Discussion Essays

Opinions differ regarding the inclusion of global news as a subject in secondary schools. In my perspective, delving into worldwide news holds the potential to foster young minds destined for future greatness, thus making it a subject worth studying.

On the one hand, it can be argued that studying international news may not directly benefit students' future careers. Gaining knowledge about current affairs, such as earthquakes in foreign countries, may not provide tangible skills that increase employability down the line. Consequently, precious school hours that can be allocated to subjects more relevant to students' future careers, such as math and science, may be going to waste. However, I disagree with the argument above, as not every individual aspires to pursue a path in science or engineering. For some students, exploring global events might kindle an interest in journalism.

On the other hand, studying worldwide news has the power to ignite future greatness in students. When schools incorporate international news into their curriculum, students are regularly exposed to headlines and business news that shape the world today, including rocket launches by entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. This consistent exposure helps inspire them to make impactful contributions to the world as they grow up, just as the influential figures featured in the news do. I firmly support this perspective because I believe that, apart from imparting knowledge, schools should also be a source of inspiration for students to discover their highest aspirations, and this can be achieved through the study of global news.

In conclusion, while studying world affairs may not have a direct career benefit, it has the potential to spark greatness in young students and, therefore, should be included as a subject in secondary schools.

There are differing opinions regarding whether university students should focus solely on earning a qualification or explore other subjects as well. While prioritizing qualification studies can enhance employment possibilities, I am of the opinion that cross-disciplinary expertise helps pave the way for entrepreneurial endeavors.

Some claim that devoting time exclusively to obtaining a qualification can increase the likelihood of employment. Immersion solely in a specific field enables a profound understanding and mastery of the field without division of attention. This depth can be beneficial for securing jobs in professions that demand specialized expertise, such as medicine and engineering. However, in today's rapidly evolving landscape, qualifications earned during university years may lose relevance shortly after graduation, and concentrating narrowly on a single area can limit students' potential for career shifts.

On the other hand, it can be argued that interdisciplinary knowledge helps foster entrepreneurship. Having a well-rounded understanding of various subjects can empower individuals to conceive business ideas and bring them to fruition. Take Elon Musk as an example. Had he focused exclusively on physics, he might have excelled as an engineer. However, his background in economics has given him a distinctive edge in making innovations like electric cars more affordable, a key factor in popularizing these innovations on a global scale. I agree with this perspective because higher education comes at a significant cost, and successful business ventures often yield greater returns than traditional 9-5 employment.

In conclusion, while academic qualifications may improve the prospects of securing employment, I believe it is more important to explore diverse subjects, which has the added benefit of inspiring entrepreneurial ventures.

There have been conflicting views on the responsibilities of individuals in society. While some claim that paying taxes suffices, I maintain that citizens must go beyond their role as taxpayers to contribute to society's betterment because many social issues cannot be solved by monetary contributions alone.

Individuals who argue that they have fulfilled their duty to society by paying taxes may cite the substantial amount they contribute. For instance, tech workers in the United States may be required to part with up to 37% of their earnings in taxes, a considerable sacrifice, particularly in today's high-cost-of-living environment. Nonetheless, our social responsibilities should not be limited to financial support because issues such as racism and gender inequality stem from a lack of public awareness rather than a lack of resources.

On the other hand, others contend that as members of society, taxpayers must also make efforts to address pressing social issues. Consider climate change. If individuals are not mindful of their carbon footprint in their daily activities and leave the responsibility of addressing this problem solely to the government, climate change will exacerbate. I agree with this argument because many other societal issues, such as racism, also result from insufficient public awareness. Society will benefit greatly if we are all more aware of our role in addressing such issues.

To conclude, while paying taxes is a significant sacrifice, it is insufficient to meet our obligations as members of society. We must actively engage in resolving societal issues and work collectively to create positive change. Only then can we establish a better society that benefits all.

There is much debate regarding the effects of TV viewing on children. In my opinion, when watched in moderation, educational TV shows can be beneficial for children because they help them develop positive values as they grow up.

On the one hand, those who believe that TV viewing harms children in every way may argue that it is a passive activity that encourages sedentary behavior and limits meaningful play. This can lead to a range of problems, such as poor health and cognitive development. However, I believe that this argument is only valid if children spend too much time in front of the screen. Parents can protect their children from the potential dangers of TV viewing by setting reasonable time limits and providing adequate supervision.

