辩论:应该裸捐吗?我是反方一辩,该怎么办?要英文的.
来源:学生作业帮 编辑:灵鹊做题网作业帮 分类:英语作业 时间:2024/05/08 10:55:28
辩论:应该裸捐吗?我是反方一辩,该怎么办?要英文的.
我不容易啊,全手写的,多给点分.从经济,金融,商业运作等多方面进行了阐述.
为你列了三点论点,可做陈述用,有数据,有例证,有论述.
并且保证英语的地道,华丽和准确!
Against:
1.An all-out donation is not suitable for sustainability of charity funds.
In nowadays capitalist society,investment is no longer an unfamiliar word.An all-out donation deprives the charity fund's capability to regenerate the funds through investment.The famous Rockefeller Foundation has an endowment over 3 billion US dollars.The Foundation only liquidizes a small portion around 5-10% of the total endowment every year for charity purpose and puts the rest of money into further investment.The rates are calculated by a bunch of talented investors and fund managers to keep the endowment not decreasing.This strategy has been proved to be a huge success that the Rockefeller Foundation lasts for over a hundred years!And the accumulated charity donation has exceeded tens of billions!Though an annual grant of 137 million dollars is outmatched with a billion dollar all-out donation,the total grant is much larger than the ephemoral effect of an all-out donation.
2.An all-out donation does not answer the needs of donees.
Most of the philanthropic projects aim to resolve the problem of poverty,hunger,environment degradation,education,globalization,health problems and so on,and they involve long terms of construction plans or recruitment project.Schools cannot be built in one day,teachers cannot be recruited in one month and polluted environment cannot be recovered in one year.Almost all the projects demand a constant cash flow to support the construction or restoration processes.If a large amount of money is instantly spent,the fund has nothing left to replenish the cash flow and thus dies out.As a matter of fact,certain charity funds which focus on an incident,a crisis or a disaster,do require large amounts of money in a short period of time.Yet over 80% of the normal charity projects require constant management and care-taking.
3.An all-out donation is not effective in economic sense.
In Macroeconomics,the Solow-Swan Fundamental Equation tells us that any amount of aid capital not large enough to escape from a Poverty Trap will eventually be leveled off.Obviously no donation is large enough to help a macroeconomy escape a poverty trap,which may involve trillions of dollars.Therefore,if we truly care about the long-run growth of the donee,we should not only focus on the capital side.Growth is never a one-time thing,but a gradual and steady process,accompanied by a change in technology,demography and even living styles.Therefore an all-out donation isn't really solving the problem,but might have generated more problems such as embezzelment,and further exasperate the sitation.
为你列了三点论点,可做陈述用,有数据,有例证,有论述.
并且保证英语的地道,华丽和准确!
Against:
1.An all-out donation is not suitable for sustainability of charity funds.
In nowadays capitalist society,investment is no longer an unfamiliar word.An all-out donation deprives the charity fund's capability to regenerate the funds through investment.The famous Rockefeller Foundation has an endowment over 3 billion US dollars.The Foundation only liquidizes a small portion around 5-10% of the total endowment every year for charity purpose and puts the rest of money into further investment.The rates are calculated by a bunch of talented investors and fund managers to keep the endowment not decreasing.This strategy has been proved to be a huge success that the Rockefeller Foundation lasts for over a hundred years!And the accumulated charity donation has exceeded tens of billions!Though an annual grant of 137 million dollars is outmatched with a billion dollar all-out donation,the total grant is much larger than the ephemoral effect of an all-out donation.
2.An all-out donation does not answer the needs of donees.
Most of the philanthropic projects aim to resolve the problem of poverty,hunger,environment degradation,education,globalization,health problems and so on,and they involve long terms of construction plans or recruitment project.Schools cannot be built in one day,teachers cannot be recruited in one month and polluted environment cannot be recovered in one year.Almost all the projects demand a constant cash flow to support the construction or restoration processes.If a large amount of money is instantly spent,the fund has nothing left to replenish the cash flow and thus dies out.As a matter of fact,certain charity funds which focus on an incident,a crisis or a disaster,do require large amounts of money in a short period of time.Yet over 80% of the normal charity projects require constant management and care-taking.
3.An all-out donation is not effective in economic sense.
In Macroeconomics,the Solow-Swan Fundamental Equation tells us that any amount of aid capital not large enough to escape from a Poverty Trap will eventually be leveled off.Obviously no donation is large enough to help a macroeconomy escape a poverty trap,which may involve trillions of dollars.Therefore,if we truly care about the long-run growth of the donee,we should not only focus on the capital side.Growth is never a one-time thing,but a gradual and steady process,accompanied by a change in technology,demography and even living styles.Therefore an all-out donation isn't really solving the problem,but might have generated more problems such as embezzelment,and further exasperate the sitation.
辩论:应该裸捐吗?我是反方一辩,该怎么办?要英文的.
辩论会.辩论话题:正方:小学生应该多看电视.反方:小学生应该少看电视.我是反方一辩,求辩论理由.
辩论题目是:距离能不能产生美.我们是反方,距离不能产生美,这应该怎么辩论?我是一辩,该怎么说?
关于电视好不好的英语辩论,我是反方,总结陈词的,用英文,到底该怎么说!
有关英语辩论的一辩词~:减少汽车数量来保护环境.我是反方,该怎么说啊~
我是反方辩手,辩题为该不该让高三的孩子做家务,该怎么辩论
辩论赛的反方一辩发言关于转基因生物与食物安全的辩论赛反方一辩论词我是反方一辩,辩论转基因食品不安全
如何写辩论总结陈词女友该不该野蛮,这个辩题我是反方,四辩的总结陈词如何写呢?而且在辩论的时候,要注意些什么?上次也发了一
该不该施舍乞丐我们辩论,我是反方,不应该施舍乞丐,应该怎么说
网络好坏的辩论我是反方,网络是坏的,该怎么辩?不要全复制
人对自然弊大于利的辩论词 我是反方一辩 求开场陈词 要长一点.
关于诚信缺失辩论正方个人问题 反方个人问题我是反方一辩 需呀说社会问题的 开场白反方我是社会问题 不好意思 打错字了 开