Argument: capital punishment

Should dangerous criminals be executed?

Many countries in the world have a system of capital punishment but others, like Britain, have abolished it. What are the pros and cons of capital punishment?

One of the main arguments against used to be that there was always the chance of a judicial mistake, leading to the execution of an innocent person. There is also the moral argument that if killing is wrong when perpetrated by an individual, how can it be right if ordered by a judge. There is also, in many countries, a widely-held belief that capital punishment has no place in a civilized society. In Britain, MPs take the view that, just as we earlier abolished public executions as barbaric, to return to capital punishment would be a retrograde, uncivilized step. So MPs regularly vote against restitution of the death penalty.

There are, however, many arguments in favour. The obvious one is that if you kill someone you deserve to pay with your own life. This is backed by the biblical argument of an eye for an eye. In addition, some crimes are so awful that the perpetrators can never be returned to society and for them a life sentence means life. One of the arguments of the opponents of capital punishment is that criminals can be reformed and have a motive to do so with the promise of eventual release. But releasing convicted murderers back into society is fraught with danger and has on occasion led to further tragic murders. Another argument in favour is that nowadays, with DNA evidence, there is very little chance of a wrongful conviction. Finally, there is the expense of looking after killers for a long period in jail;why should hardworking taxpayers have to foot the bill?

There are some moral arguments against capital punishment but,in my opinion, in addition to the pros outlined above, the ultimate sanction is a strong deterrent to all potential transgressors.

317 words

Argument essay: censorship

Should governments control what we watch and read?

Censorship is a controversial subject and arouses strong feelings worldwide. What are the pros and cons?

The arguments against censorship are mainly based on the importance of preserving individual freedom and choice. Why should any government dictate what a mature adult should view or read? Then there is the question of political freedom. Governments might go from censoring materials thought oe be unsuitable for public consumption, maybe because they are too violent or sexually explicit, to censoring ideas and opinions which they disagree with or which they think threaten their own hold on power. People in free societies value their freedom of choice and people in many countries who do not share these freedoms seem mostly to aspire to them, as the current Arab spring seems to bear out.

On the other hand, total lack of any censorship whatsoever seems unthinkable to many educated adults. To begin with, surely it is necessary to protect young people from violent or inappropriate material which could have a deleterious effect on their development into healthy adulthood. Speaking of protecting children, surely it is also right to prevent access to certain paedophile materials and websites. There is obviously a need here for some degree of policing and control by some authority, whether governmental or not.

Some degree of censorship would therefore seem necessary to protect society at large and young people in particular. It is important, however, that this does not become too political and a threat to the priceless freedoms of thought and expression.

258 words.

Argument essay

Mobile phones & driving

Should using mobile phones while driving be banned?

There is a lot of research which suggests that using mobile phones while driving is the cause of a growing number of traffic accidents.

There are of course two sides to any argument. Having a mobile phone with you in the car is, in fact, a very sensible precaution. For example, women driving alone at night are at risk and knowing they can use their mobiles to summon help in an emergency is an important security factor. Similarly, if you are driving in a remote area, for example in the desert here in the UAE, it’s essential to have a mobile to get help if you break down. In reality, your life could depend on it.

Having said all this, there is no reason why you should use your phone while actually driving. It is always possible to find a safe place to stop before answering or using your phone. There is very little doubt that using a phone while driving, even a hands-free device, is a major distraction. It is very difficult to do two things safely and simultaneously if one of them is driving. Driving today requires maximum concentration. It has become a major problem worldwide, so much so that dozens of countries have outlawed the use of handheld phones while driving. In the UK, indeed, it is estimated that 90% of public responses have been in favour of such a ban.

Having your mobile with you in your car is a sensible, perhaps even necessary, precaution. However, you should always find a safe place to park before using it. There is overwhelming evidence that phoning and driving at the same time is a major cause of accidents worldwide.

289 words.

Argument: co-operation or competition?

Should children be raised to co-operate or to compete?

This is a universal conundrum and not one that is easy to answer. I think there are compelling reasons to support both sides of the argument.

In favour of raising children to be competitive is the fact that it is a natural human trait to want to achieve well both at school and at work and an obvious way to do this is to test oneself against one’s peers. If children and adults didn’t strive to better themselves and to achieve difficult goals there would be no human progress. This is true not only in areas such as scientific and medical advances, which bring important life-saving and life-enhancing benefits, but also in activities auch as sport,where the desire to compete against others is both natural and healthy.

