三分钟英语演讲稿范文范例汇总4篇

【阅读指引】阿拉题库网友为您分享整理的“三分钟英语演讲稿范文范例汇总4篇”范文资料，以供您参考学习之用，希望这篇文档对您有所帮助，喜欢就下载分享给大家吧！

英文演讲三分钟演讲稿【第一篇】

以我这样没有什么可听的无聊的讲演，又在这样大雨的时候，竟还有这 许多来听的诸君，我首先应当声明我的郑重的感谢。

我现在所讲的题目是：《无声的中国》。现在，浙江、陕西，都在打仗，那里的人民哭着呢还是笑着呢，我们不知道。香港似乎很太平，住在这里的中国人，舒服呢还是不舒服呢，别人也 不知道。 发表自己的思想，感情给大家知道的是要用文章的，然而拿文章来达意，现在一般的中国人还做不到。这也怪不得我们；因为那文字，先就是我们的祖先留传给我们的可怕的遗产。人民费了多年的工夫，还是难于运用。因为难，许多人便不理它了，甚至于连自己的姓也写不清是张还是章，或者简直不会写，或者说道：Zhang。

虽然能说话，而只有几个人听到，远处的人们便不知道，结果也等于无声。又因为难，有些人便当作宝贝，像玩把戏似的，之乎者也，只有几个人懂--其实是不知道可真懂，而大多数的人们却不懂得，结果也等于无声。文明人和野蛮人的分别，其一，是文明人有文字，能够把他们的思想、感情，借此传给大众，传给将来。中国虽然有文字，现在却已经和大家不相干，用的是难懂的古文，讲的是陈旧的古意思，所有的声音，都是过去的，都就是只等于零的。所以，大家不能互相了解，正像一大盘散沙。

将文章当作古董，以不能使人认识，使人懂得为好，也许是有趣的事罢。 但是，结果怎样呢？是我们已经不能将我们想说的话说出来，我们受了损害，受了侮辱，总是不能说出些应说的话。拿最近的事情来说，如中日战争，拳匪事件，民主革命这些大事件，一直到现在，我们可有一部像样的著作？民国以来，也还是谁也不作声。反而在外国，倒常有说起中国的，但那都不是中国人自己的声音，是别人的声音。

这不能说话的毛病，在明朝是还没有这样厉害的；他们还比较地能够说些要说的话。待到满洲人以异族侵人中国，讲历史的，尤其是讲宋末的事情的人被杀害了，讲时事的自然也被杀害了。所以，到乾隆年间，人民大众便更不敢用文章来说话了。所谓读书人，便只好躲起来读经，校刊古书，做些古时的文章，和当时毫无关系的文章。

有些新意，也还是不行的；不是学韩，便是学苏。韩愈苏轼他们，用他们自己的文章来说当时要说的话，那当然可以的。我们却并非唐宋时人，怎么做和我们毫无关系的时候的文章呢。即使做得像，也是唐宋时代的声音，韩愈苏轼的声音，而不是我们现代的声音，然而直到现在，中国人却还要耍着这样的旧戏法。人是有的，没有声音，寂寞得很。--人会没有声音的么？没有，可以说：是死了。倘要说得客气一点，那就是：已经哑了。

要恢复这多年无声的中国，是不容易的，正如命令一个死掉的人道：你活过来！我虽然并不懂得宗教，但我以为正如想出现一个宗教上之所谓奇迹一样。首先来尝试这工作的是五四运动前一样，胡适之先生所提倡的文学革命。革命这两个字，在这里不知道可害怕，有些地方是一听到就害怕的。但这和文学两字连起来的革命，却没有法国革命的革命那么可怕，不过是革新，改换一个字，就很平和了，我们就称为文学革新罢，中国文字上，这样的花样是很多的。

那大意也并不可怕，不过说：我们不必再去费尽心机，学说古代的死人的话，要说现代的活人的话；不要将文章看作古董，要做容易懂得的阿拉文库章。然而，单是文学革新是不够的，因为腐败思想，能用古文做，也能用白话做。所以后来就有人提倡思想革新。思想革新的结果，是发生社会革新运动。这运动一发生，自然一面就发生反动，于是便酿成战斗但是，在中国，刚刚提起文学革新，就有反动了。

不过阿拉文库却渐渐风行起来，不大受阻碍。这是怎么一回事呢？就因为当时又有钱玄同先生提倡废止汉字，用罗马字母来替代。这本也不过是一种文字革新，很平常的，但被不喜欢改革的中国人听见，就大不得了了，于是便放过了比较的平和的文学革命，而竭力来骂钱玄同。白话乘了这一个机会，居然减去了许多敌人，反而没有阻碍，能够流行了。

