【文章內容簡介】 undamentally to block the source of the environment problems；To take temporary solution，we also should give priority to the development of economy, so that we have the technology, capital and other supports for solving the environmental in this way can environment protection be provided for human survival and ：經濟發(fā)展是指社會能夠提供豐裕的商品來改善人類的物質生活,環(huán)境 保護則是采取一定的政策措施來保護生態(tài)平衡。經濟要發(fā)展意味著企業(yè)需要 更多的廠房與原材料來保障商品的供應——那便存在一個問題：自然分給人 類的土地與原材料是有限,經濟優(yōu)先發(fā)展就一定會侵占原本不屬于人類的自 然資源。Honorable judges, distinguished guests, ladies and economic development refers to society can provide abundant modity to improve human material life。environmental protection is to take certain policy measures to protect the ecological development means that panies need more workshop and raw materials to ensure the supply of goods——then there is a problem, that is nature land and raw materials to human is limited, economic priority development will occupy nature resources which originally do not belong to the Two debate questioned反方二辯：請問對方一辯，經濟是一時之事，環(huán)境是萬代之事，哪個重要？經濟 發(fā)展慢了，人們還可以吃到飯，環(huán)境沒了，還能生存嗎？ My fellow debaters，please allow me to economy is the temporary matter, but the environment is of the ten thousand generation, which one is more important? When Economic develops slowly, people can also eat rice。how can we still survive if there is no ：不好意思對方辯友，恐怕我們今天討論的重點是優(yōu)先權。并不是說經 濟優(yōu)先就不搞環(huán)保了，只是環(huán)保處于較次的位置，跟中國現(xiàn)狀一樣，政策雖 然說要重視環(huán)保，但一般縣區(qū)還是經濟發(fā)展優(yōu)先的，也就有資本的大城市才 比較重視搞環(huán)保，相信大家心知肚明 Sorry, I39。m afraid the key points we debate today are the right of development first does not mean totally ignore the environmental protection, the environmental protection is just in the inferior like the present China, although the policy attach great importance to environmental protection, economic development receive priority in the general counties, there is only capital cities would likely take it seriously to environmental protection, everybody know it in our own ：請問正方三辯，如果發(fā)展經濟優(yōu)先的話，很可能造成環(huán)境成本大于經 濟效益的情況，這樣的經濟是發(fā)展還是倒退？ Excuse me, my fellow economic development receives priority then it is likely the environmental costs to be larger than the economic efficiency, such economy develops or backs up?正方三辯： 這種情況確實有存在，但并不是每時每刻都存在。各個行業(yè)情況不同，我們不能以偏概全。但按你的意思，這種情況下經濟效益是負的，那我們改 行環(huán)境保護優(yōu)先，就能轉虧為盈？我不這么覺得。To cause this kind of situation is there truly, but not every situation in each industry is different。we cannot draw conclusions from one 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 don39。t think ： 我們知道環(huán)境的保護是預防為主，防治結合，而預防和治理都要依 靠技術的發(fā)展，那請問對方一辯，如果沒有強有力的經濟基礎支持科學技術 發(fā)展，那么以科技為支撐的環(huán)保從何談起呢？ We know that the protection of the environment is mainly prevention, and we should bine prevention with treatment, and the prevention and control depends on the development of technology, then my fellow debaters, if there is no strong economic basis for science and technology development, then don’t mention the environmental protection supported by the science and ：你的問題未免抽象了點?？萍及l(fā)展無止盡，經濟發(fā)展也沒盡頭，什么 時候算得上是“強有力”呢？但是環(huán)境保護是迫在眉睫，耽誤不起。Your question is a little and technology develops endlessly, so dose economic development, when will it be considered as “strong? But environmental protection is imminent, which can39。t afford to ：請問反方三辯，經濟發(fā)展是讓人們享受到豐富的生活內容，包括衣食 住行娛樂，這難道不是現(xiàn)在社會上人們的普遍愿望嗎？ Excuse me, my fellow responsibility of economic development is to let people enjoy a rich life, including the basic necessities and entertainment, isn39。t it now the people39。s universal desire?反方三辯：人們喜歡的期望的不一定都是好的。我相信，人們更傾向于在一個既 能享受到生活樂趣，同時又是一個健康和諧自然的環(huán)境中生存。People’s expectation is not necessarily that believe that people tend to live in a life of happiness, and at the same time, survive in a healthy and harmonious natural environment二辯小結反方二辯：對方辯友請從事實出發(fā)，經濟發(fā)展不是你我能定的，是自然環(huán)境定的, 我們必須堅持可持續(xù)發(fā)展，我們發(fā)展經濟的同時。我們必須高度重視在經濟發(fā)展過程中的自然環(huán)境的保護。我們已經為我們的環(huán)境付出了很多代價。Opposite party debates, please to start from the fact, The economic development is not you or me can decide, it is the natural environment, We have to insist we on sustainable development while developing must attach great importance to the protection of the natural environment in the process of economic pay much for our ：我們承認我們的國家已經支付了很多錢，甚至犧牲利潤的環(huán)境，但我們還是應該采取經濟建設作為中心任務。經濟發(fā)展必然會付出代價，我們已經在努力 使代價降到最低。we admit our country has paid a lot of money for the environment even sacrificing the we should still take economic construction as the central economic development will definitely pay the price。we have been trying to make the price to a ： 請問對方辯友，原始社會的人類祖先們環(huán)境保護工作做得可謂好了吧，而他們 經濟發(fā)展很落后，所所以才一直過著鉆木取火、茹毛飲血的生活，按你們的 意思我們應該回歸這種生活嗎？ Excuse me, my fellow the primitive society, human ancestor’s environmental protection work is good, but to them Economic development is very backward, so it has been living a life of the earliest people, should we return to this kind of life according to your meaning?反方一辯：人類祖先確實需要發(fā)展經濟，但若是在這個過程中砍完了森林，污染 了河流，使衣食都不再有保障，恐怕也無法發(fā)展下去了。我想問的是，核電站是 經濟發(fā)展的產物，但眾所周知，幾次核電站的泄漏帶來了環(huán)境的極度惡化，請問 你怎么看？ Human ancestors do need to develop the economy, but if cut out the forests, pollute the river, making Food and clothing are no longer guaranteed in this process, I’m afraid it cannot develop any I want to ask is, nuclear power station is the oute of the economic development, but it is well known that a few times nuclear power leakage has brought the environment extremely worsened, what do you think of it?正方二辯：首先，我方并沒有承諾經濟發(fā)展就一定會破壞到環(huán)境；其次，對方所 說的情況只是鳳毛麟角；第三，核電站泄漏是科技不力，而經濟是科學研究 的基礎。First, we have never pledge that the economic development certainly will destroy the environment。second, the situation you said is only rare。third, nuclear power station leakage because the technology is not economy is the foundation of scientific ：但是核電站可以再建，那些污染了的土地和地下水怎么辦？沒有了這 些，我們的生活怎么辦？你愿意生活在核電站附近，還是一片山清水秀之 間？ But the nuclear power station may be reconstructed, how about these polluted land and the underground water? Without land and water, how does our life manage? Would you like to live nearby the nuclear power station, or between pieces of beautiful sc