- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
One of the aims for doing homework, which may require a few hours to finish and is designated with fixed questions, is to let students show the knowledge learnt in classes. Based on this definition, i prefer saying "no" to doing it.
Firstly, Homework could be an obstable for students to develop their talents. Every professional skills require time to cultivate, even for elite and brilliant people. Students hoping to pursue their born talents could be distracted by doing homework, which usually occupies a few hours to be finished("BIG" projects is not counting yet). Few hours a day sound trivial. Nonetheless, if they were invested in developing our habits and interests, the results could be totally changed. Take NBA(Nation Basketball Association) players as an example. Scarcely could we imagine that what would happen to them losing a few hours a day which are ought to be utilized to train. It is just the same for students. Some of them might favour painting but rushing to write psychological essays. Some of them might love music but frustrating to do the tedious searching stuff. Why could not these students be able to focus on what they want? We should realize sometimes paperworks are just not their desired tea.
Secondly, homework could not suit every student's need. Each student are different in terms of their academic performance and desired training while homework could only provide fixed content and question. Very often, both elite and comparably poor students find their homework useless. For the former, homework is not challenging at all whereas for the latter it is like fighting an uphill battle to finish their assignment. Therefore we can notice an inherent problem for homework is that it could almost never cater to every demand from students, let alone equipping them with sufficient weapons to survive this knowledge-based era
P.S: Sorry for putting my argument in the wrong area...
Because their living standard are not met with the most basic one. The "better" in my previous post doesn't mean living in a luxurious housing, but an ordinary one. And answer could be found as well by thinking about why the government has to offer allowance for jobless citizens for a certain period of time.
Lack of time, knowledge and improper attitude towards sex of both parents and students should be the answers to why the government has to intervene. The government doesn't have to build public housing, giving out allowance, subsidies for the poor. It could let them struggle under the so-called free market system. But we do know that that's not right. They are supposed to live better, deserving the helping hand from both the government as well as charities. So they are granted help. And this is just the same when comes to providing sex education for High School level students, who might need and deserve the knowledge about moral, sex and other relevant information.
For news, the existence of the Internet grant people access to information around the world. People living in Africa can know about the issue igniting in the USA in just less than an hour, while i do admit that excessive information is sometimes detrimental to us.
For social networking sites, communication between people seems to be enhanced right after the introduction of the two popular websites- Facebook and Twitter, which are being used by millions of people worldwide. However, wheresa we aciqure the innovative services the Facebook offers us, a weird phenomenon can be seen around the world as well, which is that people are obssessed with these websites, checking replies all the time, if not completely, with their portable gadgets. But this also raises a question, "How about the one standing next to us?". Actually, we are now spending less time with our "real" friends because of these websites nowadays. And this comes to a conclusion that we should indeed rethink thoroughly about whether the so-called technological advancement has no drawbacks at all.
Implementation of further sex education for High School level students is just an extend of the version of the secondary level, which provides them with additional information as well as moral value that they might lack opportunity to reach at secondary schools. Besides this, several advantages brought about by this change just as other debaters have said are already enough for us to take it.
Sex education has become a trend all over the world over the past decade. Such kind of education provides students with the knowledge they should know about sex. Although students can decide whether or not to take part in this programme, the programme doesn't mean to be a pointless one. We do know that such sort of education is necessary for nurturing our future pillars to be healthier in terms of their physical and psychological health. So why don't we give it a try first?
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!