In February 1972, Richard Nixon, the first American president ever to visit China, and Mao Tse-tung, the enigmatic Communist dictator, met for an hour in Beijing. Their meeting changed the course of history and ultimately laid the groundwork for the complex relationship between China and the United States that we see today. Nixon himself, a great strategist and a flawed human being, and Mao, willful and ruthless. Nixon thought China could help him get out of Vietnam. Mao needed American technology and expertise to repair the damage of the Cultural Revolution. Both men wanted an ally against an aggressive Soviet Union.
North Korea's emergence as a nuclear state poses dramatic new challenges to South Korea, the U.S., and the broader Asia-Pacific region. The North's nuclear test on October 9th sent shock waves throughout the region, but its October 31st decision to resume the six-party talks over its nuclear program has encouraged a measure of hope. North Korea has reportedly reaffirmed its pledge to give up nuclear weapons programs in exchange for energy supplies and security guarantees. (extracted from http://www.itsyourworld.org/page.php?page=Asia-Pacific_Rim)
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Smoking should be banned (Ah ken)
smoking is addictive........ when one get addicted to smoking it is hard to give it up.... if smoking is banned what will happen to those who are addicted to it.... they will try to buy it through others means and there will be more people doing illigal stuff like sumggle in cigarette and sell it...... in this case the crime rate will rise further.... cause there are more things that they can smuggle in........ i am sure the rise of crime rate will give singapore a "bad look"...... so i feel that smoking should not be banned by just keeping the prise of the cigarette high this will discourage people from buying......
class debate 2_(smoking)
Topic:Should smoking be totally banned?
Personally, i feel that smoking should be totally banned.
From an economist point of view, smoking is one of man's unlimited wants. It is not something that will benefit one but in fact, it is actually harmful. Addiction, one of man's worst sin, is the very cause of so many smokers in our present time. As the economy grows, more and more third-world countries start to develop and the average person's salary can easily provide them with sufficient cigarettes to satisfy their addiction.
In Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina, vast areas were given over to tobacco plantation. These products were cheap but they are sold at very high prices in the market, thus it is a very profitable form of income. Therefore, it is very hard to stop the production of tobacco. Hence, i hope that we can work towards the sales of tobacco to prevent addictive smokers.
The goverment should raise the prices of cigarettes to prevent and hopefully banned smoking. Smoking causes lung cancer and many other lung-related diseases. In conclusion, the goverment should, i repeat, should ban smoking...
Personally, i feel that smoking should be totally banned.
From an economist point of view, smoking is one of man's unlimited wants. It is not something that will benefit one but in fact, it is actually harmful. Addiction, one of man's worst sin, is the very cause of so many smokers in our present time. As the economy grows, more and more third-world countries start to develop and the average person's salary can easily provide them with sufficient cigarettes to satisfy their addiction.
In Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina, vast areas were given over to tobacco plantation. These products were cheap but they are sold at very high prices in the market, thus it is a very profitable form of income. Therefore, it is very hard to stop the production of tobacco. Hence, i hope that we can work towards the sales of tobacco to prevent addictive smokers.
The goverment should raise the prices of cigarettes to prevent and hopefully banned smoking. Smoking causes lung cancer and many other lung-related diseases. In conclusion, the goverment should, i repeat, should ban smoking...
Class Debate 2: Smokin'...
Motion: Whether smoking should be totally banned
By Jeremy
In my opinion, smoking should not be totally banned.
In Singapore, smoking is considered partially banned, for example, there are small smoking areas in coffee houses so that it can separate the smokers and the non-smokers. As such, the people patronising the coffee house would have a much cleaner environment to eat in. Smoking in other public places like toilets are also not allowed. Thus, if somebody wants to smoke, he/she must be isolated from other people.
However, if we are talking about banning smoking around the world, it would cause more problems instead of solving them. Think about it: the factories producing the cigarettes would close down; the workers in those factories would lose their jobs; poor countries which survive on exporting cigareetes would become poorer; people would start to smuggle cigarettes and become criminals.
