关键词不能为空

当前您在: 主页 > 英语 >

英语议论文若干热议话题--托福、雅思等可参考思路

作者:高考题库网
来源:https://www.bjmy2z.cn/gaokao
2020-10-31 11:51
tags:考雅思还是托福

会商的意思-白色的英语怎么写

2020年10月31日发(作者:雷啸霖)


Should animals be used in testing new drugs and procedures?
Every year, millions of animals undergo painful suffering or death as a result of
scientific research into the effects of drugs, food additives, cosmetics and other
chemical products. While most people think animal testing is necessary, others are
upset by what they see as needless suffering. This essay looks at some of the
positive and negative aspects of animal testing.
Many medical treatments and procedures have been developed from experiments
on animals. Since animals share many features with humans, scientists use animals
to test the safety and effectiveness of newly developed drugs before pilot testing on
small groups of patients. Medical teams practice new operating techniques such as
transplants on animals. Without animal testing, many procedures or new drugs
would be extremely unsafe.
However, many people are concerned that animals are suffering unnecessarily and
cruelly. They do not believe that every new drug needs to be tested on animals,
especially with the huge database of knowledge and modern computer models.
They also are worried that many animal tests are ineffective, pointing out that any
drugs have had to be withdrawn from the market despite extensive testing. They
particularly feel that animal testing should not be used for non-essential products
such as cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, and cleaning products. Furthermore, some
campaigners would like to see certain tests replaced and more humane methods
used.
We need to make sure that the millions of animals who are used for testing new
products are treated with the minimum of suffering. Although some animal testing
may be unavoidable at present, treating our fellow creatures as mercifully as
possible will demonstrate our humanity.


Should animals be used in testing new drugs and procedures?
Every day, thousands of people are saved from painful diseases and death by
powerful medical drugs and treatments. This incredible gift of medicine would not
be possible without animal testing. Despite these overwhelming benefits, however,
some people are calling for animal testing to be banned because of alleged cruelty.
This essay will examine arguments for and against animal testing.
Those against the use of animal testing claim that it is inhumane to use animals in
experiments. I disagree completely. It would be much more inhumane to test new
drugs on children or adults. Even if it were possible, it would also take much longer
to see potential effects, because of the length of time we live compared to
laboratory animals such as rats or rabbits.
Opponents of animal testing also claim that the results are not applicable to humans.
This may be partly true. Some drugs have had to be withdrawn, despite testing.
However, we simply do not have alternative methods of testing. Computer models
are not advanced enough, and testing on plants is much less applicable to humans
than tests on animals such as monkeys. Until we have a better system, we must use
animal testing.
A further point often raised against animal testing is that it is cruel. Some of the
tests certainly seem painful, but the great majority of people on this planet eat meat
or wear leather without any guilt. Where is their sympathy for animals? Furthermore,
animals clearly do not feel the same way as humans, and scientists are careful to
minimize stress in the animals, since this would damage their research.
I agree that we need to make sure that animals who are used for testing new
products have the minimum of suffering. However, I am convinced that animal
testing is necessary, and that it will continue to benefit humans in new and
wonderful ways.


Should animals be used in testing new drugs and procedures?
Medical research involving animals has dramatically improved the health of the
human race. Without animal testing, the cure for polio would not exist and diabetics
would suffer or die from their disease. Despite these benefits, some people believe
that animals should be not be used for testing medical techniques and drugs. This
essay will outline the advantages of animal testing.
Animal testing allows scientists to test and create new drugs. Animals such as
monkeys or rabbits have similar physical processes to humans. This allows
scientists to test the effects of certain drugs. If a drug produces adverse effects in
animals it is probably unfit for human use.
Animal testing is cheap. There is a large supply of animals for medical research.
Animals are easily bred, and maintained safely in controlled labs. The costs of
testing in humans would be extremely high.
Many people argue that animal testing is cruel. In some cases this is true. However
it would be much more cruel to test new drugs on people or children, or to let people
die because there was not enough information about a drug. Furthermore,
legislation in most countries sets standards for animal treatment, and laboratories
have guidelines to prevent cruelty.
Opponents of animal research also say that information from animals does not apply
to humans. They point to certain commercial drugs which have been withdrawn
because of side-effects in humans While it is true that animal systems differ from
human systems, there are enough similarities to apply information from animals to
humans.
Animal rights campaigners claim that we don’t need new tests because we already
have vast amounts of information. However, many new deadly infections appear
every year and new treatments and drugs are needed to combat these deadly
plagues.
Animal testing is needed in the world we live in. Our responsibility is to manage the
animals in our care and balance their suffering against the good that comes from
them.