On the other hand, it is equally important that children learn the virtues of co-operation and helpfulness towards others. Of course, it is a competitive world and we all need to survive, but equally we all need help at some point(s) in our lives, some more than others. It is important that children learn to be sympathetic and tolerant towards others who might not be as fortunate as themseves. Helping others, moreover, makes us feel better as human beings and raises our self-esteem. More practically, there is a need to work with others , not only at school,but also in the workplace. My students, for example, might often work in groups here at college and mutual co-operation is vital; similarly, as a teacher, I work in a team, and being able to do so effectively is an important professional requirement in most workplaces.

In an ideal world, therefore, we should raise our children to be aware of the importance of achieving a balance between being competitive and co-operative; both are vital in our lives.

286 words

Table: underground rail systems

This table provides statistical information on the underground train systems in five major cities in four countries, the USA, Britain, France and Japan.

The oldest, opened in 1863, and the longest, at 394 kms, is London. Second, in both age, opened 1900, and length, 199 kms, is Paris. Third in both age, established 1927, and length, 155 kms, is Tokyo. Both Kyoto, opened in 1981, and Boston, 2001, are much younger and much shorter, 11 kms and 28 kms respectively. In terms of passenger numbers, however, in 2010 Tokyo was the busiest, with 192M passengers, closely followed by Paris with 189M. London, with 77M, Boston with 50M and Kyoto, 45M, all carried far fewer passengers.

In brief, the two oldest underground rail systems are also the longest, while the two newest are the shortest and carried the fewest passengers in 2010. The busiest, just ahead of Paris, was Tokyo’s.

149 words.

Argument essay about examinations

‘Examinations are an unfair form of assessment and should not be used at ADMC’. Say whether you agree or disagree with this statement.

Exams are the traditional form of assessment in academic institutions but in recent years there has been a move, in many colleges, including ADMC, towards forms of continuous assessment, involving no formal exam.

There are several points which support the above statement. Firstly, an exam is a one-off pressure situation and some students might not do themselves justice due to exam nerves. Furthermore, an exam result may not accurately reflect the amount or quality of work a student has produced during the course. In addition, some people argue that exams test memory more than ability or knowledge. A final argument is that continuous assessment from start to finish of a course is a more valid method of overall assessment than an exam.

There are, however, several strong arguments against the statement. Firstly, exams are an effective and objective method of assessment. A student’s personality or relationship with his teacher might colour continuous assessment but an exam is an impartial measurement of ability. Secondly, exams are fair because everyone takes them under the same conditions. There are, in real life, pressure situations, so exams are good preparation for life in the work place. Finally, exams can provide nationwide, indeed worldwide, benchmarks to assess students’ capabilities.

There are certain points to be made against exams but, nevertheless, they are used worldwide and ADMC needs to assess its students according to international standards. Abandoning exams would therefore be a retrograde step. We need not only to keep them but make sure they comply with international norms.

258 words

Smoking is harmful to society

This is a view which has become increasingly prevalent worldwide in recent years. Nowadays, around the world, on all airlines and in most public places like cinemas and restaurants, smoking is strictly prohibited.

There are, of course, still many people who smoke and they often justify this by saying that it is a matter of individual freedom. They argue that they have a right to spend their money as they wish. They say, furthermore, that smoking gives them pleasure and that it even has benefits, such as helping them to relax and relieve stress. I personally can sympathise with this point of view and I certainly believe in freedom of choice and action as long as this does not impinge on the freedom of others. This is the crucial point: I believe people should have the right to smoke but only in private.

The fact is that smoking in public places causes distress and discomfort to non-smokers. It’s not just a question of discomfort. The scientific facts that smoking damages health are undeniable. The evidence of the links between smoking and respiratory diseases and heart problems is irrefutable. Governments began to realise this over half a century ago and the first steps they took were to ban TV advertising of tobacco products and to force cigarette manufacturers to post health warnings on their packets. It is not just active smoking but also passive smoking that causes health problems and that is why, worldwide, we see moves to ban smoking in public places.

While it is important to respect individual freedom it is clear that smoking is harmful to society and should therefore be prohibited in public places.

282 words.