Good evening，Ladies and gentlemen.
According to the law, every single individual is born with the right to keep living. Since death is just a part of life, to suggest that it is a right is to grant that it is a freedom to decide when and where to give up this kind of right. In a manner of speaking, it is a man’s right to commit suicide.
Again, we can find in the OXFord Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese dictionary the explanation of “suicide”----the act of killing oneself intentionally----which indicates that suicide is simply a libertarian movement for human freedom and the right of making choices. It is the law’s duty to protect human’s freedom and the right of making choices.
While it is without doubt that suicide, in reality, is human’s right, there main argument remain:
1,Maybe some people will say that the primary purpose of human being is to live, so suicide is inhumane and totally against the standard of ethic;
2,Suicide is criminal offense because it involves the killing of a person;
3,The people who commits suicide is irrespondsable to those who love him, even if it is a physical and mental realse to himself.
However, an evidence to sustain the first argument is difficult to obtain.It is common sense to note that Modern medicine has its own limitation and can not cure all the existing diseases.In spite of the extraordinary progress made in Modern medicine, problems remain in terms of guaranteeing that all the pains due to illness can be reduced to a tolerant level. As a result of this, at least in the near future, there must be some illnesses which can not be treated, some pains which are uncontrollable, some people who are terminally ill. Maybe the primary purpose of an ordinary and healthy human being is to live, but what if the person we are talking about is a terminally ill patient whose remaining time is no more than a series of suffering . Neither the law nor medical ethics requires “everything be done” to keep a person alive. However, insistnece, against the patient’s wishes, that death be postponed by every means available is contrary to law and practice. It would also be cruel and inhumane. There comes a time when continued attempts to cure are not compassionate, wise or medically sound. That’s where only euthanasia can be of use. Voluntary euthanasia,which is another form of suicide, is human, because it brings mental and physical release to the patient and his family and helps to put an ultimate end to the torment of a termnally ill patient by hastening his death when he has no prospect of recovering. Extending an incurably sick patient’s life means the same as aggravating the pain . It is unnecessory to maintain life artificially beyond the point when people will never regain consciousness. Because effort should not be made to perpetuate what has become a meanless existence.
Others may argue that “suicide is criminal offense because it involves the killing of a person”. Indeed, killing another person is a kind of serious criminal offense which we call “murder”. However, what we are talkig about is “suicide”, not “murder”. Do they realise there is a big difference between the lives of our own and the lives of other people? Since it is our own life, we have the right to decide in what way the life meets its end. If not ,what is the difference gonna be? For instance, you are guity of keeping other people’s possession without permition. Because you are stealing the things which do not belong to you. But when it comes to your own possession, that it is to say, when you keep your own possession or even use it in a way that will probably destroy it,no one would consider you as guity.So, Sustaining the idea of “suicide is criminal offense” is as ridiculous as saying that a person is guity of using his own possession in a destructive way. In the case of suicide, there is no victims, let alone the so-called criminal offense.
With regard to the last argument----”the people who commit suicide ,even if it is a physical and mental realse to himself, is irresponsable to the people who really love him”----the argument itself, ironically is in some sense to abmit that suicide is a physical and mental realse. But what they fail to realise is that the kind of release is not just to the one who commit suicide, but also to his family.It is a terminally sick patient’s right as well as duty to put an utimate end to the torment of himself and his family. Because he is the reason of all the suffering. Those who choose suicide are a class of people whose remaining time is nothing but simply suffering, a class of people who choose death as an ultimate escape from the eternal torture they are destined to ,a class of people who need compassion and understanding from their relatives and the society, rather than meanlessly prolonging his painful life. If we really love the one who commit suicide, we should let him die in a desired way, die with dignity as he wishes. Because this is where true love lies.
Judging from what has been discussed above, we can safely draw the conclusion that we should make suicide legalized. Because it’s a new and bitter truth we must learn to face.
That’s all.Thank you.
谢谢主席,大家好!
桔生淮南则为桔，桔生淮北则为枳。我方的观点是顺境更有利于人成才。且听我作如下的两点分析。
第一，从概念方面说：人活着总处在一定的社会环境和自然环境中，当这样的环境为我们成才的方方面面都设置了很好的条件，有利于我们主观能动性的发挥时，这种环境就是顺境。当我们生活在不论维持生存还是成就事业总感到困难重重，压抑苦闷时，这种环境就是逆境。
顺境中，给您克服这个困难提供了有利的保障。比如说我们有良师益友的指导，平时为我们谆谆教诲，为我们善言，来提醒我们哪些疏漏;比如说良好的物质条件，良好的生活环境，这些呢，都为我们克服这个困难提供了有利的条件。一个好汉三个帮和众叛亲离，哪个更有利于人的成才呢?