Is Education Losing Its Value?
Today, it seems to be universally accepted that increased education is a good thing.
Thousands of colleges and millions of students spend vast amounts of time and
money chasing pieces of paper. But what is the value of these qualifications? This
essay will discuss whether education has been devalued.
Supporters of education (usually teachers or educators, or those in the business of
education) say that increased levels of education will open doors for students.
Certificates, diplomas, and degrees are held up as a status symbol, a passport to a
private club of money and power.
However, the truly powerful are not those with degrees, but people who stand back
and look at what is really important in life. These people are found in every part of
society. Like many brilliant people, Einstein was a weak math student. Like many
successful businessmen, Bill Gates never completed college. Like many inventive
and creative people, Edison never went to school. The greatest religious teachers do
not have letters after their name. Similarly, many of the world’s political leaders do
not have master’s degrees or doctorates. These are the people who shape our lives,
and they are too busy with real life to spend time in the paper chase.
Students in college are being sold an illusion. They are made to believe that
self- understanding and society approval will come with the acquisition of a piece of
paper. Instead of thinking for themselves, and finding their own personality and
strengths, they are fitted like square pegs into round holes, in so-called professional
jobs.
The role of education is to prepare masses of people to operate at low levels of
ability in a very limited and restricted range of activities. Some of these activities
are perhaps more challenging than the assembly lines of the past, but the ultimate
purpose is equally uninteresting. More worryingly, despite the increased level of
education, people are still not genuinely expected to think for themselves. In fact,
the longer years of schooling make the job of brainwashing even easier.
There is still a role for study, research, and education. However, we need to
examine our emphasis on education for the sake of a piece of paper, and to learn the
real meaning and revolutionary challenge of knowledge.


Is Education Being Devalued?
In the past, degrees were very unusual in my family. I remember the day my uncle
graduated. We had a huge party, and for many years my mother called him
genius
sisters have degrees, and two are studying for their masters'. However, some
people think that this increased access to education is devaluing degrees. In this
essay, I will look at some of the arguments for and against the increased emphasis
on degrees in our society.
People have several arguments against the need for degrees. They say that having
so many graduates devalues a degree. People lose respect for the degree holder. It
is also claimed that education has become a rat race. Graduates have to compete
for jobs even after years of studying. Another point is that studying for such a long
time leads to learners becoming inflexible. They know a lot about one narrow
subject, but are unable to apply their skills. Employers prefer more flexible and
adaptable workers.
However, I feel strongly that this move to having more qualifications is a positive
development. In the past education was only for the rich and powerful. Now it is
available to everyone, and this will have many advantages for the country and the
individual. First of all, it is impossible to be overeducated. The more people are
educated, the better the world will be, because people will be able to discuss and
exchange ideas. A further point is that people with degrees have many more
opportunities. They can take a wider variety of jobs and do what they enjoy doing,
instead of being forced to take a job they dislike. Finally, a highly educated
workforce is good for the economy of the country. It attracts foreign investment.
In conclusion, although there are undoubtedly some problems with increased levels
of education, I feel strongly that the country can only progress if all its people are
educated to the maximum of their ability.


Are Degrees Becoming Worthless?
Today, more and more people are attending third level education, and many go on
to post- graduate degrees. People specialize in subjects that were not dreamed of a
century ago. However, the result has not been an increase in real knowledge, but a
cheapening of education. In this essay I will discuss how education has become
devalued.
Education is now something that can be purchased. Like a powerful new car or an
architect-designed house, a degree or a post-graduate degree has become a luxury
that everyone wants. But when everybody has something, that thing becomes
worthless. Gold is sought after because it is expensive and hard to find, but if
everybody changed their attitude to gold, its value would drop.
In the same way, education, like the currency of a bankrupt country, is becoming
devalued as more people have degrees. It takes ever-higher qualifications to get a
job. Once a degree- holder was respected and listened to. Now he or she is just
another job-seeker or employee.
One effect of the rush towards degrees is that knowledge becomes less important.
Other factors, such as influence, are more central in getting a job or a promotion
when everyone has a qualification. A further point is that people lose respect for
themselves. Since everybody has a degree, even degree-holders feel that what they
have is almost worthless. More seriously, the pressure to have degrees results in a
drop in quality. When thousands of people study in a college, the professors cannot
possibly maintain standards. Furthermore, we need to question whether advanced
education is suitable for everyone. Does our entire population really need to spend
years in school and college just to do fairly simple jobs?
In conclusion, there are many negative aspects to the increased emphasis on
qualifications. If we want to maintain the value of education, we need to examine
the emphasis we put on degrees.


Drug abuse is becoming a problem in our society. What are the causes of this and what are
some solutions?
Drug abuse is rife in many countries. Billions of dollars are spent internationally
preventing drug use, treating addicts, and fighting drug- related crime. Although
drugs threaten many societies, their effects can also be combated successfully. This
essay looks at some of the effects of drug use on society, and suggests some
solutions to the problem.
Drug abuse causes multiple problems for countries and communities. The medical
and psychological effects are very obvious. Addicts cannot function as normal
members of society. They neglect or abuse their families, and eventually require
expensive treatment or hospitalization. The second effect is on crime. Huge police
resources are needed to fight smuggling and dealing. Criminal gangs and mafia
underworlds develop with the money from drugs.
However, the menace of drugs can be fought. Education is the first battle. Children
need to be told at home and in school about drugs. People need to be aware of the
effects so that they can make avoid this problem. A second approach is to increase
police manpower and powers to stop dealers and to enforce the law. However the
main target should be the user. Families and counselors need to talk to children and
people at risk. Parents need to look at their children and help them to Jobs are
needed to give people a role in society.
In conclusion, although the problem of drugs may seem impossible to eliminate,
there are concrete steps that can be taken to weaken the hold of drugs on society.
The danger from drugs is too great to ignore.


