diff --git "a/icle500.json" "b/icle500.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/icle500.json" @@ -0,0 +1,4952 @@ +[ + { + "title": "001_BGSU1004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree? \n \nOur educational system in one of the largest in the world. It offers variety, diversity but not flexibility and value for money. This is due to the fact that many of our university degree courses are either illegal or award the students with jobless future. They do not motivate students to make further research Undergraduates are looking forward to receive their degrees for the sake of some future reward .\nUniversity degrees are necessary in out materialistic society. However degree levels in vocational subjects, such as art and design, engineering, business studies, and hotel and catering, do not have a future. The role of university degrees has been replaced by the fact that they tell you nothing about a person's true ability and aptitude. They are mark either of success or failure .\nFurthermore they are theoretical and do not prepare students for real life .\nA good education should, among other things, train you to think for yourself. The examination system does anything but that. What has to be learnt is laid down by a syllabus and students are encouraged to memorize. Examinations do not motivate students to make research and read widely, they induce studying for marks instead. They lower the standards of teaching and lead to theoretical degrees that are designed to be put in a frame and to serve as souvenirs .\nThe most successful Bachelors and Masters or PhDs are not always the best educated. They are the best trained in the technique of working under stress. They live in a world of vicious competition where success and failure are measured. University degrees do anything but prepare them for this competition. They do not prepare students to think for themselves and make their own research on a given subject. They put restrictions to their sphere of knowledge and do not give them any opportunity to widen the already existing theory or amend some of the old things and add some new information .\nDegrees which can be completed in a shorter period of time, the so called \"fast-track\" degree courses are even less practically oriented. Standards are rigorous yet students tend to memorize information and creative work is left behind. Another important point that should be made is the fact that many \"fast-track\" degree courses do not reflect and adopt to the needs of real life or professional bodies. One might have many degrees of this kind but what is the point of having them if he cannot put into practice his knowledge .\nMany university degrees are a result of a subjective assessment by some examiner who marks stacks of hastily scrawled scripts in a limit amount of time. Students even do not have right to appeal after their examiner's decision. That is why many capable students turn into drop-outs and drop-outs turns into millionaires .\nIn conclusion I would like to say that only when the university degree courses become more practically oriented and not so theoretical will university degrees have any value and adapt to the need of real life. Furthermore students will be encouraged to make some research on their own, to chose postgraduate courses and to get postgraduate degrees .\n" + }, + { + "title": "002_BGSU1018.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree? \n \nWhat is the purpose of knowledge? Living in the end of the twentieth century is both difficult and easy to answer a question like that. But it is important to do so at least for ourselves .\nThe Earth with all its secrets, existing long before man had a chance to appear on it, has always been challenging mystery for people. Humans are created tireless investigators, eager discoverers, active thinkers. Knowledge for them is a goal, a condition, pleasure and a leader to improvement of they lives .\nIt seems logical enough for everybody to see the importance of the discoveries in science - they practically lead to welfare in the material sphere of life, or help to preserve life in the form considered normal. With science fields like Geography, Sociology, History, Law, Political Studies, Language Studies it is a little more difficult to define in what way they are useful in the real world .\nSome of them serve society. Some of them just serve people's passion for theorizing, statistics - making, categorizing, going into the abstract. I do not know whether most university degrees are theoretical, but I can well tell about mine, which I am studying at present. It is called \"English and American Studies\" and it is maybe the ideal example of a degree which does not prepare students for the ' real world'. One side of this real world is the opportunities for a professional realization after graduation. Everyone who has heard about this educational programme has asked the question, \"So what would you do after you graduate? Become a teacher?\"\nWell a difficult question indeed. Having studied all British and American history, literature and culture and having received profound knowledge in the field of linguistics (including Historical Linguistics) the poor graduate finds himself at a loss in a society which either needs him for a teacher, a translator, a tourist guide, or merely as someone who knows English and could sit all day at a secretary's desk, or else for nothing at all. It somehow does not seem \"fair\". Five years' striving in the labyrinth of science and then all knowledge has to be stored in one's consciousness of a learned man .\nOf course, in any country different societies exist and the opportunities vary, as well as the values. In my opinion, young people should be well aware of their aims before they apply for a certain degree. If they cannot estimate by themselves, they should be able to receive advise. On the other hand, this means that young people at the age of eighteen have to be able to think as people at the age of twenty-three, which is an awful prospect. The dilemma is clear - either grow old before their time has come or prepare themselves to be disappointed and helpless when it would be late to think with their mature minds .\nWhat I can conclude about this problem is that what we have is not a case so much of inadequate education but rather of inadequate society, because in a modern society there has to be place for all those who deal with impractical science; for knowledge is not a means for making material progress only. If it was, what would man be like?\n" + }, + { + "title": "003_BGSU1022.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree? \n \nNowadays education is indispensable for people in order to find their place in the real world. But is university education, in particular, of great help to one in doing this ? To my mind, most people would answer negatively to this question. Very often one feels dejected on finding out that after they have studied hard for 5 years in a university, most of the extensive knowledge that they accumulated there will hardly ever be useful to them in the real world. The reason for this is the fact that university education is much more theoretical than practical which turns out to be a decided disadvantage. One must always bear in mind that what matters more is not how much one knows but how well they can use what they know. Thus, it is pointless just to sit down and acquire knowledge solely in order to pass one's exams when one may probably never use it afterwards .\nHowever, most universities maintain the tradition and continue teaching theory as before .\nLast year, for example, we had a course in computing which was, on the whole, completely useless. Instead of being taught how to use a computer and different kinds of software, most of our time was taken up by theoretical explanations of the way in which computers work. I do not mean that this information is absolutely unnecessary but my point is that it is good for nothing when you do not know how to use a computer in order to write and print out our essay, for instance .\nOn the other hand, it would not be really true to say that university degrees are wholly unrewarding. Theoretical education may be less valuable than practical for one's life in the real world but, nevertheless it is very important. The reason for this is that no matter how irrelevant or impracticable it may be, it still provides one with some general idea about things in life and thus may serve as a standard for comparison. Then, as one has already formed some model to refer to, it would be easier for them to decide what to do in a certain situation. Despite the difficulty of putting theory in practice, it is far easier to do than to start directly with the latter. So, after all, it is much better to have theoretical knowledge than not to have any at all .\nBoth teachers and students have been aware of this particular deficiency of university education and its respective influence in one's life, so attempts have been made to correct it. One possible way of doing this has been through introduction and development of various applied sciences in recent years, like applied mathematics, applied linguistic and others. These, however, are not very wide-spread and only a small number of universities have them as separate courses .\nAnother way of making university degrees more useful to students is to achieve a certain balance between the two sides of education. Moreover, one should be free to choose whether to concentrate on theory or practice with respect to their future plans and personal preferences. This is very important because different jobs require different types of knowledge and what would be valuable for one student, would be of no use to another .\nTo sum it up, I would say that one cannot so quickly write university degrees and education off. There are still valid although they do not give one full knowledge of the real world. If they are not as good as they could be, it is up to us to change them and to make them better .\nThen one will feel more confident on leaving university that they are ready to cope with problems and difficulties in life .\n" + }, + { + "title": "004_BGSU1057.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nThe world we are living in is without any doubt a modern and civilized one. It is not like the world five hundred years ago, it is not even like the one fifty years ago. Perhaps we - the people who live nowadays, are happier than our ancestors, but perhaps we are not .\nThe strange thing is that we judge and analyse their world without knowing it and maybe without trying to know it. The only thing that is certain is that the world is changing and it is changing so fast that even we cannot notice it. Sciece has developed to such an extent that it is difficult to believe this can be true. A simple but quite impressive example of this development is the genetic engineering. Scientists have achieved something which was considered impossible and even monstrous before. Probably just in a few years they will be able to create a rational human being. Technology and industrialisation have also developed and in the present moment they do not stop developing. The consumers are overwhelmed by all kinds of products and goods. Technology is everywhere - in the houses, in the streets, in the shopping centers. We cannot run away from it even if we want to .\nOn the other hand we do need all these new technical products. We can no longer imagine our lives without a TV set or without a telephone. Computer systems like Internet enable us to communicate easy and fast. We are modern people and as modern people we are surrounded by all these things, by all these products of science technology and industry. This is our world. Whether we like it or not we must live in it. But all these inventions and innovations cannot change us - we remain human beings. With or without a washing machine we do not turn into animals. People are capable of adjusting to their environment and to remain humans .\nIn my opinion, technology cannot change us so much and to make us forget what is to dream and imagine. There is always place for dreaming and imagination in our modern world. If there was not imagination our lives would have been so dull and colourless and everybody would have gone crazy. I do not think that we can live without dreaming. Because if we do not dream we would not have any aims to achieve, we would not see a light in the end of the tunnel of life. It is our imagination that helps us go through the difficult moments in life. For example when your boyfriend leaves you it is such a relief to imagine that you will smash his face the next time you see him .\nThis is just a small relief but sometimes it helps you to feel better. But imagination helps not only in such cases it helps us to create our own world in our minds. A world where we could go whenever we feel the need to escape from the real one. A world where everything is the way we want it to be, where people are good and love is real. It is a fairy tale where we can go and relax, it is the improved mirror image of reality .\nImagination and dreaming will always have place in our modern or not so modern world .\nWithout them neither art nor literature will exist. And the fact that they still exist is a proof of the existence of imagination. If it was not for it I would not be able to write this essay, would I?\n" + }, + { + "title": "005_BGSU1062.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nIt is a truth universally acknowledged that our age is the age of machines. Technology, industrialization and communications have developed and are still developing at a very fast rate. It is actually so fast that you find it difficult to keep pace with it. Thus if you buy a computer, for instance, that you are assured is the newest product of the industry at the present moment, you will certainly be surprised to find out in a year's time that what you paid dearly for a year ago constitutes nothing more than a useless heap of junk. In this way the new technologies and innovations which are meant to help man and make things more comfortable, actually reach the point of being rather an unpleasant nuisance. Thus, at a certain point of time you will probably find it much more easy to steer a spaceship than to operate a TV set. It may sound absurd today but in my view could well be the case in near future .\nThere are things in life, though , that don't change as quickly as that and that even are considered by some ever lasating. Such are the works of art that people have been producing eversince the dawn of human civilization. These works are products of people's imagination and dreaming rather than of rational thinking .\nBasically imagination and dreaming are associated with concepts like creativity, freedom of mind and soul whereas practical thinking stands for reason. In my view imagination and dreaming require a simplicity of heart and soul that is to say, mind released from the burden of the artificial, mechanical thinking, which is inevitably imposed by the rich in technologies and computers everyday life. To my mind it's the children that enjoy this freedom of mind and soul today. They are the ones who feel at ease in the world of dreams. Children can see and observe what grown-ups are unable to because only they possess the purity and sharpness of the senses that vanishes once you grow up. How can a mind burdened with reason, scientific explanations and mathematical logic allow itself to dream or imagine. This is in my view impossible because these concepts are too opposite to co-exist .\nThe computers and technologies that keep on pervading our lives, providing us with ready products, which being useful on the one hand devoid people of the opportunity to think and develop their inventiveness. People become rather one-sided, develop pragmatic thinking and are easily involved in what some call \"The rat race\" . It is, however dangerous to go on trying to keep pace with the constantly developing science and technology because it might turn out at a certain point of time that man has fallen prey to his own creations .\n" + }, + { + "title": "006_BGSU1063.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree? \n \nThere are quite a few people who think that higher education is unnecessary and that there is no point in studying at university. With the technical schools and the gymnasiums being rather popular nowadays most students would consider it enough to complete high school and don't take the trouble to continue studying at a higher level. This phenomenon alone is quite eloquent and understandable too. And one doesn't have to search very hard to reach the conclusion that there are plenty of factors contributing to that unfavorable attitude that people in Bulgaria have towards university education .\nJust take a stroll downtown to the marketplace and you'll find why so many people consider university studying useless. There is hardly any person in the world who can convince me that one needs to graduate Nuclear Physics to sell cucumbers or to have a PHD in literature to deliver newspapers. However, if one goes to an average Bulgarian marketplace one is most likely to encounter qualified people doing low-paid unqualified work. I haven't seen any recent statistics but I'm sure that the number of people who work in the field they have specialized in is very low. What is the point then to study when you know you'll end up cleaning lavatories or washing dishes? Naturally these are jobs like any other but you don't normally study all that much to be able to perform them. And knowing that once you graduate you join the long gray queue of young unemployed people is hardly any stimulus for a young person to apply for university .\nUnfortunately unemployment is a major threat not only to those who study theoretical matters but to graduates of the technical institutes too. People studying practical things such as engineering unable to find decent jobs is, I'm sure most people would agree, not the rightest of prospects. And thus most of these graduates become frustrated due to the lack of proper occupation and consequently much energy, talent and knowledge is wasted. Then one starts to wonder whether there's any point in studying at all. In the last few years, though, things have changed a bit. As the country shows some signs of improvement in terms of economics and political stability people start to see a light at the end of the tunnel .\n" + }, + { + "title": "007_BGSU1071.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree? \n \nWhat is the purpose of education? To provide us with knowledge that, together with our tastes, will help us take the profession that best sorts our abilities. A good university degree should serve as a ' passport ' to decent jobs within the range of one's qualification. All this means that university and real life should be in constant feed back. What we have, though, today is education that often loses track of reality, and degrees that indicate how does one manage on one's exams and with one's papers and thesis. Degrees have nothing to do with our capability for a certain job .\nTake, first, the present situation in Bulgaria as a whole. In the period of what we think, and hope, to be a transition to a free-market economy, education gradually lost its position of a primal value in people's lives. In its place came ' free initiative', and a lot of people (including the young) gave themselves to amassing money through trade which often turned out to be nothing mote than a swindle . Aversion from study can be rooted in the fact that while you study, you do not earn money, but only accumulate knowledge and prepare for a future job. The deeper reason, though, must lie in the nature of education itself. The reason, it seems to me, is namely its irrelevance to life. You have to know what you study for, in the first place. In Bulgaria, we know that the moment we graduate we will be confronted by the risk of entering the army of unemployed. Our good diplomas will remain but a record on paper. And even if that does not happen, we are still very likely to take jobs that have nothing to do with what we had studied for. With all that in mind you soon end up asking yourself, ' Why study?'.\nIf, on the other hand, we take an inside look at the way study is being organised, we will soon notice a certain formula shared between students and lecturers. The time spent at university should prepare students for making well at their exams and, possibly, for writing good papers. Not a thought for students' future appliance. In such situation everyone has to take care of themselves, which not always gives the best of results .\nTo make the picture more complicated still, universities do not keep record of the demands of society. On many subjects the curricula still need updating, with others the problem is the vast number of students on admission. Very few of them will find job relevant to their study because all the vacancies have already been filled in by students who have graduated a couple of years ago .\nThe most natural thing for the universities to do would be to keep in touch with all the big and minor companies, all the national institutions, plus various foundations and committees and make a running record of their demands and offers on the one hand, and of students' capacities on the other. Another useful thing to do would be to arrange a system of training courses for students while still in their university. A simile of such system exists today, but it neither provides us with helpful skills nor enables us to make contacts in the sphere we are put in for a while, so that in the future we could be appointed for a certain position should we be approved. In the sphere of languages, for example, these courses offer you only the option of ' training ' yourself for a teacher (as if a specialist in English or German or any other language and literature can do nothing else!).