中国人的性情是总喜欢调和，折中的。譬如你说，这屋子太暗，须在这 里开一个窗，大家一定不允许的。但如果你主张拆掉屋顶，他们就会来调和，愿意开窗了。没有更激烈的主张，他们总连平和的改革也不肯行。那时阿拉文库之得以通行，就因为有废掉中国字而用罗马字母的议论的缘故。其实，文言和白话的优劣的讨论，本该早已过去了，但中国是总不肯早 早解决的，到现在还有许多无谓的议论。例如，有的说：古文各省人都能懂，白话就各处不同，反而不能互相了解了。

殊不知这只要教育普及和交通发达就好，那时就人人都能懂较为易解的阿拉文库；至于古文，何尝各省人都能懂，便是一省里，也没有许多人懂得的。有的说：如果都用阿拉文库，人们便不能看古书，中国的文化就灭亡了，其实呢，现在的人们大可以不必看古书，即使古书里真有好东西，也可以用白话来译出的，用不着那么心惊胆战。

他们又有人说，外国尚且译中国书，足见其好，我们自己倒不看么？殊不知埃及的古书，外国人也译，非洲黑人的神话，外国人也译，他们别有用意，即使译出，也算不了怎样光荣的事的。近来还有一种说法，是思想革新紧要，文学改革倒在其次，所以不如用浅显的文言来作新思想的文章，可以少招一重反对。这话似乎也有理。然而我们知道，连他长指甲都不肯剪去的人，是决不肯剪去他的辫子的。

因为我们说着古代的话，说着人家不明白，不听见的话，已经弄得像一盘散沙，痛痒不相关了。我们要活过来，首先就须由青年们不再说孔子孟子和韩愈柳宗元们的话。时代不同，情形也两样，孔子时代的香港不这样，孔子口调的香港论是无从做起的，吁嗟阔哉香港也，不过是笑话。我们要说现代的、自己的话；用活着的白话，将自己的思想，感情直白他说出来。但是，这也要受前辈先生非笑的。

他们说阿拉文库卑鄙，没有价值；他们说年青人作品幼稚，贻笑大方。我们中国能做文言的有多少呢，其余的都只能说白话，难道这许多中国人，就都卑鄙，没有价值的么？至于幼稚，尤其没有什么可羞，正如孩子对于老人，毫没有什么可羞一样。幼稚是会生长，会成熟的，只不要衰老，腐败，就好。倘说待到纯熟了才可以动手，那是虽是村妇也不至于这样蠢。好的孩子学走路，即使跌倒了，她决不至于叫孩子从此躺在床上，待到学会了走法再下地面来的。青年们先可以将中国变成一个有声的中国。

大胆他说话，勇敢地进行，忘掉了一切利害，推开了古人，将自己的真心的话发表出来。--真，自然是不容易的。譬如态度，就不容易真，讲演时候就不是我的真态度，因为我对朋友，孩子说话时候的态度是不这样的。--但总可以说些较真的话，发些较真的声音。

只有真的声音，才能感动中国的人和世界的人；必须有了真的声音，才能和世界的人同在世界上生活。我们试想现在没有声音的民族是哪几种民族。我们可听到埃及人的声音？可听到安南，朝鲜的声音？印度除了泰戈尔，别的声音可还有？我们此后实在只有两条路：一是抱着古文而死掉，一是舍掉古文而生存。

英语三分钟演讲稿美文【第二篇】

We've all been taught that we should help people. It is the right thing to do and will make us popular with others. It may even win us favors in return. However, we must be realistic. We can't say yes to every request. If we did, we would fail or go crazy for sure. Sometimes we simply don't have the time to help. In this case, we must know how to say no politely.

When we need to say no, here is one method we can try. First, we should tell the truth. If we really can't do something, we should just say so. Second, we should remember to refuse requests politely. We must communicate clearly, but must also be sincere and sympathetic. A true friend will understand. Finally, we must not feel guilty about saying no. Sometimes refusing others is the right thing to do. It can save ourselves, and them, a lot of trouble. In short, we cannot please everyone all the time. Refusing favors is a part of life.

我们都被教导，我们应该帮助人们。它是正确的事情，会使我们受别人欢迎。它甚至可能会赢得我们的回报。然而，我们必须是现实的。我们不能对每一个要求说“是”。如果我们做了，我们会失败或疯狂的肯定。有时我们只是没有时间去帮助。在这种情况下，我们必须知道如何礼貌地说。

当我们需要说不，这里有一个方法，我们可以尝试。首先，我们应该讲真话。如果我们真的不能做某事，我们应该这样说。第二，我们应该礼貌地拒绝请求。我们必须清晰地沟通，但也必须真诚和同情。一个真正的朋友会理解。最后，我们不应该为说“不”而感到内疚，有时拒绝别人是正确的事。它可以拯救我们自己，和他们，很多麻烦。总之，我们不能取悦所有的人。拒绝恩惠是生活的一部分。

分钟英语演讲稿【第三篇】

The man I admire is a white haired grandfather.

