Anda di halaman 1dari 3

Students should wear school uniforms

School uniforms are a topic which is commonly discussed among students. In some countries,
like Great Britain, it is used normally and it is a part of their tradition. In other countries, like
Croatia, it has never been used, and that is the reason students in such countries discourage
the use of uniforms.

The first disadvantage of their use is, for many students, the impossibility of creating their
own identity and clothing style. For some students this is an important part of their lives. With
uniforms, they can not look like individuals, they are forced to look like a part of a group.
Furthermore, many think that it is boring to wear the same clothes each day, which is
understandable if we take into consideration the variety of clothes we can find in our shops.

On the other hand, there are plenty of advantages of wearing school uniforms. Firstly, they
make social differences disappear. Nobody has to be ashamed, everybody is equal. Secondly,
it is a way of making grades more objective because some teachers are often distracted by the
clothing of some students and give them worse marks. Here I think especially of punk and
similar clothes-stylings. Vulgar clothing, which sometimes appears among girls, can also be
avoided with school uniforms.

To sum up, I personally think that school uniforms are very useful. They vanish social
discrimination from schools and give students the possibility to concentrate on what is really
important at school, and this is learning.

Some people say that 18-year-olds are too young to vote.


Others disagree.
Nowadays, modern democracy permits 18-year-olds to vote either in presidential or
parlamental elections. However, this fact is a matter of a worldwide polemic - should it be
allowed to 18-year-olds to vote at this age or not? Both views are there to be discussed.
To begin with the good sides, 18-year-olds form a more rellevant public opinion by voting at
this age. Nevertheless, recent statistics have shown that certain political parties have won the
race for a few parlament chairs exclusively due to the young who, for some reason, support
their programme. Therefore, the young influence on how the parlament is built. Furthermore,
voting, which is kind of a civil obligation, stimulates a serious implementation in social
events. Although one could be immature at 18, voting leads him/her to crucially important

contemplation that he/she is the one who, eventually, decides about the future of his country.
We all have witnessed fine examples of those who had changed their political attitude
becoming more aware of political happenings which, also, refer to them.
On the other hand, opposers to this theory emphasise that 18-year-olds are simply not capable
of being rational about voting. First of all, they are too young to take care about political
situation. According to various psychological studies, people are, approximately, far more
mature at their twenties. So, two years of waiting could make a significant progress when it
comes to perception of politics. Also, 18-year-olds tend to choose parties which promise
liberalism, legalisations... In spite of this, these parties may come out to be the wrong ones
because of their incapability to act as promised, while the more rational adults will choose
serious parties, rather than 18-year-olds. In addition, the young are preoccupied with their
own problems at school and home. Putting an additional pressure on them is not a good thing
to do.
To sum up, 18-year-old voting has its advantages when it comes to parlamental structure and
building up as a social persona. Despite these statements, some of the young are immature,
recklessly rushing into electing without having considered all the options. Taught by personal
example, my modest opinion is that the aging vote should be moved to 21 because the main
mission of the young is to develop the country by studying and hard-working habits while the
adults are there to elect.

Some people say that violent video games stimulate aggression in young
people. Others claim that they are harmless fun
Some people regard video games as harmless fun, or even as a useful educational tool. Others,
however, believe that videos games are having an adverse effect on the people who play them.
In your opinion, do the drawbacks of video games outweigh the benefits?
Many people, and children in particular, enjoy playing computer games. While I accept that
these games can sometimes have a positive effect on the user, I believe that they are more
likely to have a harmful impact.
On the one hand, video games can be both entertaining and educational. Users, or gamers, are
transported into virtual worlds which are often more exciting and engaging than real-life
pastimes. From an educational perspective, these games encourage imagination and creativity,
as well as concentration, logical thinking and problem solving, all of which are useful skills
outside the gaming context. Furthermore, it has been shown that computer simulation games
can improve users motor skills and help to prepare them for real-world tasks, such as flying a
plane.
However, I would argue that these benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks. Gaming can be
highly addictive because users are constantly given scores, new targets and frequent rewards
to keep them playing. Many children now spend hours each day trying to progress through the
levels of a game or to get a higher score than their friends. This type of addiction can have
effects ranging from lack of sleep to problems at school, when homework is sacrificed for a
few more hours on the computer or console. The rise in obesity in recent years has also been

linked in part to the sedentary lifestyle and lack of exercise that often accompany gaming
addiction.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the potential dangers of video games are more significant
than the possible benefits.

Some people say that a parents responsibility for his/her


child ends when the child reaches the age of eighteen.
Well, I have to write discoursive essay for school so I would like it if you could check my
essay and also tell me if you have some better collocations, phrasal verbs or sth else :) My
essay has an introduction, body and conclusion.
The parent's responsibility for child has always been questioned through the history. In the
past, parents were marry their child to somebody they did not even know. Actually, it was
kind of negotiation when their daughter turned fifteen years old. In modern society where
things are totally different, we can ask ourselves does the responsibility for child ends when
child reaches the age of eighteen or not?
At the age of eighteen parent's law responsibility ends and the child is left on its own. Firstly,
children became more responsible for their acts, for ex. for destroying public property they
will be punished in proper way for behaviouring in that way. Consequently, children will
become more responsible not only towards their city, but also towards society. Secondly, after
the children realise that they are responsible for their acts, it will give them feeling of pleasure
because they started to be young adults in the socitey what is pretty huge thing.
On the other hand, some people believe that the responsibility for child never actually ends.
Firstly, parents will always feel responsible for their child because parent's carriness cannot
stop over the night. Finally, parents are concerned about their children and they are often
overprotective. Do you know any person who would be sitting at home if their child is
accused for something they did not do, no matter how old child is there is no person who
would be sitting at home.
In conclusion, parent's responsibility for child ends when they turned eighteen, but just the
law responsibility, the emotional one never ends. In my opinion responsibility for child never
ends because when you love somebody, it is impossible not to worry about them. Even when
they are your little angels at the age od forthy.