Many students do not finish school. Why is this, and how can the problem be solved?
Today, although most students in the UAE complete school, a large number still
drop out because of family, social and work pressures. This problem requires
serious action from both individuals and the government.
Most students who do not complete school do so because of family problems. Girls,
especially, want to get married and start a family. Some parents are not interested
in education and do not support their children in studying. Social problems are also
a contributing factor. Education is compulsory but, despite this, some people do not
take it seriously. Furthermore, jobs are available even if students do not have a
good education. The third reason is work pressure. Some families are poor and need
their children to work in order to increase the income. All these problems will create
young people who do not have any skills and who will not be able to improve their
lives for the family and the country.
There are several things that can be done about these problems. Parents should be
encouraged to send their children to school. Schools with baby-minding facilities
should be opened specially for married students. The government needs to stress
the importance of education and even offer financial support to students to continue.
This will encourage students to stay at school rather than start working.
In conclusion, there are several things that the government can do to allow more
people to finish school. However, a number of society attitudes also have to change
if the country’s young people are to achieve their full potential.


Does foreign aid work? Or does it only help the rich country by keeping the poorer country
dependent?
Today, the world is becoming more and more closely linked. Trade has increased
and the movement of people between countries is greater than ever before.
However, billions of people still live in poverty, and in many places, the gap between
rich and poor is widening. This essay will look at the arguments for and against
helping poor countries.
There are many reasons for helping poor countries. First of all, there are
humanitarian reasons. Like individuals who give to charity, many countries feel it is
their religious, social, or moral duty to help people in other countries who are
suffering from famine, drought, war, or disease. However, many rich countries also
donate money for political or diplomatic reasons. They want to maintain a
relationship of dependency with the recipient, or simply to influence the
government and direction of the country. A further reason why many countries help
poorer ones is for economic reasons. The donors may want to control the supply of
commodities such as oil, water, or wheat. Alternatively, the richer country may
want to ensure markets for their own products, whether these are planes,
computers or shoes.
However, aid is not necessarily the best way to help a country. For one thing, billions
of dollars of aid often goes missing, into corrupt governments or inefficient
administration. A second point is that many foreign aid projects are unsuitable for
the target country. Many agencies build huge dams or industrial projects that fail
after a few years or that do not involve the local people. Furthermore, much aid
returns to the donor. This can be in the form of expensive specialized equipment and
experts from the donor country.
There are many other ways we can help poor countries. Opening up trade barriers,
so that poor countries can sell their goods is one way. Another is to remove
subsidies so that imported goods from poorer countries can compete fairly. A third
method is to forgive debts. Many poor countries have huge interest repayments on
old loans.
The needs of the poorer countries may seem obvious. However, although our
humanity makes us want to help eliminate poverty and suffering, we must examine
the real needs of poor countries and implement solutions that will benefit both them
and us.


Do children learn more quickly than adults?
Small children seem to learn very quickly, while adults sometimes appear to lose the
ability to pick up new subject such as languages, music, games, or computer
programs. In this essay, I will discuss whether children or adults make the best
learners.
It is undoubtedly true that children seem to learn very quickly. In just a few years,
they can learn how to play a musical instrument, speak one or even two new
languages, and deal with many subjects at school. They even have time for sports
and hobbies, and become experts in their favorite pastimes. However, how much of
this is social pressure and how much is genetic? I am convinced that while children's
brains have a natural ability to absorb new information as part of their
developmental growth, much of their achievement is because of social pressure.
Schools force them to take many subjects. Parents force them to practice new
sports or to learn music. Even their playmates force them to become better at
computer games or to read Harry Potter novels faster. In summary, children may
enjoy learning, but their environment also is a big motivating factor.
Adults on the other hand are supposed to be poor learners. However, I disagree with
people who say that adults cannot learn quickly. Adults have many skills that
compensate for the decline in the ability of the brain to grasp and remember new
material. They can organize their learning by setting times for reading or practice.
They can build on skills and experiences they know already. Adults usually cannot
learn to do ballet or to play the violin, but even despite these physical challenges,
their motivation can often be higher than a child's. Unfortunately, society does not
encourage many adults to learn. People are busy with families and work, and some
adults may feel that further learning is pointless, since they have already achieved
many goals at work or in their personal life.
In conclusion, I feel that we cannot generalize about children or adults being better
learners. It depends on the situation and the motivation of the person, and the level
of enthusiasm he or she has for learning.