Speaking of him， I have no deep impression on him. In my eyes， he is just an old man over 60 years old. He never talks. I dont know his name yet. Every time I go to school and school， he cleans the street near my intersection， whether its windy or rainy.

It is this ordinary grandfather who tells the extraordinary truth. I still remember that day， the grandfather was still sweeping the street. I was walking on the road after school and saw my grandfather sweeping the street. Suddenly， my grandfather coughed. I hesitated for a moment and decided to help him， but he stood up by himself. I was afraid that my grandfather would fall ill， so I asked， "grandfather， why do you sweep the streets every day？ Are you a sanitation worker？" he laughed and walked away. The next day， I asked him the same question. "Im not a sanitation worker，" he said solemnly. "I sweep the streets because I want to contribute to society. The reason why I dont leave a name is that no one will remember what you did — except yourself！ "I was silent， and I was proud to know such an old man. But for the next ten days， I didnt see my grandfather. After that， I knew he was dead.

Now， selfless dedication has become a "rare species.". We should learn from grandfathers quality — selfless dedication！

分钟英语演讲稿【第四篇】

thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. chairman, i join my colleague mr. rangel in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. mr. chairman, you are a strong man, and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.

earlier today, we heard the beginning of the preamble to the constitution of the united states: "we, the people." it's a very eloquent beginning. but when that document was completed on the seventeenth of september in 1787, i was not included in that "we, the people." i felt somehow for many years that george washington and alexander hamilton just left me out by mistake. but through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, i have finally been included in "we, the people."

today i am an inquisitor. an hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that i feel right now. my faith in the constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. and i am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the constitution.

"who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?" "the subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men." and that's what we're talking about. in other words, [the jurisdiction comes] from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

it is wrong, i suggest, it is a misreading of the constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the president should be removed from office. the constitution doesn't say that. the powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive. the division between the two branches of the legislature, the house and the senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this constitution were very astute. they did not make the accusers and the judgers -- and the judges the same person.

we know the nature of impeachment. we've been talking about it awhile now. it is chiefly designed for the president and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. it is designed to "bridle" the executive if he engages in excesses. "it is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men." the framers confided in the congress the power if need be, to remove the president in order to strike a delicate balance between a president swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the executive.

the nature of impeachment: a narrowly channeled exception to the separation-of-powers maxim. the federal convention of 1787 said that. it limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term "maladministration." "it is to be used only for great misdemeanors," so it was said in the north carolina ratification convention. and in the virginia ratification convention: "we do not trust our liberty to a particular branch. we need one branch to check the other."

"no one need be afraid" -- the north carolina ratification convention -- "no one need be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity." "prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community," said hamilton in the federalist papers, number 65. "we divide into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused." i do not mean political parties in that sense.

the drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term "high crime[s] and misdemeanors." of the impeachment process, it was woodrow wilson who said that "nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can."

common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. congress has a lot to do: appropriations, tax reform, health insurance, campaign finance reform, housing, environmental protection, energy sufficiency, mass transportation. pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. so today we are not being petty. we are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.

this morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the cia by the president is thin. we're told that that evidence is insufficient. what that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the president did know on june the 23rd, 1972.

the president did know that it was republican money, that it was money from the committee for the re-election of the president, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on june the 17th. what the president did know on the 23rd of june was the prior activities of e. howard hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of daniel ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included howard hunt's participation in the dita beard itt affair, which included howard hunt's fabrication of cables designed to discredit the kennedy administration.

we were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the president of the united states. there has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the president. the committee subpoena is outstanding, and if the president wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. the fact is that on yesterday, the american people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their president would obey an order of the supreme court of the united states.

at this point, i would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the actions the president has engaged in. impeachment criteria: james madison, from the virginia ratification convention. "if the president be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."

we have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects the payment to defendants money. the president had knowledge that these funds were being paid and these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign. we know that the president met with mr. henry petersen 27 times to discuss matters related to watergate, and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information mr. petersen was receiving. the words are: "if the president is connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached."

justice story: "impeachment" is attended -- "is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations." we know about the huston plan. we know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. we know that there was absolute complete direction on september 3rd when the president indicated that a surreptitious entry had been made in dr. fielding's office, after having met with mr. ehrlichman and mr. young. "protect their rights." "rescue their liberties from violation."

the carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust."4 beginning shortly after the watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the president has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. moreover, the president has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the watergate case, which the evidence will show he knew to be false. these assertions, false assertions, impeachable, those who misbehave. those who "behave amiss or betray the public trust."

james madison again at the constitutional convention: "a president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the constitution." the constitution charges the president with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the president has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregard the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, conceal surreptitious entry, attempt to compromise a federal judge, while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice. "a president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the constitution."

if the impeachment provision in the constitution of the united states will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder.

has the president committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the constitution will not tolerate? that's the question. we know that. we know the question. we should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. it is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.

i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman.