Thursday, 14 May 2015

Death Penalty

 Nowadays, some countries, such as the U.S.A., China, Iran etc., still retain the use of death penalty as the most appropriate punishment for the most notorious crimes. Although this is such an ambivalent issue, it is impossible to condone capital punishment.

To begin with, there are many reasons why this lethal punishment should be abolished. First and foremost, execution is inhumane and violates a person's basic right to life.It is also argued that if murder is wrong, then it must be wrong for the state to claim the convicted person's life, or as they say: "Two wrongs do not make a right.". Another case in point is that this is a relatively unique punishment since, in general, violent crimes are not punished by subjecting the perpetrator to a similar act. Apart from that, judicial systems are not infallible and do not always abide by the law (because of individual interests, for instance, profit). As a result, it is inevitable that innocent prisoners will be on death row.

Seen from a different perspective, although advocates of judicial penalty concede that mistakes will be made, they insist that execution is a gratifying deterrent to crime. Furthermore, a common argument is that death penalty is cheaper and more ethical than locking prisoners up for the rest of their lives, making them suffer from the atrocious crime they committed. Lastly, it gives closure to the families of the victims who have inflicted a serious amount of pain. What these arguments overlook, though, is that this "an eye for an eye" method transfers us to the debris of a primitive society, where this policy dominated.

Taking all this into consideration, there is no doubt in my mind that death penalty is a barbaric characteristic of an uncivilised society. As I see it, criminal rehabilitation is the ideal way to reduce recidivism instead of capital punishment.

Tuesday, 5 May 2015


Nowadays, more and more people are deciding to resort to vegetarianism, which is the process of consuming the meat and flesh of any animal. There is also an extreme form of the phenomenon, which is represented by vegans who refuse to use any products derived from animals. Recent estimates, suggest that the percentage of vegetarians is constantly rising. However, vegetarianism is a double-edged sword.

To begin with, there are some serious disadvantages of turning into a vegetarian. First of all, the lack of vegetarian food and snacks in some places may lead to inconvenience and expenditure, since the hectic schedule does not easily allow vegetarians to spend time cooking for themselves. In addition, it is alleged that this particular sort of diet is unnatural on the grounds that we have the teeth to eat meat and the enzymes to digest it. That is, we need an all-inclusive diet instead of taking vitamin supplements to replace certain meat nutrients, especially in the case of veganism.

On the other hand, there are some significant advantages concerning the movement of vegetarianism. First and foremost, a balanced vegetarian diet not only includes amino acids, which exist in fruit and vegetables, and adequate quantities of B12 vitamin, but it also avoids the consumption of saturated fats. Therefore, health problems such as iron deficiency, increased levels of cholesterol and heart disease are less likely to be developed. Furthermore, the percentage of suffering from cancer is 40% lower. Last but not least, vegetarians stand up for animal rights, as they condemn irrational animal slaughter and fortunately choose not to be accomplices to this ruthless crime.

In a nutshell, there is no doubt in my mind that the disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages. Even though it is clear enough that vegetarianism is a matter of choice and beliefs, I reckon that the critically-thinking majority will reap the benefits of such a movement. Only if we at least cut down on the weekly amounts of meat we consume, will our lives be surprisingly improved.

Wednesday, 15 April 2015

Should pop and rock music be banned? - The positive aspects of music

For some time now, a debate has been going on about whether pop and rock music exert detrimental influence on teenagers. Although it is believed that pop's and rock's antiheroes radiate negativity through their provocative acts, I totally reckon that these kinds of music should not be banned.

To begin with, one of the reasons why pop and rock music is essential for young people is that it is more accessible than any other form of art. In recent years, an increasingly hectic schedule has dominated young people's lives, so music is a reliable means of relaxation, which can be found on the Internet with which teenagers are familiar. Apart from that, the songs convey very comprehensible messages that might contribute to turning the tide in favor of rebellion which can lead to an egalitarian society. More specifically, rock music provides political education that helps pupils develop critical thinking skills  and defend their rights, which is definitely crucial in a democracy.