Should smoking be banned completely?
It has become fashionable in the world today to condemn smoking. However,
although I feel that smoking can be harmful, I do not think it should be banned
completely.
Let me deal first with the positive side of smoking. First, smoking undoubtedly helps
many people to relax. For some, it even improves concentration. Many people like to
smoke before exams or when they are relaxing with friends.
A further point is that governments throughout the world make huge profits from
levying taxes on cigarettes. This provides funds which are used for building schools,
hospitals and other public amenities.
The tobacco industry also employs tens of thousands of people throughout the world,
particularly in poorer countries like Zimbabwe or India. Without cigarettes, these
people would have no jobs.
I would also argue that people should have the right to choose whether they smoke
or not. People should not smoke in a room where there are non-smokers but surely
they should be free to smoke elsewhere.
The arguments against smoking are well known. Smoking has been shown to be
dangerous to health. Heart disease, bronchitis and lung cancer have all been linked.
A further issue is that smoking costs governments millions of pounds because of the
large number of people who need treatment in hospitals for smoking related
problems.
There is also concern today about passive smoking. Recent research has shown that
non-smokers can suffer health problems if they spend long periods of time among
people who do smoke.
In general, I think the world would be a better place without cigarettes. However,
the decision as to whether to smoke or not should be for each individual to make.


Should dangerous sports such as boxing or motor-racing be banned?
Millions of people play sport every day, and, inevitably, some suffer injury or pain.
Most players and spectators accept this risk. However, some people would like to
see dangerous sports such as boxing banned. This essay will examine some of the
reasons for banning certain sports.
Some sports are nothing but an excuse for violence. Boxing is a perfect example.
The last thing an increasingly violent world needs is more violence on our television.
The sight of two men (or even women) bleeding, with faces ripped open, trying to
obliterate each other is barbaric. Other sports, such as American football or rugby,
are also barely-concealed violence.
Some people argue that the players can choose to participate. However this is not
always the case. Many boxers, for example, come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
They are lured by money or by social or peer pressure and then cannot escape. Even
in richer social groups, schools force unwilling students to play aggressive team
sports, claiming that playing will improve the students' character (or the school's
reputation), but in fact increasing the risk of injury.
Even where people can choose, they sometimes need to be protected against
themselves. Most people approve of governments' efforts to reduce smoking. In the
same way, governments need to act if there are unacceptably high levels of injuries
in sports such as football, diving, mountaineering, or motor-racing.
I accept that all sports involve challenge and risk. However violence and aggression
should not be permitted in the name of sport. Governments and individuals must act
to limit brutality and violence, so that children and adults can enjoy and benefit from
sport.


Should dangerous sports be banned?
Today, many sports are becoming increasingly regulated. Boxing, rugby, soccer, and other
games are being targeted by sports bodies and medical organizations in an effort to improve
safety standards and to reduce injuries. However, for some people, this is not enough, and
they would rather see some dangerous sports banned completely. In this essay, I will
examine some arguments against banning dangerous sports.
Sports, competition, and games seem to be natural to humans. Young children learn their
own limits and strengths through play with others, but they also learn valuable social lessons
about what acceptable behavior and the rights of others. Sport therefore is not just a physical
phenomenon, but a mental and social one.
Challenging sport provides a healthy, largely safe, physical outlet for aggression. There is
very little evidence to show that people who take part in dangerous sports become violent as
a result. In fact it is more likely that apart from the many friendships created in playing, sport
acts as a safety valve for a society by reducing stress. Moreover, sport teaches and requires
discipline, training, and respect for the rules - valuable lessons in any society.
Almost all sports involve some risk. Young rugby players are paralysed every year in scrums.
Scuba-diving accidents can lead to brain damage or death. Even golf or jogging can lead to
pain or injury. Without some elements of risk or challenge, sport becomes meaningless. A
marathon runner trying to improve his time, basketball players fiercely battling an opposing
team, or a sky-diving team defying gravity - all are trying to push themselves to their
maximum. There is therefore no sport without danger.
There is also the issue of freedom. Without a wide range of sports, many people would feel
trapped or limited. People should be free to participate in activities with others as long as it
does not affect the safety of non-participants.
There also should be limits to the power of governments to ban sports. If one sport is banned
because of alleged danger, then what sport would be next? Boxing is the most common target
of opponents of dangerous sports. But if boxing is banned, would motor racing follow, then
rugby, wrestling, or weightlifting? Furthermore, many sports would go underground, leading
to increased injury and illegal gambling.
Nobody denies that regulation is needed. Medical bodies have introduced safety rules in
boxing, in soccer, and these safety regulations have been welcomed by players. But the role
of government should be reduced.
In conclusion, our society would be healthier if more people took part in sports of all kinds.
We should continue to try to prevent accidents and injuries. However, we should also ensure
that sports are challenging, exciting, and, above all, fun.


How do you think society will be affected by the growth of telecommuting?

Telecommuting will have major effects in the worlds of work and family life.
However, its biggest effect will be in the area of individual freedom, responsibility,
and time management.
Work and workplaces will alter dramatically. Offices may become smaller, as fewer
desks are needed. There will be greater need for high- bandwidth connections to link
the office and the home, and even homes to other homes, as other employees and
supervisors also begin working at home. Hours spent commuting, traffic jams, and
fights for parking should diminish, as workers make fewer journeys or work
staggered hours.
Family life will also change. Workers, both husbands and wives, can arrange their
work around family commitments such as taking children to school, cooking, leisure
activities, etc. However, households will also have to set aside areas for work -
particularly if both spouses are telecommuting.
However, although the ideas of more time at home and less time traveling are
attractive, there are some drawbacks to telecommuting. People may feel unable to
escape their work, and may even work longer or more unsocial hours. The quality of
work may suffer because of the reduced face-to-face interaction with other
employees. There may be delays if other workers are not immediately available.
Telecommuters may feel isolated or unmotivated, or insecure about decisions. A
major change will be in the way people think about work as a place or an institution.
Instead, they will focus on the task or product. Workers may feel less loyal to a
company and more inclined to change jobs or work part-time or on contract.
In conclusion, the effects are difficult to predict because they depend on the extent
to which telecommuting becomes popular. However, telecommuting could be the
start of a major societal shift, possibly as big as the Industrial Revolution which
created our present ideas of work.



Is a third-level education necessary for success?
It is very difficult to answer the claim that a person needs a university education to
be successful in life because success in life means different things to different people.
This essay starts by defining three different ideas of success. Following this, it looks
at which types of success are dependent on a university education.
Success in life can be achieved in different ways. Many magazines and television
programmes tell us that success means having a lot of money, having a fulfilling
career, and being powerful. In contrast, most religious and spiritual organizations
claim that success means finding spiritual happiness and being at peace with God
and with yourself. Another idea of success focuses on relationships - being
surrounded by people who love you and care about you, spending time with family
and friends.
A university education can help you achieve some types of success, but it makes
little or no difference to whether or not you are successful in other areas of life.
Undoubtedly, a university education is essential if you want to have a career in a
profession such as law, engineering, teaching, or medicine. However, you do not
need a university degree to become a wealthy and powerful movie star, sports star
or businessperson. In fact, a university education does not generally enable you to
achieve spiritual happiness, or to have successful relationships with family and
friends.
sIn conclusion, there are many different types of success. A university education
may help you to achieve professional success in some careers. However, it will not
help you to achieve success in other areas of your life such as your spiritual life or
your relationships.



Should parents pay if their children end up in trouble with the law?
Many crimes and social problems are caused by children. Despite the damage these
teenage criminals cause, parents are not held responsible in most countries. This
essay will discuss whether parents should be forced to pay for their children's
crimes.
There are many reasons why parents should not be responsible for crimes
committed by teenage children. First of all, teenagers today are independent. They
often move out of the parent's house at 18 years of age or younger. They are
expected to learn to take care of themselves and make their own decisions, and not
stay like small children attached to their parents. Secondly, parents are working.
They cannot watch their adolescent children all the time. A third point is that even
children from good families can sometimes commit crimes. Parents should not be
responsible if they have worked hard to raise their children properly.
However, because of the many problems young troublemakers cause, I feel we
should make parents responsible. Firstly, most juvenile crimes are committed by
adolescents whose parents do not care or make any effort to control their children.
If parents had to pay fines, they might make more effort. Another point is that even
though the children may seem mature, they are not really able to make good
decisions. Parents should be responsible for raising and teaching their children until
they are fully grown. Furthermore, if children know that their parents will have to
pay, they will think carefully before doing getting into trouble
In summary, there are good reasons both for and against making parents pay for
acts committed by their children. However, I feel strongly that if we want to reduce
the number of such crimes, we need to make parents take more responsibility.



Should parents use corporal punishment to discipline children?
Many parents use physical punishment to discipline their children. Others prefer to
use different methods to reward good behavior or punish misbehavior. This essay
will look at some of the arguments for and against physical punishment of children.
It is often claimed that physical punishment will damage children in later life.
Opponents of corporal punishment claim that the children will grow up to become
delinquents or even beat their wives. However, many happily married adults today
were slapped when they were younger but have never hit their spouses. Another
point often made is that physical punishment teaches children that you can use
force to make others do what you want. In fact children brought up well soon learn
that force by itself is nothing - it must be associated with right. Finally, some people
say that punishing a child by smacking him will damage the relationship between
the child and the parents. This is clearly wrong. Children who understand the
reasons for rules will be happier than children who are not given clear guidelines.
There are definitely concerns about physical punishment. Some parents lose control
and can injure children - even breaking bones or causing bruises. Others can use
violence excessively or as the only method of discipline. In this case, the child will be
hurt, fearful and anxious and will not learn to distinguish right from wrong. The
biggest problem with physical violence is when it is not appropriate to the age of the
child. It can be very effective to quickly smack a two-year-old who is screaming.
However, it is not effective to beat a 16-year-old who is late for school once again.
In conclusion, physical punishment can be a useful method of discipline. However it
should be the last choice for parents. If we want to build a world with less violence
we must begin at home, and we must teach our children to be responsible.