On the other hand, there are people who argue that many TV programs are educational and can instill good values in children. For example, Disney movies often portray characters with admirable traits, such as courage, kindness, and perseverance, which can inspire children to emulate these values and become better individuals. This has led me to believe that educational television programs can be excellent tools for teaching children moral lessons as they grow and develop. Many children find traditional forms of education boring or difficult, but the visual and interactive nature of TV can make learning more engaging and enjoyable.

In conclusion, although prolonged passive television viewing can be detrimental, watching educational TV shows in moderation can have a positive impact on children's development. Such shows can effectively impart valuable lessons and teach positive values in an engaging and entertaining manner.

While some argue that history has lost relevance in the modern era, others assert that it remains crucial to comprehending contemporary issues and events. I agree with the latter viewpoint because it is what has happened in the past that shapes the world we live in today.

Those claiming that history has little to teach us may believe that the world has changed too much. To be more specific, we are now living in a completely different world where we easily enjoy modern conveniences that did not exist previously, and this can make the past irrelevant. Despite the significant changes that have occurred over time, I think it is important to recognize that our modern conveniences and innovations are built on the knowledge and innovation of previous generations. By studying history, we can gain a deeper understanding of the discoveries and inventions that have paved the way for modern technology.

On the other hand, there are people who argue that learning about history can provide insights into how things nowadays are shaped. For instance, examining Google's history reveals that the company was able to beat the odds and replace Yahoo as the market leader in search because it never stopped improving and innovating. This means that, by understanding how previous generations have responded to challenges and opportunities, we can make more informed decisions about our own lives in both the personal and professional worlds, and this has led me to agree with those who value the importance of history.

In conclusion, although the world has undergone significant changes, I believe the value of history remains undiminished. Ultimately, history provides us with a foundation of knowledge that helps us understand why things are the way they are today.

Some people believe that it is the government's responsibility to cover the cost of healthcare and education, while others argue it is not. I agree with the former viewpoint because government provision of these essential services is crucial for the betterment of society as a whole.

Those who argue that the government should not fund medical care and education may believe this responsibility should fall on employers. Given that individuals are spending a considerable portion of their lives in the workplace, it is essential for employers to provide healthcare and educational benefits as part of their employee compensation package, acknowledging their contributions to the organization. However, I think that private healthcare and education can place an enormous financial burden on employers, which can impact their survival and discourage entrepreneurship, especially in times of economic downturn.

On the other hand, those in favor of government-funded healthcare and education argue that it is necessary for the benefit of the whole society. Without such a system, people from low-income families may be denied access to higher education and medical care. This can prevent them from being productive and contributing members of society and perpetuate the cycle of poverty, resulting in an inegalitarian society. I agree with this argument because, when examining Nordic countries such as Sweden and Denmark, I found that they all have well-funded public healthcare and education systems that have helped reduce inequality and contributed to their prosperity.

In conclusion, although it is reasonable to require employers to provide medical care and education for their employees, the provision of these services by the government helps promote the overall development of society and therefore is more important.

There have been conflicting views on whether the use of freshwater should be controlled or not. In my opinion, government regulations on water usage should be put in place so that this limited natural resource can be utilized in an equitable manner.

The proponents of unrestricted access to water may view it as a fundamental human right. They may believe that they are entitled to use as much water as they see fit for their daily activities, such as taking long showers or leaving the tap running when brushing their teeth. Restricting their water consumption is a violation of their human rights. However, I think these are selfish individuals who fail to consider the impact of their actions on the larger global community.

On the other hand, there are those who argue that water should be managed as a limited natural resource in order for it to be distributed equitably across the globe. To be specific, many regions are facing recurrent droughts, and people there are experiencing a water shortage. Therefore, conservation is necessary to ensure that everyone in the world has access to this limited resource. After all, water is crucial to human survival and, without it, many people would become sick and even die. I agree that the government should regulate the use of freshwater. Otherwise, there will always be individuals who waste water and disregard the needs of those living in arid areas.

In conclusion, although free access to freshwater is a basic human need, I believe controlling its usage is necessary to secure its equitable distribution among all people on earth.

There have been conflicting views on how children should spend their free time. While planned group activities build obedience and cooperation in children, I believe it is more important for them to practice entertaining themselves on their own because it helps them develop problem-solving skills.

On the one hand, organized group activities foster obedience and cooperation because they assign children a common goal, whether it is the harmony that a choir strives to achieve or the scores that a football team aims for. To accomplish their goal, children must work with each other and follow the instructions provided by a group leader. However, I think programming each minute of an activity doesn't give children enough room to use their imagination and, therefore, stifles their creativity.

Those on the other side of the argument say that, by finding activities on their own, children can improve their ability to tackle problems. During boring times throughout the day, they learn to be creative and resourceful to discover methods to entertain themselves only when there isn't any aid or interference from adults. For example, when feeling bored, a shy girl may become more social and go ahead and invite the neighbor kids over ("Neighbor" is an adjective here). I agree with this argument because problem-solving is a crucial life skill. As children grow up, they will encounter obstacles and have nobody but themselves to count on to get through such tough situations.

In conclusion, even though organized group activities help children become more obedient and cooperative, I believe self-directed activities bring the greater benefit of fostering problem-solving skills and should therefore be prioritized.

There have been conflicting views on whether it is necessary to watch a movie in a theater or if digital devices suffice. In my opinion, the immersive experiences offered by theaters make the effort of traveling worthwhile.

On the one hand, you can now watch any movie on your digital device. The development of streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video has put an end to the days when certain movies could only be seen in theaters. This means that, regardless of your preference, be it an independent romance film or an action masterpiece, you will be able to find a film to watch in the extensive selections available online. If watching movies on smartphones and tablets is so easy, why travel to a movie theater? However, I believe that although access to a vast collection of films is one benefit, you won't be able to fully enjoy the viewing experience on the small screen of your device.

Those on the other side of the argument say that visiting a theater allows you to feel personally involved in the movie. Consider watching Aquaman in a theater. The IMAX screen, 3D images, and surround-sound systems all work togetgher to transport you under the magical ocean where seahorses and characters are so close to you as if you could reach out and join their battle. I agree with this argument because many movies are produced to provide viewers with visual excitement, which can only be achieved through a theatrical experience.

In conclusion, although streaming services on digital devices provide a wide range of options, theaters offer the unique experience of feeling like a part of the movie. Therefore, to have the best viewing experience, films must be seen in the cinema.

There have been conflicting views on whether it is beneficial to have friends who occasionally hold different opinions from ours. I believe such friends are treasures in our lives because they push us to become better people.

On the one hand, our lives may be easier with someone who always agrees with us because we need not waste time arguing. For example, assume that we are going away with a friend. Disagreeing on which airline, hotel, or restaurant to choose can add fun-killing tension to our trip. However, I think a tensionless trip during which no one challenges our choices could, just as easily, be a boring one. The same can be true of other aspects of our lives.

Those on the other side of the argument say that having friends who sometimes disagree with us can help us grow. Disagreements with opened- minded friends can push us to reflect on our choices in both the personal and professional worlds. For example, imagine someone encouraging us to make a career change. That person's objective view of our professional choice can lead to the realizations about job satisfaction and the need to follow our passion. I agree with this argument because friends who are unafraid to offend and challenge us to change the status quo are the kinds of true friends who help us improve and grow.

In conclusion, although our lives may be easier with those who share our perspectives on everything, it is better to have friends who disagree with us now and then because those disagreements can foster personal growth.

There have been competing views on whether highly qualified people should work in the country where they trained. In my opinion, they should be free to work wherever they want in order to achieve maximum career fulfillment.

Mandating that skilled workers stay in the country that trained them helps to avoid brain drain. Without this policy, many of them may move to another country that pays better and offers a higher standard of living. If a country loses the bright minds that innovate and build companies, its economy will suffer. However, I do not think that the policy in question is an ideal way to prevent brain drain because forcing a worker to stay in a place where they do not want to be can stifle their creativity and productivity.

Those on the other side of the argument say that highly trained people should be free to move, a practice that enables them to find fulfillment in work. There are lines of work a person can do only in certain regions. For example, if engineers who trained in India want to work with the world's latest technology, their best choice is to go to the US and work for tech giants like Amazon and SpaceX. And only when a person is doing what they want can they find fulfillment in their careers. Since fulfilled workers are more likely to reach their full potential, I agree that the educated should have the freedom to choose where they want to work.

In conclusion, while requiring skilled professionals to work in the country where they were trained can prevent the loss of talent, I believe it is best to grant them freedom of movement because they are more likely to reach their full potential when they feel fulfilled by their work.