Social Issues · 27 đề · 1000+ Phrases

It has been noted that the rule of law is the foundation of modern civilisation. While some believe that a society without laws can function properly thanks to human characteristics, I contend that it will completely collapse due to bad behaviour.

On the one hand, certain shared beliefs have made countries with no official rules possible throughout the history of mankind. In fact, centuries before the first laws were introduced, the ancient Chinese had been able to gather in millions as a nation to save them from natural disasters and enemies since they all shared an intuitive sense of community. Furthermore, in modern Bhutan, national or organisational rules are essentially redundant as most citizens already live in harmony with each other as the result of Buddhist practices which promote compassion across races and social classes.

Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that if people are free to do whatever they desire, social order would be destroyed by misbehaviour. In Vietnam, for example, at a crowded intersection without clear regulations and instructions, many commuters would happily block others for a quick pass. Worse still, if there is an accident, some ill-tempered drivers are quick to throw punches at each other right in the middle of the road, which instantly brings the traffic to a complete standstill. As similar consequences can be predicted in other fields such as commerce and politics, the normal operation at a societal level is likely to collapse entirely.

In conclusion, civilisations without agreed rules could exist if citizens possessed specific qualities. However, I believe societies will stop operating because of poorly-behaved individuals. From my perspective, governments should continue to enact laws that promote discipline and order for their countries to thrive in the modern era.

In recent years, the number of adults still living with their parents has been on the rise due to recent economic upheaval. While some argue that this trend helps cement relationships between members of a family, I believe it is largely disadvantageous due to the growing dependence of children on their guardians.

On the one hand, staying under the same roof can help forge stronger bonds between family members. One of the primary reasons for this is there are abundant opportunities for regular face-to-face interactions and intimate conversations. For example, a newly graduated student can get advice, discuss problems at work, and confide possible setbacks to his parents. This kind of conversation will likely help build confidence which is widely regarded as a key to success in an increasingly competitive business world. This ideal scenario seems less likely if, however, the son is settling down in a new home, with a different timetable from members of his family and only speaking with his parents on occasion over the phone.

On the other hand, I am firmly of the opinion that those who refuse to live on their own are more likely to experience a prolonged period of immaturity. Firstly, those who remain at home are usually exempt from mundane tasks such as preparing meals, doing laundry and tidying their rooms. Consequently, they are likely to be dependent on their parents and have trouble developing the capacity for self-reliance that is essential for personal and career success. It will be more difficult for them to make their own well-informed, responsible decisions. More specifically, many helicopter parents, such as those in Vietnam, closely monitor their children, failing to guide them properly in how to gather relevant information, and evaluate possible options for a final sound decision. Both of these failures are likely to have detrimental effects, preventing many from leading a self-sufficient life.

In conclusion, although young adults might be better supported emotionally in staying home, over-reliance on one’s parents is not a wise path towards becoming a well-adjusted, high-functioning member of society. In my opinion, teenagers should start taking full responsibility for their lives at the age of 18.

It is sometimes argued that parents can effectively plan their children’s free time activities thanks to their experience and maturity. However, I am of the opinion that letting them be more autonomous better nurtures their inborn talents.

On the one hand, parents are well-positioned to decide on the most productive leisure activities. This argument claims that parents are better equipped with the requisite knowledge acquired from parenting courses and online communities. On these platforms, they can learn about not only the educational impacts of various recreational activities but also how to organize them properly. For example, the Facebook group “We Trek” provides informative posts on the benefits of camping trips, a list of the necessary equipment and instructions pertaining to campsite set-up. By following professional instructions, parents can organize an effective camping session, simultaneously, ensure safety and an educational experience for their children.

On the other hand, I believe that freedom of choice enables children to develop their unique talents. The majority of young people opt for activities that fascinate them intrinsically, thus developing an individual interest that their guardians might overlook or disapprove of. Gaudi, the foremost proponent of the Catalan architectural school, was allowed to follow his own interests, exploring shapes and patterns in nature during his childhood. These observations later inspired extraordinary designs such as the Sagrada Familia that was inspired by and embraces the shape of an ant’s nest. Such a remarkable and precocious natural talent might have been inadvertently neglected, if his mother had guided his activities to facilitate a presumably safer and more secure career outside the humanities in medicine, law, or business.

In conclusion, although parents might be capable of making more informed selections, children should be made free to follow their own interests. In my opinion, parents ought to allow kids to juggle multiple roles in diverse settings to organically identify potential personal professional passions.

It is sometimes argued that the traditions of a society are crucial to the cultivation of well-adjusted adults. However, I would side with those who argue that greater autonomy better nurtures creativity.

On the one hand, social traditions educate younger people as to have appropriate manners and morals. This case is exemplified perfectly in the case of Vietnamese customs and habits. Traditionally minded Vietnamese parents instill in their children the value of bowing to their seniors, displaying their deep respect and appreciation. Similarly, teens are raised to be reliable and generous, not capitalizing on the misfortunes of others for their own advantages. These traditional practices stimulate young Vietnamese’s global reputation for being professional and cooperative, which facilitates chances for both friendships and business collaborations.

On the other hand, I am of the opinion that freedom of choice fosters creativity and its concomitant results in innovation. For instance, many Japanese parents encourage their offspring to design and wear their own outfits instead of accepting those generally worn by older generations. This has resulted in many pushing traditional boundaries, mingling unique costumes and aesthetics inspired by their favorite anime characters, which is known as “costume play” in Japan. Nowadays, the hobby has evolved into a global cultural phenomenon and inspired modern fashion designs and performances both on and off stage. Such an innovative culture might have been inadvertently stymied, if all Japanese youngsters rigidly followed the tradition of wearing formal Kimonos and Yukatas.

In conclusion, although traditional standards of behavior are of importance to some extent, teenagers should be free to shape their own lifestyles. In my opinion, governments and schools ought to incentivise more platforms for youngsters to present and discuss novel ideas that can make positive contributions to society.

The initiative to promote outdoor spaces in metropolitan areas has gained in popularity in recent years. Although these public places might result in a minor uptick in crimes, I personally support such forward-looking policies considering their effect on public health.

On the one hand, minor infractions might be on the rise in public areas. A clear instance of this is the case of Nguyen Hue pedestrian square in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Since its public opening in 2018, the square has attracted millions of visitors who enjoy strolling, gathering with friends and enjoying quality time with family. As visitors are tightly packed in the space and may be distracted by their friends and family, they have become easy targets for criminals such as pickpockets. This is not only a loss for the unfortunate victims but can also damage the image of a safe and hospitable Ho Chi Minh City.

On the other hand, it is clear to me that outdoor spaces are beneficial to physical health. There are many parks, gardens and squares that offer an abundance of freely accessible resources for exercises. For example, those in Hanoi typically provide residents with exercise equipment and fitness activities which often come free of charge. In addition, public spaces are generally filled with plants, fostering a greener atmosphere and offering visitors a refreshing escape from the pollution that they must frequently endure in densely populated cities. Recent policy research into this area has shown that residents in the vicinity of public spaces tend to exercise more regularly, thus enjoying overall better health.

In conclusion, in spite of the threat of petty crimes, I would opine that public spaces should be encouraged in every city and town to promote healthier lifestyles. It is therefore advisable that city planners should allocate at least 20 percent of total development area for green spaces or public areas.

The general impact of studying overseas on the development of their home country has become an increasingly controversial topic in recent years. While some highlight the risk of brain drain, I believe that the students in question are vital for the prosperity of a nation.

On the one hand, many international students opt to emigrate to the host countries where they have been studying. Reasons for this might include the availability of opportunities for academic employment, research and career advancement as well as to enjoy the higher standard of living in developed foreign countries. This trend among elite intellectuals, including from developing nations such as Vietnam, represents a significant loss for the economic development of their home countries as well-trained workers use their skills and knowledge to benefit other nations such as the US or UK. In addition, this also entails a loss in education as top researchers and professors may leave without educating the next generation.

On the other hand, in most cases, I am of the opinion that knowledgeable overseas students can enormously contribute to the economic growth of their homeland. In the early 1980s, the Vietnamese government launched the “Red Stars” initiative, sending thousands of young enthusiasts to the Soviet Union and various Western countries with the aim of acquiring a more sophisticated understanding of cutting-edge technology as well as the best management practices. Many of these have become influential leaders including the minister of domestic affairs Pham Ha Long and the chairman of the tech giant HNG Tong Thanh An, who have actively contributed to recent economic reforms in Vietnam, lifting the country out of poverty to become one of the most important emerging economies in Asia.

In conclusion, although there exists the risk of “brain drain,” overseas graduates can serve as catalysts for the economic advancement of a nation. In my opinion, governments should therefore offer more scholarships for gifted students to study abroad.

Some people applaud the prohibition of mobile phones in public spaces considering the possible disturbances resulting from notifications and bright screens. However, I believe mobile phones should be allowed in order to enable convenience for individuals at public facilities.

On the one hand, other members of the public at places such as libraries, shops and public transport might find sounds and the light from phones annoying. For instance, readers at a library can be distracted by disrespectful phone users who switch on the ringtone of incoming calls or through notification noises, preventing them from devoting their full time to research and reading. A related and common instance would be that a traveler’s short nap on a bus or night train might be interrupted by the bright lights emanating from smartphone screens.

On the other hand, I believe that handheld devices can greatly improve user experience. For example, a bus journey is less tiring when the rider can enjoy some relaxing music to relieve stress on his phone by using his earphones, avoiding the noise of traffic and immersing oneself in the healing sounds of nature. Another great example is the use of shopping applications such as VinID, an application recently developed by the Vietnamese retail giant Vinmart+. This app enables shoppers to not only precisely locate their desired items in vast supermalls but also to use self-service checkout without needing to wait in seemingly endless queues during peak shopping hours.

In conclusion, although the use of phones might be a distraction in public spaces, I am of the opinion that the total experience of users in public places is more important. Therefore, service operators should invest more in researching user behavior to develop more useful apps.

It is sometimes argued that there should be a policy regulating housing styles in certain neighborhoods to promote traditional culture. However, I am strongly against that policy proposal as it is a direct violation of an individual's right to autonomy over private property.

On the one hand, in some areas, uniformity in architecture might better represent and preserve local culture. For example, all houses in the ancient Vietnamese city of Hoi An, regardless of personal preference, are required to follow an architectural style that adheres to its history as a major commercial port in Vietnam. Every so-called “tube house” in the town is constructed with a Chinese tiled roof, Japanese support joists, French louvered shutters and lampposts which are blended harmoniously with indeginous Vietnamese features such as four-square windows. These architectural characteristics cement Hoi An’s cultural identity, which has greatly contributed to its fame as a destination for both international and domestic tourists in recent years.

On the other hand, I believe any law that governs individual housing styles would be injurious against the rights of ownership. For instance, the Vietnamese constitution allows property owners to possess exclusive rights and control over their property, guaranteeing that one is entitled to decide on both the interior and exterior designs of his house, in accordance with their personal preferences. Consequently, attempting to overrule this legislation would justly provoke public's objections and protest. That is why hundreds of citizens residing in the Hanoi Old Quarter protested in 2009 to repeal a decree that prohibited all modern housing styles in the area, despite the fact that the locals desperately needed greater space to accommodate larger family sizes and a personal desire for more modern housing.

In conclusion, although administrative regulations on housing style might help preserve local architectural culture, I would opine that it violates one of the most fundamental proprietary rights of individuals. In my opinion, governments should instead encourage creativity and innovation in housing design to embrace new trends that better reflect contemporary society.

There has been significant discourse surrounding the proposal for scientific research to be conducted by governments rather than private entities. While some would argue the opposite on the grounds that it engenders greater innovation, I contend that governments can conduct better research as they are less susceptible to corporate influence.

Admittedly, there have been cases where privately funded scientific research has stimulated innovation. Individuals who conduct research on the behalf of commercial interests are typically encouraged to think creatively in developing new solutions to pervasive problems. For instance, SpaceX is a for-profit corporation that is leading its competitors in terms of innovating space travel. Founded and managed by tech magnate Elon Musk, it has introduced new solutions to existing problems in space transportation such as reducing production costs on their rockets by using 3D printing technology and mass production methods. Furthermore, SpaceX has pioneered the utilization of reusable rockets as half of them have flown more than once with little to no refurbishment. From this case, it can be understood why some argue commercial entities should be in charge of conducting scientific research.

However, the case for governments conducting scientific research is stronger. With private companies conducting such research, they are more predisposed to financial incentives since they are primarily driven to boost profits. In contrast, governments conduct scientific research often with the altruistic aim of finding solutions to various societal problems in their respective nations. To cite an example, a private medical firm in Ghana was tasked with conducting research and producing 600,000 doses of their own COVID-19 vaccine. However, these doses did not meet WHO standards after testing as a result of the research process being rushed to maximize profits. It was only when the Ghanian government intervened to replace the previously made doses with their own newly certified products that the public finally felt at ease.

In conclusion, although privately sponsored scientific research has an important place thanks to the competition that drives innovation, I believe that government sponsored research exerts a more positive impact on society and the public good. In the near future, it can be predicted that the scientific community will be able to welcome more scientific breakthroughs thanks to the funding of the state.