Hence, I believe that measures should be taken to limit smoking in our society. An idea is to inflate the prices of cigarettes to a large extent, but it is not practical in a sense that people would commit crimes like theft just to have money for purchasing cigarettes. A better way is to educate the people from young the bad effects of smoking. As such, the young ones would have a deep inpression that smoking is harmful and is equivalent to "slow death" literally. However, it is only possible when all countries cooperate to achieve the effect. I said that because the young generation are easily influenced by otyher coultures, especially to the western ones
I am not a fan of smoking. In fact, I hate people who smoke. However, nothing's perfect in this world. Smoking cannot be totally banned since it can bring about adverse effects.
By Jeremy
In my opinion, smoking should not be totally banned.
In Singapore, smoking is considered partially banned, for example, there are small smoking areas in coffee houses so that it can separate the smokers and the non-smokers. As such, the people patronising the coffee house would have a much cleaner environment to eat in. Smoking in other public places like toilets are also not allowed. Thus, if somebody wants to smoke, he/she must be isolated from other people.
However, if we are talking about banning smoking around the world, it would cause more problems instead of solving them. Think about it: the factories producing the cigarettes would close down; the workers in those factories would lose their jobs; poor countries which survive on exporting cigareetes would become poorer; people would start to smuggle cigarettes and become criminals.
Hence, I believe that measures should be taken to limit smoking in our society. An idea is to inflate the prices of cigarettes to a large extent, but it is not practical in a sense that people would commit crimes like theft just to have money for purchasing cigarettes. A better way is to educate the people from young the bad effects of smoking. As such, the young ones would have a deep inpression that smoking is harmful and is equivalent to "slow death" literally. However, it is only possible when all countries cooperate to achieve the effect. I said that because the young generation are easily influenced by otyher coultures, especially to the western ones
I am not a fan of smoking. In fact, I hate people who smoke. However, nothing's perfect in this world. Smoking cannot be totally banned since it can bring about adverse effects.
Should smoking be totally banned?
1) Website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3757225.stm
Evidence: According to the WHO, smoking cigarettes does not only lead to disease and death, but drains the already impoverished public health service of countries in Africa as the cost of treating tobacco-related disease soars.
Opinion: i feel that smoking should totally be banned because it takes and shorten lifes. It also causes one to be unhealthy. e.g. heart, respiratory diseases etc.
2) Website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3757225.stm
Evidence: For example, in Kenya it an average of two hours and 40 minutes to earn enough to buy a packet for imported cigarettes, while in the United Kingdom it takes just 40 minutes.
Opinion: Though importing cirgarettes can help Singapore generate more income, but cirgarette buyers will soon be bankrupted. The reason being a packet of cirgarette cost a lot.
3) Website: http://www.progressiveu.org/120124-should-smoking-be-banned-in-public-places
Evidence: It's cleaner air when I eat at a restaurant, and I've noticed that the restaurants are still just as full. People step outside for a cigarette, just like they do at work, and we all seem to get along fine with the new laws. I think the smoking bans are a good idea, though I've never been a smoker. I have friends who smoke, and they seem to think that the ban is no big deal as well.
Opinion: Smoking not only does harm to smokers, but also to the environment. Second-hand smokers especially will get more severe respiratory diseases than first-hand ones.
Concl: Smoking has created a bad impact on mankind over the past few centuries. From shortening lives to air pollution; smoking has done it all. We should stop it this instant! Smoking must be banned!
Evidence: According to the WHO, smoking cigarettes does not only lead to disease and death, but drains the already impoverished public health service of countries in Africa as the cost of treating tobacco-related disease soars.
Opinion: i feel that smoking should totally be banned because it takes and shorten lifes. It also causes one to be unhealthy. e.g. heart, respiratory diseases etc.
2) Website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3757225.stm
Evidence: For example, in Kenya it an average of two hours and 40 minutes to earn enough to buy a packet for imported cigarettes, while in the United Kingdom it takes just 40 minutes.
Opinion: Though importing cirgarettes can help Singapore generate more income, but cirgarette buyers will soon be bankrupted. The reason being a packet of cirgarette cost a lot.
3) Website: http://www.progressiveu.org/120124-should-smoking-be-banned-in-public-places
Evidence: It's cleaner air when I eat at a restaurant, and I've noticed that the restaurants are still just as full. People step outside for a cigarette, just like they do at work, and we all seem to get along fine with the new laws. I think the smoking bans are a good idea, though I've never been a smoker. I have friends who smoke, and they seem to think that the ban is no big deal as well.