Physical Punishment for Children?
There have been big changes in the attitudes of most parents over the last few years.
Very few parents would agree with using force regularly as a way of dealing with
discipline problems in their children. Physical punishment is banned in schools in
most countries, and in many countries, there are moves to ban all corporal
punishment of children even in the home. However, many parents still believe that
they have a right to use some physical punishment to deal with certain
misbehaviors at certain ages. This essay will ask if some physical punishment is
acceptable today, and will ask how parents can know what the limits are.
It is easy to find reasons to allow some physical punishment. One issue is that many
parents find it very difficult to abandon physical punishment completely. Parents
argue that this was the way they were brought up themselves and that it didn’t do
any harm to them. They believe that for the child’s sake that they have the right to
discipline the child in any way they see fit, including using corporal punishment. A
second point is that corporal punishment can be quick and effective: there is not
much point reasoning with a screaming child in the supermarket. Finally, most
parents are reasonable and fair, and very very few would ever consider hurting their
children by using unnecessary physical force.
There are several reasons however why we should stop using physical punishment
even in the home. One point is that most parents are not trained to deal with
misbehaving children. They do not have enough resources or choices to handle the
situation. As a result, they immediately react by smacking or hitting the child, even
if there are other solutions to the problem. Another point is that unless people are
challenged or forced to change their beliefs they may keep following negative habits.
An example is seatbelt use - now most people wear seat belts without thinking,
whereas years ago the idea of using safety belts was strange to most people. In the
same way, banning physical punishment in the home will allow people to change
their habits and break a cycle of violence. However, the most obvious reason for
banning all physical punishment of children is to prevent child abuse. If all parents
are allowed to hit their children in the name of discipline, some parents will go too
far and will inflict severe emotional and physical damage on their children. It may
only be a smll minority of parents, but we need to protect all our children.
In conclusion, parents have to change some of their beliefs and ideas about how
children should be raised. It is possible to avoid the use of physical force in the home,
and doing so will help us move closer to dream of removing violence from our
society.



Should governments spend money on art, when they have so many other
important issues and concerns?
Throughout the ages, man has tried to create beauty through painting, music,
sculpture and other artistic expression. It seems to be a basic need of humans to
surround themselves with art. However some people feel that government money
spent on art is wasted, particularly when there are so many other demands on it.
This essay will examine the conflict between those who say art is important and
those who feel it is a waste of money.
It can be wrong for governments to spend large sums of money on art. Too often,
governments spend unwisely. They spend money on art not because a picture is
good or a museum is needed, but for political reasons. Cities end up with huge
statues or empty expensive buildings that are used only by a few people or the elite.
Another point is that the artworks are often chosen to represent social or political
rather than artistic ideas. The city gets yet another statue of the leader or an ugly
monument to national aspirations. A third point is that governments often respond
to fashions, and tastes in art can change very rapidly. Without careful advice an
expensive collection of worthless paintings or tasteless productions can be the
result.
However, it would be wrong to say that governments should not spend any money
at all on art. Painters, musicians, and composers cannot survive without financial
support. Rich people or large companies do finance art, but then it is often
inaccessible to ordinary people. Governments have a duty to make this art available
to everyone. However, the most important reason why governments should support
the arts is because an appreciation of art is one of the things that makes life
worthwhile. Humans do not need just shelter and food. Creative people have always
tried to look at things in a new way and to make the world a better place through
painting, music, poetry, calligraphy, sculpture, dance, and numerous other forms of
expression. While art may not make us immortal, it does make the world a richer
place for future generations.
In conclusion, although people do need to be provided with the necessities of life,
such as housing and medical care, governments also have a duty to provide their
citizens with something more. They should make sure that they pass on beauty,
ideas and expression to the next generation and make art available to all instead of
being the possession of only the few. I firmly believe that spending money on art is
a vital part of a government's responsibility, and I am confident that my country will
be able to contribute its share to the richness of the world's art and creativity.



Should governments spend money on art, when they have so many other
important issues and concerns?
Many people's lives are richer because of art - music, paintings, calligraphy, pictures,
sculpture, poems and dance. However, some people feel that governments should
be spending money on housing, medical care, or defence, instead of on art. This
essay will discuss whether governments should or should not spend money on the
arts.
There are several reasons why governments should not finance artists. First of
all, artists should have to follow the same rules as the rest of the market. If there is
a demand for their music or sculpture, then they will be rich. Secondly, politicians
generally do not have good taste. They will waste public money on popular art or on
their own preferences. But the main reason why governments should
minimize spending on the art world is that there are more important areas like
housing, roads, hospitals, and factories which need the money first.
However, it would be wrong to say that governments should not spend any
money at all on art. Everybody needs some beauty in their life, but not everyone can
afford a Picasso or a piece of music. Governments should provide money for
museums or concert halls for everyone. Another point is that art allows people to
express themselves and this is good for society, culture and thought. Thirdly,
artists can be good for the economy by producing music, films, and attracting
tourists.
All in all, governments should prioritize their spending carefully, but they should
also allocate some of their budget for art. It is part of their duty to society and to
future generations.



