1: YOUNG PEOPLE WHO COMMIT CRIMES SHOULD BE TREATED AS ADULTS, TO
WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE
For countless generation, education has always played a pivotal role in the life of each
individuals, making it an increasingly significant emphasis. However, due to improper educating
methodologies, the rate of juvenile crimes has grew drastically, prompting many to advocate that
teenagers committing offences should be convicted and executed as mature offenders while
others. Despite understanding the intentions behind this proposition, I maintain a dissenting
viewpoint and will elucidate my standpoint in this essay.
From one vantage point, imposing strict punishments could present undeniable merits. Primarily
in terms of societal perspective, it is claimed to ensure the justice for victims and equality among
humans as they assert that justice is only served if lawbreakers are punished as adults.
Additionally, the government can also avoid protests or riots, leading a stable social life.
However, this seemingly altruistic policy is not without its pitfalls. Harsh punishment treated
adolescents unaware of the gravity of their actions could result in mental disorders, negating the
benefits of treating teenagers as adults and possibly causing more harm than good.
In light of the aforementioned, there are more compelling reasons to extol the idea of prohibiting
harsh punishment. Chief of these is that teenagers are potential for rehabilitation, thus treating
them as grown-up individuals could somewhat mean that we are denying them the opportunity to
reintegrate into community. This, in turn, could bear an adverse on the growth of the economy
and education in a foreseeable future as they are likely to act as a main workforce fostering
prosperity of the nation. Consequently, banning this idea could be advantageous to both young
criminals and the all-round development of countries.
Considering both viewpoints, an alternative solution like crime prevention programs could offer
a more balanced approach. Implementing this could yield substantial benefits, sustaining an
educated workforce for enriching various facets of the nation, without violating child rights. The
UNICEF, for instance, has successfully organized a model of free training for kids all over the
world, coupling with the logical parental care, they all expected that this alarming problems
could be tackled as soon as possible. This system has brought heaps of advantages to the citizens.
In conclusion, while the idea of punishing young generation engaging in criminal activities as
adults could ensure fairness among citizens from all ages or genders, the potential negative
consequences, such as unsustainable mental health and the stagnancy of various facets cannot be
overlooked. Therefore, I advocate for the government to explore alternative measures, like
providing young progeny with effective educational pursuits and support, rather than convicting
and executing them as full-grown people outright. This approach can effectively address the
issue, benefiting both offenders and generally thriving economic and educational development.
2: GOVERNMENT FUNDING IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE SURVIVAL AND FLOURISHING
OF THE ARTS. TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE?
For countless generation, culture has always played a pivotal role in the life of each individual,
making it increasingly significant emphasis. However, in this globally integrated society, culture
loss has became an alarming problem, prompting many to assert that the national support could
preserve the culture legacy. Despite understanding the intentions behind this proposition, I still
maintain a disserting standpoint and will elucidate in this essay.
From one vantage point, public spending is valid to a certain extent as by allocating more money
to traditional institutions like craft villages can encourage local people to take over these long-
lasting customs, being threatened by modern products with similar-looking at a more cost-
effective way. Hence, this would not only prevent cultural assimilation, but also promote
Vietnamese culture among foreigners. However, this seemingly altruistic policy is not without its
pitfalls. This is because keeping arts alive could take a huge amount of spending, contributing to
the all-round development of the country. Thus, public funds to arts are likely to do more harm
than good.
In light of the aforementioned, there are more compelling reasons to protest the idea of sharing
government funding to artistic fields. Chief of these is that it would somewhat limit artists’
creativity and freedom primarily owing to the fact that once they receive the support, they will
subliminally be affected by societal standard, leading to self-censorship. This coupled with the
fact that art is subjective, thereby resulting in forming bias towards certain types of this creative
field such as political perspective. Consequently, maintaining government funds could
inadvertently bear an adverse on various facets of the nation and cultural freedom.
Considering both views, making creative subjects namely arts or music compulsory could offer a
more balanced approach. Implementing this could yield substantial benefits, not only sustaining
an potentially educated workforce to cater for this field in the foreseeable future, but also raise
citizens’ aesthetic taste by providing them with more regular contacts with artisy, which is
claimed to be able to bring undeniable merits and tackle the problem from its roots.
In conclusion, while the idea of serving the arts with public spending could guarantee the time-
honored tradition of the country despite the globalization, the negative consequences, such as the
stagnancy of the economy and the restriction of freedom cannot be overlooked. Therefore, I
advocate for the government to explore more alternative measures like attaching more
significance to artistic subjects. This system can effectively address the issue, benefiting both
national finance and dwellers’ social welfare
3:SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT STUDENTS SHOULD BE TAUGHT INTERNATIONAL
NEWS AS A SUBJECT AT SCHOOLS. OTHERS FEEL THAT THIS WOULD BE A WASTE
OF VALUABLE SCHOOL TIME. DISCUSS BOTH VIEWS AND GIVE YOUR OPINION.
For countless generation, education has always played a pivotal role in the life of each
individual, thereby making it an increasingly significant emphasis. Primarily, due to the
globalization, many advocated for serving worldwide news as a compulsory subject while others
do not claim so. Therefore, this has sparked an ongoing debate over the choice between two
aforementioned forms. In this essay, I will elucidate both viewpoints and offer my personal
perspective on the matter.
From one vantage point, world press can be valid to a certain extent. The key reason is that
students can somewhat widen their horizon and better their genuine growth by updating to state-
of-the-art information. In addition, this, in turn, could generate an educated workforce to cater
for the development of the nation especially those being relevant to the culture or politics.
Overall, this decision undoubtedly brought considerable merits to both pupils and nations’ all-
round development.
On the other hand, more compelling reasons protest the aforementioned approach mainly
because it is claimed to bear an adverse on students’ mental health. It is widely acknowledged
that today’s students have to put up with lots of stress from only parents, but also peers. Thus,
adding one more subjects can somehow create academic pressure, which could dishearten kids.
To worsen the issue, some even resort to suicide to escape the harsh reality. Consequently, in
comparison with the advantages, teaching international news seems to do more harm than good.
Considering both views, an alternative solution like organizing clubs about global journal can
offer a more balanced approach. Implementing this could yield substantial benefits, sustaining a
high-quality workforce without creating school pressure at the same time. Reddit, for instance, a
famous online club attracts thousands of members interested in these fields, exchanging their
opinions on current matters. As a result, this methodology has been able to tackle the issue.
In conclusion, while worldwide press can be beneficial to enrich various facets of nations, the
potentially negative consequences, such as the students’ unstable mental health, cannot be
overlooked. Thus, it stands to reason why I advocate for the researchers to explore more
alternative measures, like establishing more clubs or institutions about this topic and making it
ubiquitous . This methodology has been believed to address the issue effectively.
4: MANY SAY STUDENTS SHOULD STUDY SUBJECTS THEY ARE GOOD AT WHILE
OTHERS BELIEVE STUDENTS SHOULD STUDY ALL SUBJECTS. DISCUSS BOTH
VIEWS AND GIVE YOUR OPINION.
For countless generation, education has always played a pivotal role in the life of each
individual, making it an increasingly significant emphasis. However, with an expectation to find
the best studying methodology for students, many assert that they should only focus on subjects
that they performed well while others protest that they must learn multiple subjects for an all-
round development. This has sparked an ongoing debate over the choice between those
aforementioned forms. In this essay, I will elucidate both standpoints and offer my personal
perspective.
From one vantage point, providing students with a well-rounded education can be valid to a
certain extent primarily because students can broaden their horizon from different fields such as
history, geography, etc. This coupled with the fact that, this learning system, in turn, can facilitate
them with a variety of necessary life skills such as communication, analytics, time- management,
to name but a few. In addition, via this process, kids’ adaptability can also be improved a lot as
they gain deeper understanding of their surroundings As a result, they can reach full potential of
themselves.
On the other hand, the pressure from studying various branches cannot be overlooked as it can
bear an adverse on students’ mental health. Additionally, learning all subjects can be a waste of
time and effort mainly because students cannot put all knowledge into practice. This is not the
case when it came to studying minor subjects owing to students’ strengths. Take students major
in biology or chemistry as a specific example, they can delve into subject matters, which could
be advantageous if they wanted to pursue career in medicine. Overall, in comparison with
learning particular subjects, all-round education seems to do more harm than good.
In conclusion, while learning multiple subjects can be beneficial to sustain students’ well-
rounded performances, the potentially negative consequences, such as the students’ unstable
mental health due to overwhelming workload, cannot be overlooked. Consequently, having
considered both views, I personally advocated that students should focus on subjects fitted their
strengths and interests for better future career advancement.