Another beneficial influence of music is the fact that many adolescents may identify with eccentric or normal idols, since they go through identity crisis. That is, teenagers who have a low level of self-esteem can find opportunities to unearth their talents. In addition, music plays a significant role in socialisation, because many different teenagers are brought together in social groups which have common interests. A case in point is that misfits are able to to become parts of social movements on the grounds that these specific types of music do not require any qualities and make any judgements.

Taking all this into consideration, there is no doubt in my mind that no form of music should be banned, since many straightforward and powerful messages which can strike a chord on inconsiderate citizens, can be sent to the youth in order to turn our world into a better place. 

Sunday, 29 March 2015

Why students are not efficient at school

There have been heated debates about the reason why some students' performance is not adequate enough. Some people claim that this bad performance is due to the lack of facilities, for example un-equipped laboratories, or it is due to the poor condition of schools, such as the fact that teachers are not provided with many thought provoking methods. It is also claimed that this particular increasing phenomenon is formed because of the lack of individual incentive to work hard. As I see it, both reasons are reasonable and they both affect the pupils' inclination to be industrious.

To begin with, one significant factor which affects the distinguished performance that students ought to have is their own lack of motivation. Nowadays technology has seriously evolved and that means that it is an inevitable part of our daily lives. Students instead of mostly using the Internet for educational purpose, they make use of it in order to be entertained. For example, they communicate through social networking. Another case in point is that they are being continually distracted by television which provokes negative behaviour against studying. Furthermore, teenagers are being influenced by their "peers", a wide-spread phenomenon which is called peer pressure. That is, they inextricably adopt a whole new mentality, which is usually not in favor of doing well at school. Last but least, the psychological changes which occur during adolescents confuse teenagers and so they become unfamiliar with studying, as hey prefer to waste their time.

On the other hand though, the educational curriculum and the lack of facilities should be to blame too. Our system of education focuses too much on facts and figures without providing students with the opportunity of choosing subjects they wish they could emphasise on. Instead, vocational training and material by which moral principals (such as co-operation, tolerance etc.) can flourish, should be included in the curriculum. Apart from that, learners should be offered with many educational methods like kinaesthetic ans auditory methods, in order to make the lesson more stimulating and intriguing.Lastly, the absence of well-equipped classrooms and laboratories results in the deadly loss of interest by the good students.

On balance, I reckon that each one of of the reasons mentioned plays an important role, because it affects the amount of consolidation and individual incentives which students who perform badly are not equipped with. Schools should facilitate students and students should facilitate the egalitarian and informative school life.

Sunday, 8 March 2015

Home Schooling

There has been a great deal of heated debate about home schooling. Ever since the earliest days of our system of education, many families have tried to offer their children an alternative form of education at home, home schooling, which is increasingly popular as both parents and professional teachers organise pupils' academic career.r. However, every coin has two sides and so does home schooling.

To begin with, there are many advantages of home schooling. First and foremost, the private lessons cater to the students' needs, so emphasis is laid on their potential. Therefore, students are able to consolidate material more easily, since they choose which subjects to focus on. A case in point is that the lesson is always stimulating and intriguing, on the grounds that interactive activities and innovative educational methods (for instance kinaesthetic) are being used. Moreover, not going to a traditional school means that the possibility of bullying and peer pressure is being excluded. That is, the atrocious effects of them both on individuals are avoided, of course because lessons occur with a group of two or three pupils, or just a single one. 

On the other hand, though, there are some significant disadvantages of the phenomenon. Firstly, the knowledge provided may be inadequate, as some subjects may be neglected, which is not in favor of the future undergraduates, because the National curriculum includes all topics. Apart from that, it is a time-consuming process either if the teachers are parents who are definitely not educators, or if the parents hire tutors, which leads to a huge spenditure. Another negative consequence of home schooling is that socialisation is not actually proper, as teenagers do not acquire new acquaintances (especially with "peers"). AS a result, they become alienated and socially awkward. Last but not least, not only does home schooling not provide students with moral principles, such as co-operation, respect and compromise, but it also violates the legislation although there are some "loopholes". 

Taking all this into consideration, I totally reckon that the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages. As I see it, the most efficient form of education is a balanced combination between facts and figures offered by conventional schooling and the process of shaping character boosted by constructive discussion and material at home.