In the fight against crime, police forces and governments are increasingly
using security cameras in public places. Some people are opposed to this,
saying that it invades our privacy. What do you think?
Security cameras have become ubiquitous in many countries. Whereas before they
appeared only in banks and at high-security areas, they are now entering public
places such as malls, streets, stadiums and transport. Many people feel this affects
their privacy. This essay will examine whether the advantages of these cameras
outweigh their negative impact.
Surveillance cameras have several benefits. An obvious benefit is that the police can
catch criminals in the act, thus reducing crime. This will make the streets safer for
ordinary people. A more important point is that criminals, particularly young
offenders or petty criminals will be deterred. They will not be tempted to carry out
crimes, and thus society will be a lot safer. Cameras are also cost-effective and
unobtrusive. Authorities do not need to spend large amounts of money on police.
However, security cameras are far from being a perfect solution. The biggest
objection concerns privacy. Many people feel that they should be free to travel or
move around a shop, mall, street or country without being photographed or
recorded. They feel that being watched constantly is like being in a jail, and that
ordinary people are losing their freedom because of these devices. Another point is
that although the police say that only criminals have something to fear from the
cameras, many people do not trust governments with too much information.
Corrupt authorities could use information in the wrong way or twist it to victimize
some groups. Thirdly, cameras and computers can make mistakes.
In conclusion, although there are definite advantages to using surveillance devices
such as cameras, we need to balance the need for security with respect for the
individual's privacy and freedom. If we do not trust the members of society, a
situation like George Orwell's



When should people be made to retire? 55? 65? Should there be a
compulsory retirement age?
Many old people work well into their 70s and 80s, running families, countries or
corporations. Other people, however, despite being fit and highly talented, are
forced to retire in their or even earlier because of company or national regulations.
This essay will examine whether people should be allowed to continue working for as
long as they want or whether they should be encouraged to retire at a particular
stage.
There are several arguments for allowing older people to continue working as long
as they are able. First of all, older employees have an immense amount of
knowledge and experience which can be lost to a business or organization if they are
made to retire. A second point is that older employees are often extremely loyal
employees and are more willing to implement company policies than younger less
committed staff. However, a more important point is regarding the attitudes in
society to old people. To force someone to resign or retire at 60 or 65 indicates that
the society does not value the input of these people and that effectively their useful
life is over.
Allowing older people to work indefinitely however is not always a good policy. Age
alone is no guarantee of ability. Many younger employees have more experience or
skills than older staff, who may have been stuck in one area or unit for most of their
working lives. Having compulsory retirement allows new ideas in an organization. In
addition, without age limits, however arbitrary, many people would continue to
work purely because they did not have any other plans or roles. A third point of view
is that older people should be rewarded by society for their life’s labor by being given
generous pensions and the freedom to enjoy their leisure.
With many young people unemployed or frustrated in low- level positions, there are
often calls to compulsorily retire older workers. However, this can affect the older
individual’s freedom - and right - to work and can deprive society of valuable
experience and insights. I feel that giving workers more flexibility and choice over
their retirement age will benefit society and the individual.



Should famous people have more privacy? Does the media treat celebrities
fairly?
Being famous is not as easy as you think. Newspapers, television and the internet
can make you very well-known, but they can also take away your privacy. This
essay will discuss whether celebrities are treated fairly by the media.
Famous people depend on the media. Without films, television, magazines, radio,
and other media, there would be no money for actors or musicians, and politicians
would not get elected. Without advertisements, Beckham would not get huge
contracts. However, in return for publicity and even more fame and money,
celebrities sell part of their personal and professional lives. Often, their friends and
families suffer too.
The media, in turn, depends on celebrity. Sports heroes, supermodels, and
politicians fill the pages of our papers and our television screens. But the
relationship can easily go wrong. Too much attention from the media can drive
some celebrities crazy. The families are affected, and relationships break down.
Their work or social life suffers, leading to even more rumors and media stories. Like
a pack of wild dogs, the press feeds on its victims and fights over the bones.
Sometimes, the media has a duty to do. It must tell the public about some
wrongdoing or some crooked business deal. But usually the main business of the
media is to sell more magazines or advertisements, and when it has chewed up one
victim, the pack will move on to the next.
In conclusion, there is a constant battle between media and celebrities, and often
there are human victims. The next time you read about the latest footballer or
singer, think about the human behind the story.



