英语辩论——环境保护VS经济发展(经济发展正方）WhichshouldreceivepriorityinChina?Environmentalprotectionoreconomicgrowth.正方陈词：Goodmorningeveryone!WeareherenowdebatingaboutwhetherenvironmentprotectionoreconomygrowthshouldtakepriorityinChina,wethinkit’senvironmentgrowththatshouldbechosen.Ihavethreereasonstoprovethispoint.First,asadevelopingcountry,theeconomypowerisfarbehindthedevelopedcounties,Chinahaveonefifthofthepeopleintheworld,buttheincomeofperheadisonlyin109thamongcountries.SotheurgentaffairofChinaisdevelopingoureconomy.Second,economygrowthdoesn’tnecessarilyconflictwithenvironmentprotection.Wecandevelopoureconomywithoutenvironmentpollution.Third,whenoureconomystrengthbecomesstrong,wecanspendmoremoneyandenergyonenvironmentprotection,tillthenitwillbeawin-win.Inaword,consideringthecurrentsituations,economygrowthshouldtakepriorityinChina.反方陈词：Weagreeeconomicgrowthisneeded.Butthinkaboutthepastdecades,wefollowedtheoldmodelof“firstpollution,lasttreatment”,however,howdiditcomeout?Theenvironmentproblemshavebecomeincreasinglyprominent,andsomelocalregions’environmenthasbeenpollutedtoadangerousextentthatposesagreatthreattoourexistence.What’smore,thecostwastoohighandtheeffectwasnotuptomuch.Bythismeans,itplacedusinacompletelypassiveposition.Atthesametimethepeoplestartedvoicingnewvalues:qualityoflife,urbanconservationandtheenvironment.So,wemustgettothebottomoftheproblemandlearnfromthepast.Thatis,inthecourseofdevelopment,weshouldconsidertheeffectofpollutionandreceiveenvironmentprotectioninfirstpriority.Onlyinthiswaycanwesolvetheenvironmentalproblemsinthefuturereasonably.That’sallIwanttosay.自由辩论正方二辩：Weallknowthatinmanyplacesofchinalikemanypoorcountries,wheretheenvironmentisprettygood,therearethousandspeoplelackofmoneyforthefoodtheneedtolive.Then,opponentdebaters,doyouthinkwestillneedtodevelopoureconomies?反方二辩：Butopponentdebaterscan’tignorethefactthatmostareasofChinahavesolvedtheproblemoffoodandclothingatpresent.Furthermore,thelevelofeconomicdevelopmentinmanycitiesineasternChinaisveryhigh.Butthepollutionisprettyseriousaccordingly.Wehavemoney,butbeingunderthesubhealthcondition.Doesitmakeanysense,opponentdebaters?正方三辩：Theredoexistsomeeasterncitieswhoseeconomyisquitedeveloped,butyouforgetthatChinahas130millionpeople.Theeasterncitiescan’tstandforthewholeChina.Weknowthatenvironmentprotectionneedhigh-technology,High-techpersonnel,andscienceresearch.Theyallneedalotofmoney,andmoneyiscreatedbyeconomy.Iwanttoaskmyfellowdebaterthatcanweprotectourenvironmentwellwithoutstrongeconomystrength.反方三辩：Environmentalprotectionneedseconomy.Butwecan’tsacrificetheenvironmentfortheeconomicgrowth.Ifyoudrinkpollutedwater,eatthetoxicfood,canwehaveahighqualityoflife?Economicdevelopmentmustbeonthepremiseofenvironmentalprotection.Thepolicyof“returningfarmlandtoforestsandgrass”slowdownthespeedofeconomicdevelopmenttoprotecttheenvironment.Dosesitshowthattheenvironmentalprotectionismoreimportant?正方：Opponentdebatershavereferredthereturningfarmlandtoforestpolicy.Weadmitourcountryhaspaidalotofmoneyfortheenvironment