第二,从社会方面说,鲁迅曾说，天才的出现，不仅需要天才的种子，而且更要适宜天才生长的土壤。人是一切社会关系的总和。一个人的成才与否，不仅与他的主观努力有关，而且与他所处的社会经济环境有关，诸葛亮成为千古人龙没有刘玄德三顾茅庐是不可思议的，曹雪芹登上中国古典文学的顶峰，没有他青少年时期的良好教育是不可能的。
历史上,让我们记忆犹新的“文革时期”，这段时期的社会环境显然可以称之为逆境，是这样的环境更有利于人成才吗?答案是否定的。轻视教育，轻视人才的社会风气，使成才主体的智慧和才能没有施展、发挥的余地，他们怎样成才?然而，改革开放，“尊重知识、尊重人才”，人才成长和发挥作用有了适宜的环境，也就是顺境。如果没有这样的顺境，许多人成才成果的美丽梦想也只能是梦想，不会实现。
为了让更多的人不再生活在逆境中，无数革命英雄抛头颅，洒热写作通:血，甚至连自己的身家性命都不顾，也要为大家争来一个生活发展的顺境。 假如今天我们为不能生逢乱世而遗憾，如果泉下有知，真不知会作何感想。如果说“逆境有利于人才成长，那么这些伟人，他们在历史上的过错可真是无法计量的!真可谓是千古罪人!”
从教育这一行来说，综观世界各国,重视教育投入的国家国民素质就高，重视科研投入的科技成果就多。哈佛大学经济系居世界第一，为什么?主要因为哈佛有一流的教授、雄厚的财力，严格的制度保障等一切先决条件保证了哈佛学子独占熬头。
我国教育大到国家政策，小到学校的策略，都非常重视人力、物力的投资，国家自改革开放以来，加大教育投资，教育界人才辈出，我国的教育也走在了世界前列。并且我们还向贫困地区捐款助学，创办了许多希望小学，就是为了给那些因逆境而失学的儿童创造上学的条件，也是因为领导、教育家、有爱心的人都坚信 顺境更有利于人成才即我方观点。
好风凭借力，助我上青云。凭借顺境的好风，我们可以展开成才的双翼，在人生的天际飞得更高，更远。
尊敬的主席、评委、对方辩友、各位观众，大家好。
很高兴在这里与对方辩友进行辩论。我方观点是顺境更有利于人成长。
顺境是指优越的环境、条件,如安定的社会环境、良好的家庭环境以及一个人的行为所得到的肯定、赏识、奖励等，逆境与之相对。人的成长指的是人从自然人转变为社会人，以及充分社会化的过程。以身心的健康发展和社会角色趋向成熟两个指标来显示。
顺境给我们提供最基本成长中的物质需求。如果一个人出生于穷乡僻壤，家里人都食不果腹，他不得不在贫困线上挣扎，连受教育的可能性都没有，他如何成长?对目不识丁的人而言，他只能复制祖辈父辈的生活轨道，这种原地踏步式的生活怎么让他成长?相反，假如他生于富裕家庭，父母都是高级知识分子，他接受了良好的教育，这样顺利的外在境遇不是更有利于他的成长吗?曹操的祖父曹腾，是东汉末年官宦集团中的一员，而父亲曹嵩官至太尉。曹操是中国东汉末年著名的军事家、政治家和诗人，三国时代魏国的奠基人和主要缔造者，后为魏王。曹丕是三国时期著名的政治家、文学家。曹植是三国时期曹魏诗人、文学家，建安文学的代表人物。后人因他文学上的造诣而将他与曹操、曹丕合称为“三曹”。可见顺境能为个人的健康成长提供经济、文化等方面的条件，从而促进个人更好的成长。
顺境更能给人们带来正面的积极的心理影响，从而促进个人更好地成长。顺利的环境让人轻松、愉悦，而逆境则容易让人紧张，沮丧，相比之下，当然人在心情好的情况成长得更好。逆境不仅阻碍人成才的脚步，而且会摧残、扼杀、毁灭人才。就比如说同样面临逆境，只有极少数人跨了过去，功成名就，而绝大多数被淘汰出局，成了风成了尘，成了不知名的陪衬。著名画家梵高面对爱情受挫、生活艰难、创作得不到肯定，最终抑郁自杀。文化大革命更不知残害了多少可以成为人才的人。顺境对人的帮助要比逆境来得快，一句鼓励的话，对你的肯定，是一种自信的力量、一比钱，是成功的本钱。
顺境给了我们更高更广阔的发展平台。小到一个人，大到一个国家，都是在全盛时期发展的更快更好。我国人均GDP在六十年代增速仅仅为17%，到七十年代增至70%，到了飞速发展的八十年代以63%的速度一举超过印度，最后在九十年代更是达到了175%的高峰。(在顺境当中，有师长指路，有书籍指引，有亲友帮助，顺境可以让我们考虑的更全面更完善，那么我们在成长路上都会提前做好准备，对各种可能的问题提前防范，绕道而行，即使面对问题也可以从容不迫，让困难迎刃而解。)而另一方面，一个人在有主动选择权的情况下，主动放弃有利条件而选择不利条件。显然这和人类的基本行为规律是违背的。人都是趋利避害的，都是寻求更好的外部环境和条件的。即使我们深陷逆境当中，在逆境中求发展的目的也是为了在顺境中更好的成长。而我们摆脱逆境的能力和条件正是在顺境当中累积而来，并不是凭空而在的潜能。倘若人始终处于逆境当中，遇到问题时恐怕早已被击垮打倒，肯定没有智慧和体力进行反抗。因此，顺境才能提供给人成长更高更广阔的平台，也是自然规律中使人成长的必须环境因素