Do the media treat famous people unfairly? Should famous people be given
more privacy? Is publicity about their private lives the price VIPs must pay
for fame?
Most ordinary people respect the rights of others to a private life. However, some
people are obsessed with celebrities and VIPS. They want to know everything about
them, and have an insatiable desire for more information. This essay will discuss
whether newspapers and TV should show us intimate details of famous people’s
lives.
Famous people deserve privacy and respect. First of all, we should admire what they
do, not who they are. If someone is a famous singer or footballer, we should enjoy
their talent on the pitch or at a concert, but we should not invade their family or
private life through the media. Secondly, the children and family of famous people
should not be affected. Some stars have to hire security for their children or spouses
because of media attention. Another point is that too much attention can affect
celebrities. They begin to act strangely and lose touch with reality.
Although, generally speaking, the media should not interfere in people’s private
lives, there are times when it is correct to do so. If a politician is becoming very rich,
the media should investigate where the money is coming from. If a businessman is
committing a crime, the public should know. It is also fair for the media to show
contradictions between a famous people’s private and public lives. A further point is
that media such as TV or papers are meeting a demand. We can make the media
accountable by not buying rubbishy magazines or watching sensationalist
programs.
In conclusion, the responsibility lies with us, the consumers. We should treat
celebrities the way we would like to be treated—with respect, and we should treat
trashy media with the scorn it deserves.



What are the problems of living with a roommate in college? Is it better
than living alone?
Many students are obliged to share accommodation with another student while in
college. Sharing may seem awkward at first, but it may prove to be a very good
experience. In this essay, the benefits and disadvantages of living with a roommate
will be discussed, as well as the qualities needed in a good roommate.
If you have never shared with someone, you may have some difficulties adjusting.
You may find that the other person is very different in character and he or she
doesn't suit you as a companion. Will he person be clean and tidy? Will she eat the
same food or enjoy the same music? How should you react to your roommate's
friends? And of course, there is the issue of telephone bills and shared expenses. For
some people, the lack of privacy is the biggest challenge, while others may find their
roommates over-sensitive or distant. It is essential to try to understand each other
and make living together more pleasant and even fun.
Yes, fun, because there are many positive aspects to sharing. New students are
often far away from their families and friends, and may experience loneliness and
homesickness. Both may also be facing new challenges in their studies. Sharing
offers companionship to people who might otherwise have to face these problems
alone. Furthermore, since college is not just about academic learning, sharing is an
opportunity to develop communication skills so that a good atmosphere is
established. Both students can learn from each other about new interests and
explore new activities. However, it is important to realize that your roommate does
not have to be your best friend. In fact, the most desirable feature when living with
someone else is respect for the other person's needs. Neither you nor your
roommate will be right all the time.
In conclusion, I think that there are more benefits than disadvantages in having a
roommate, but it depends on both dealing with concerns honestly and sensitively in
order to make student life as happy as possible.



Should children be educated at home or in school?
In most countries in the world, governments require children to attend schools in
which trained teachers are responsible for educating the children using an approved
curriculum. However a significant number of parents believe that it is much better
for their children to be educated at home by the people who know them and their
needs best. This essay will examine the question of home schooling and discuss
which the best option for the child is
An increasing number of parents are deciding that home schooling is the best option
for their children. They are unhappy with the quality or depth of education offered in
the schools, or have other reasons why they feel that traditional schools are not
suitable for their children. One reason is social factors. Parents worry that their
children will suffer from bullying or will be forced into antisocial behavior by peer
pressure. They believe that the good behavior they have taught the child will be lost
in school. Another reason is concern over the quality of schooling available. Schools
frequently have large classes. They are often under-funded, and staffed by teachers
without sufficient knowledge of their subjects. Subjects such as the family’s religion
or language may not even be available in the school. Other parents may disagree
with the aims of the school curriculum, preferring for academic, social or cultural
reasons to keep their children separate. Finally, some children with special needs
may need particular parental care.
However, there are many arguments in favor of sending children to conventional
schools. The first is that the children will be exposed to other children. These
children may represent either a cross-section of society or a narrow group, but in
either case the children will interact with each other and develop social skills. A
second point is that the children will learn to function outside the family. They will
not be dependent on their parents for their educational, emotional and social needs.
A third point is that the children will find it easier to integrate when they finish school,
as they eventually will, when they start work or college.
Overall, while many parents work hard to teach their children at home, conventional
schools are still the right choice for most children. Schools are not perfect, but they
seem to be a proven way of preparing our children for the real world.

生肖的意思-vibe什么意思


光年是什么意思-密度分析仪


疏不间亲-恶劣的意思


辅导班的英语-旋即


either-杆子的拼音


十月十-投票箱


双曲柱面-冰释前嫌是什么意思


初中历史说课稿-赤道潜流



本文更新与2020-10-31 11:51,由作者提供,不代表本网站立场,转载请注明出处:https://www.bjmy2z.cn/gaokao/435056.html

英语议论文若干热议话题--托福、雅思等可参考思路的相关文章

英语议论文若干热议话题--托福、雅思等可参考思路随机文章