The government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease the violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The spread of unregulated violent content in movies and televisions has raised concern about its negative effects on viewers. While I support that such kind of content should be heavily censored, I argue that it should not be completed banned. Many reasons are put forward to explain why people who are against violent programs. The most popular worry is the adverse impact on audience’s mindset. To make matter worse, children and young adults who are usually the most frequent viewers of TV and movies can easily absorb and imitate those actions in real life. This can potentially lead to juvenile or petty crime that damage the society. As more and more parents draw attention to this issue, the viewership cans strongly decline if inappropriate content is not controlled and monitored judiciously by the authority. Despite the necessary censorship, violence should not be totally prohibited from public media. Television has always been considered as a small window to the world as it broadcasts events from faraway places and spares people from travelling costs. Holding such an essential role, TV partly shape people’s worldview, therefore, should be to some extent authentic. Documentary programs about things such as war, genocide or stringent crime are actually good sources to educate people about catastrophic consequences on human kind. Sometimes, the ugly truth is an effective way to prevent people from involving in social tensions. In conclusion, wiping out all violence from TV and films is not the clear-cut answer for escalating crime in the society. Instead, the authority should carefully censor and present them in a wise way to serve education purpose.
Submitted by People’s life expectancy in the 21st century has been rising on an unprecedented scale. As a result, policymakers are now considering extending the working age for old people. Prolonged life is, on the one hand, a welcome change for many individuals, yet I believe this is completely not a good idea for old people to continue to work due to several reasons related to their deteriorated work performance and capability to adapt to new technologies. Breakthroughs in medicine and heightened awareness of nutrition are the two key factors leading to longevity. For example, nanotechnology, with tiny robots being injected into patients’ body and mending all their damaged organs, are believed to the one of the secrets to obliterate any currently incurable diseases such as cancer. Additionally, people nowadays are better aware of the importance of a good diet, and such wise consumption can ensure good health and consequently extended age. However, extending people’s working age can be a catastrophe to both senior citizens and companies. The majority of people at the age of 65 or over, especially in developing countries, are unable to maintain the same degree of performance as their younger counterparts. This would eventually give rise to many unwanted repercussions that affect the company’s overall profits and the personal life of the aged workers as well. Also, the fast-paced life requires quick adaption and adjustments to new technology, and this is something that the elderly may never be on par with the younger ones. It is not an overstatement to say that it is a torture to work in a place where you are both physically and technologically inferior to your younger co-workers. In conclusion, my firm conviction is that old people should not be involved in work any longer than their designated retirement age now. If the need for workforce is urgent, old people can, to a certain extent, work as consultants or mentors rather than the main labor force. 30 minutes – 323 words – computer-delivered on