中文摘要辩论原则是我国民事诉讼中的一项基本原则，在民事诉讼活动中给予了当事人充分的辩论自由权利。辩论原则的基本含义是指，只有当事人在诉讼中所主张的并经过法庭辩论的事实才能够作为法院的判决依据，否则法院不可据此裁判的一项民事诉讼制度。因此，辩论原则在民事诉讼法中规定得是否完备、合理，直接决定了当事人在民事诉讼活动中的主体地位能否实现。然而，在我国的司法实践中，辩论原则并未得以很好地贯彻、实施，当事人的辩论权亦受到诸多限制，究其原因，是辩论原则在立法上存在缺陷与漏洞。本文通过对西方两大法系辩论原则的考察和比较，指出两大法系辩论原则的合理之处，也指出我国现行民事诉讼法辩论原则的不足之处。同时，对我国辩论原则的改革和完善提出构想，指明我国民事诉讼辩论原则的改革与进展的方向。要立足于我国国情探讨我国民事诉讼法中的辩论原则，从相应制度和程序的确立、完善等方面对辩论原则的重新构建提出了一些具体的意见和建议。关键词：辩论原则；民事诉讼；当事人AbstractAs the basic principle of our present civil procedure, the debate principle embodies the litigants’ judiciary freedom in the law suit action. The debate principle’s primary meaning is refers to ， the litigation system or the basic principle about the fact which is the foundation of the ad-judgment only can be took by the litigants and must be debated，otherwise, it can not be the foundation of the ad-judgment. That means，decides the litigant’s right in civil procedural action is more or less ， whether the debate principle in civil procedural law is regulated reasonably or no. However，in our justice practice，the debate principle has not been implemented well ， and the litigants’ debate suffer the super restrictions. The reason is that, our present legislation has some limitations. Through reviewing and comparing the debate principle of the western two law system, the article indicates the shortage of our present civil procedural law. At the same time，the article puts forw...