Recently, the debate surrounding the appropriate punishment for lawbreakers has been gaining significant traction. While some have advocated for sweeping punishments, others support giving warnings for minor offences. In my estimation, I agree with issuing a warning for low-level offences as sometimes legal punishments are disproportionate to the severity of the crime.

Admittedly, there are clear instances where punishments must be enforced. The inherent intent of any punishment, regardless of how harsh it might be, is to dissuade potential criminals from breaking the law. Therefore, when citizens respect the law due to fear of punishment, society as a whole is safer. To give an example, in maintaining a safe and steady flow of traffic, speed limits are put in place on most roads to prevent speeding and potential accidents. When a person commits a speeding offence, that person can be punished by the revocation of their driving licence to deter them from driving recklessly and by extension becoming a danger to society. Thus, it is understandable why some would want to advocate for imposing punishments unilaterally on offenders as a form of strong deterrence from future criminal activity.

However, the case for applying a stern warning in some instances is stronger since it can be more effective in preventing crimes. By educating low-level offenders about the grave consequences of continuing to commit affronts to the law, they will come out more knowledgeable of the law and its role in keeping people safe from harm. Therefore, these offenders will be less likely to recommit criminal offences and consequently jeopardise the lives of others. To cite an example, a survey conducted by University College London in 2012 has found that the majority of British people who were cited for public intoxication and were subsequently warned of their behaviour have not committed the same offence again. From this data, it is clear that a warning is stronger and more humane than a legal punishment.

In conclusion, although enforcing punishments has its place in instilling respect for the law, I would firmly contend that sometimes a simple yet stern warning is more than enough to discourage people from breaking the law. In the future, once these rehabilitative measures are enacted, a society can become simultaneously safer and more aware.

With globalization accelerating at a rapid pace, there have been growing calls to have only one global government on the basis that it would motivate countries to pool resources together to resolve shared issues. However, I disagree with this notion since such advantages will be dwarfed by the disadvantages, the biggest of which is the potential abuse of power that could be exercised by influential nations.

The biggest advantage of forming such a government would be that it could encourage member countries to contribute collectively to solve common problems. A global government would be able to act faster in solving issues efficiently since they would have more resources at their disposal. For example, members of the European Union were asked to cooperate in tackling the Syrian refugee crisis of the last decade. Using their collective political and material resources, the European Union was able to house and integrate millions of refugees into its constituent members’ societies, providing much needed safety for a vulnerable population from their war-torn homelands.

However, a global government presents the risk of member nations abusing their power to serve their own interests rather than those of the entire world. For instance, in the United Nations, the closest approximation of a global government, nations can exercise their right to block or enact measures that can empower or enrich them or their closest allies, much to the detriment of the world as a whole. For example, two of the UN Security Council’s chief members Russia and China have been accused of exercising their veto power to block new security policies that will challenge their regional power, despite them being genuinely beneficial to the wider world.

In conclusion, the disadvantages of a global government, chief of which is possible rampant abuse of power, are far more substantial than its advantages. Moving forward, countries should retain their national governments, but continue to reach out globally to encourage mutual cooperation.

The long-standing tradition of families having meals together has declined. While this can contribute to individuals having more free time to pursue personal pursuits, I would argue that this is a harmful development since family members will have fewer chances to forge meaningful relationships.

To begin with, families not having meals together engenders greater flexibility for individuals. Since eating alone is less time-consuming, they are then more available to engage in personal business or other social activities such as meeting with friends or working extra hours. For example, with less time dedicated to sharing a dinner with parents and siblings, a motivated worker might choose to attend a networking event and attempt to forge fruitful working partnerships that may later result in new business and collaborative projects. If they instead decide to focus on their personal life, they will be able to invest more time in their hobbies. The time gained is marginal but meaningful if the preparation for family meals is also taken into consideration.

However, with no family meals, members will lose valuable opportunities to strengthen their relationships with each other. During a meal, everyone in the family can share with one another recent personal news and advice on handling particular problems, which solidifies the connections between each family member. However, when there are no meals to be shared, the bonds between family members may begin to weaken. For instance, recent research conducted by Columbia University has found that the frequency of Americans having family meals has steadily fallen over the past decade. The same longitudinal study also reported a correlation in these families with reduced communication and feelings of togetherness. One possible explanation for this domino effect is that these meals create a structure for the day and without it relationships in the family can become more distant.

In conclusion, though people can have greater time to pursue personal activities when there are no family meals, I would ultimately assert that this is more detrimental since the bonds between family members can become severely weakened. Therefore, people should make an effort to organize such gatherings whenever they can.