eating this way ever since. I wasn't worried about coronary heart disease at age nineteen-my cholesterol levelthen was only 125 (and it still is). I began feeling better after I started eating this way, so I continue to do so. Eating this diet probably will help me to live longer, but it,s

not my primary motivation. Feeling better is.

In my clinical experience, I often find that fear may be enough motivation

for some people to begin a diet, but it's usually not enough to sustain it. As I've said earlier, who wants to live longer if you're

not enjoying life?

Since I began making these dietary changes in 1972, eating this way has become increasingly accepted. Beans and grains are

becoming, believe it or not, high-status foods.

3. High-fat Diet, Little Strength

You bring one of our football players in and put them on a stationary exercise bicycle and tell them to work as hard as they can for as long as they can, and you'll time them. Say the guy lasts for eight minutes, and then he's just exhausted. Then for three days you put him on a high-fat diet. He comes back in, goes on the bike and he'll last probably only six minutes. He's lost that

much strength.

Then put him on a high carbohydrate, low-fat diet for only three days, and he' 11 probably go up to 12 minutes. It makes that

much difference.

4. I Feel Great Because I've Lost All That Extra Weight!

During my first year of college, I gained forty pounds when I began throwing the javelin. For the next twenty years, I carried all of this extra weight and kidded myself that I was in good shape since that's what I weighed in college. Now that I've lost all

that extra weight, I feel great!

People say all the time, "Well, how do you live without eating cheeseburgers or this or that?" and I say, "You just don't. It's not

even an option." It's not that hard once you get on it

The most difficult parts for me are the social aspects of eating. For example, hamburgers were hard to do without at first because I identified eating them with fun times-sitting on the floor with the kids watching television, or in a fun place with

people sitting around laughing, drinking beer and eating burgers.

It's the same at a tailgate picnic at a football game. It was hard--not because of the foods there, but because of the social factors. But once you understand that, then you can say, "I can enjoy the social part without having to eat that food." It's more

what you're doing than the food itself.

5. Weight Watchers

Jean Nidetch was a professional dieter, a housewife who tried every conceivable .slimming fad, lost weight with each one, then regained it thanks to her habitually "promiscuous?eating habits. In 1961, when she sought help from the obesity clinic run by New York City's Dept. of Health, she was 38 years old and weighed 214 lb. The clinic put her on a diet by Dr. Norman Jolliffe,

best known.for his "prudent diet". Convinced that she couldn't stick to it alone, Mrs.

Nidetch invited some fat friends to form a group and meet weekly to made horror stories (secret midnight binging in the bathroom) and helpful hints(put that doughnut in the freezer to cool temptation). Established in 1963, Weight Watchers expanded into an international network of clubs, with a product line of diet drinks, sugar substitutes,and publications-the McDonald's of the reducing industry. "My littleprivate club has become an industry," wrote Mrs. Nidetch, amateur nutritionist,

in The Story of Weight Watchers (1975). In 1978 theoiganization, with about $ 50 million in annual revenues and a cumulative

membership of close to 2 million, was bought by Heinz Foods.

英语辩论题目Does Fashion Contribute Anything to Society?

Read

Read the following passages. Underline the important viewpoints while reading.

1. "New Fashions in Clothing Are Created Solely for the

Commercial Exploitation of Women

Whenever you see an old film, even one made as little as ten years ago, you cannot help being struck by the appearance of the women taking part. Their hair- styles and make-up look dated: their skirts look either too long or too short: their general appearance is, in fact, slightly ludicrous. The men taking part in the film, on the other hand, are clearly recognizable. There is nothing about their appearance to suggest that they belong to an entirely different age.

This illusion is created by changing fashions. Over the years, the great majority of men have successfully resisted all attempts to make them change their style of dress. The same cannot be said for women. Each year a few so-ca lled "top designers" in Paris or London lay down the law and women the whole world over rush to obey. The decrees of the designers are unpredictable and dictatorial. This year, they decide in their arbitrary fashion, skirts will be short and waists will be high; zips are in and buttons are out . Next year the law is reversed and far from taking exception, no one is even mildly surprised.

If women are mercilessly exploited year after year, they have only themselves to blame. Because they shudder at the thought of being seen in public in clothes that are out of fashion, they are annually blackmailed by the designers and the big stores. Clothes which have been worn only a few times have to be discarded because of the dictates of fashion. When you come to think of it, only a woman is capable of standing in front of a wardrobe packed full of clothes and announcing sadly that she has nothing to

wear.

Changing fashions are nothing more than the deliberate creation of waste. Many women squander vast sums of money each year to replace clothes that have hardly been worn. Women who cannot afford to discard clothing in this way, waste hours of their time altering the dresses they have. Hem-lines are taken up or let down; waist-lines are taken in or let out; neck-lines are

lowered or raised, and so on.

No one can claim that the fashion industry contributes anything really important to society. Fashion designers are rarely concerned with vital things like warmth, comfort and durability. They are only interested in outward appearance and they take advantage of the fact that women will put up with any amount of discomfort, providing they look right. There can hardIy be a man who hasn,t at some time in his life smiled at the sight of a woman shivering in a flimsy dress on a wintry day, or delicately

picking her way through deep snow in dainty shoes.

When comparing men and women in the matter of fashion, the conclusions to be drawn are obvious. Do the constantly changing fashions of women's clothes, one wonders, reflect basic qualities of fickleness and instability? Men are too sensible to let themselves be bullied by fashion clesigners. Do their unchanging styles of dress reflect basic qualities of stability and reliability?

That is for you to decide.

2. For Fashion-mad Youth Money Is No Object

Young women in Beijing are showing a new look in fashions this year. They are wearing elegant long trouser-like skirts and loose pantalets with a connected top, both made of colourful satin, silk and polyester

As a popular saying among young people in the capital nowadays goes - "Fashion for women and labels for men."

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/3fh1.html