Opinion: Smoking not only does harm to smokers, but also to the environment. Second-hand smokers especially will get more severe respiratory diseases than first-hand ones.
Concl: Smoking has created a bad impact on mankind over the past few centuries. From shortening lives to air pollution; smoking has done it all. We should stop it this instant! Smoking must be banned!
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
The death penalty should be completely abolished
Pro(yes)
http://goliath.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl
"I do not believe that the punishment of death really fits any crime, no matter how horrendous and horrible it may have been," says Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA). "I do not believe you deter the taking of lives by others by having a death penalty.
(sent by Desmond Loy)
http://goliath.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl
"I do not believe that the punishment of death really fits any crime, no matter how horrendous and horrible it may have been," says Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA). "I do not believe you deter the taking of lives by others by having a death penalty.
(sent by Desmond Loy)
ah ken
Should death penalty be completely abolished? From my personal view, i feel that it should be abolished.....
Death penalty is actually taking away someone else rights to living thus i feel one should decide what he wants to do with his life and not others to do it for him..... There is a saying there is nothing more precious than life .... Instead of death penalty, why not change it to life imprisonment .... If that person is remorse we should'd we give him another chance?........ people who are remorse usually regret what they do and will treasure their life even more and who knows they even offer help to other who are in need.......... what they did last time could be due to a moment of anger..... i belief everyone is kind by nature...... people who are not remorse they can spend their life imprison........ isn't it better then taking their life?...........
Death penalty is actually taking away someone else rights to living thus i feel one should decide what he wants to do with his life and not others to do it for him..... There is a saying there is nothing more precious than life .... Instead of death penalty, why not change it to life imprisonment .... If that person is remorse we should'd we give him another chance?........ people who are remorse usually regret what they do and will treasure their life even more and who knows they even offer help to other who are in need.......... what they did last time could be due to a moment of anger..... i belief everyone is kind by nature...... people who are not remorse they can spend their life imprison........ isn't it better then taking their life?...........
Class Debate 1
Motion-The Death Penalty Should NOT Be Completely Abolished
*By Jeremy
When citizens commit crimes, punishment must be dealt to them so as to warn them against committing it again, as well as to deter other citizens from committing the crime too. This is to establish law and order in a civilisation. Thus, in severe cases like murder and arson, measures must be taken to bring justice to the victims, such as, the death penalty. Recently, people had felt that the death penalty was too harsh and talks had been going on to decide whether to abolish the death penalty. Therefore, my stand today is that the death penalty should not be completely abolished.
In Singapore, the Court hands out the death penalty. It does so in response to crimes like murder and drug trafficking. For example, recently, Took Leng Hao was given the death penalty for murdering Huang Na a year ago. It was fair and just as Took had taken a life and caused the misery of Huang Na's family. There is a Chinese saying: a life for a life, hence to deal with murderers, the death sentence is necessary.
Think about it. If there is no death penalties in our lives, would there still be law and order? People would be killing each other for the wrong reasons just for their personal interests and would get away scot free. Even if they received a fine, what if they continue to commit severe crimes and cause chaos?
To conclude, the death penalty is essential and it should NOT be abolished.
*By Jeremy
When citizens commit crimes, punishment must be dealt to them so as to warn them against committing it again, as well as to deter other citizens from committing the crime too. This is to establish law and order in a civilisation. Thus, in severe cases like murder and arson, measures must be taken to bring justice to the victims, such as, the death penalty. Recently, people had felt that the death penalty was too harsh and talks had been going on to decide whether to abolish the death penalty. Therefore, my stand today is that the death penalty should not be completely abolished.
In Singapore, the Court hands out the death penalty. It does so in response to crimes like murder and drug trafficking. For example, recently, Took Leng Hao was given the death penalty for murdering Huang Na a year ago. It was fair and just as Took had taken a life and caused the misery of Huang Na's family. There is a Chinese saying: a life for a life, hence to deal with murderers, the death sentence is necessary.
Think about it. If there is no death penalties in our lives, would there still be law and order? People would be killing each other for the wrong reasons just for their personal interests and would get away scot free. Even if they received a fine, what if they continue to commit severe crimes and cause chaos?
To conclude, the death penalty is essential and it should NOT be abolished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