\nI do not know how things are in the sphere of law (one of the trendiest subjects nowadays, together with economics and a few more), but I cannot believe that students there have much wider range of opportunities to choose from .\nUniversities are not the only to blame. The whole arrangement (or rather disarrangement of our society is such that some very important links are missing - either cut or not yet woven into the new network. Thus, what we need is a through and complete reform both inside the educational system and outside, in the society. It involves a hard work to do, but the result may prove worth the efforts so that one day we could claim to have put into practice the Latin proverb ' We study for life ' not for study itself\"!\n" + }, + { + "title": "008_BGSU1074.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nIt is a fact that even well-educated people find themselves in a state of bewilderment at the mere thought of the speed in which technologies are revolutionizing the world. and no wonder, for I doubt it that there is anyone who hasn't been plagued with this feeling of uncertainty. It is, therefore, only natural that the effect of the so-called technological threat be exaggerated .\nObviously, if we are to avoid the hazard of falling into much extremes we need to find reasonable answers to the following questions: why is this negativistic attitude against technologies taking place ' how can analogical events in the past help us evaluate the present situation; why are not technologies overpowering the human mind; why are people afraid of the technological advent .\nIf we are to assume that technological progress and human imagination are two irreconcilable things, then we would imminently affiliate ourselves to the Romantic conceptions or even the Luddite attitude. This rage-against-the-machine phenomenon is on a par with primitive myth - making. Moreover, the trends which trigger this kind of attitude can even be traced back to a cheap horror story. Why? The answer here is fear - fear of the unknown. Just like Medusa in the myths of the ancient Greeks, the embodiment of ultimate evil, or even the gruesome monster in Bram Stoner's novel. These two examples both lead us to one and the same conclusion. People tend to generalize their fear in a flat black-and-white image. This also holds true for the stereotypes that have been built up to sum up the three-dimensional technological reality into a distorted one-dimensional concept. And what happens if this image is reduced to a terrifyingly intelligent machine which lurks the infinite paths of the informational highway? From this starting point it is not hard to jump to the conclusion that technologies may impair our mental abilities .\nPeople are afraid of technological progress and claim that this threatens the human faculty. This is ludicrous, just as ludicrous as the primitive aggression of the Luddites on 19th century machinery. They believed that the machines are responsible for unemployment. Others believe that technology threatens to overpower their imagination. Unemployment than was due to mass migration to the cites. Deficiency of thought and lack of imagination is due to entirely personal characteristics .\nAs it was stated before, people are afraid of the unknown. It isn't hard for the half-informed to see a horrifying image of the near technologically wise future. But to think of a future world where machines are the decision-makers, where humans are reduced to mere walking extensions can hardly be acceptable with no amount of reasonable doubt. The reason why this can hardly be anticipated is the fact that the human mind is irreplaceable. It cannot become the author of its own creation. Whatever marvelous machinery is to be invented in the future, it will always be a byproduct inferior to the capacity of human imagination. What is more, imagination itself is so tightly intermingled with emotions that sometimes no distinct borderline can be drawn between the two. And emotions are often too subtle to be felt, let alone created .\nPeople are sceptical about new technology because they are not equipped with the necessary knowledge to handle it. Being informed helps you avoid potential threats in using any technology, whether it be household appliances or sophisticated virtual reality products. This is analogous to driving a car wit or without a driving permit. Therefore, it is not knowing the rules of these man - made \"tools\" that is the cause for alarm. And a tool is simply a utility. It does not threaten to replace one's imagination. On the contrary, it helps both mind and imagination along the tortuous path of perfection .\nIndeed, one must always have a \"luddite\" within him and not take things for granted. This is so, because like any revolution, the technological one has its aftermath. And it can be disasterous if the necessary precautions are not undertaken. But does that mean we have to shut our eyes to the blatant thruth and pretend that technologies do not exist? Besides, we have many other things to fear. You only have to turn on the eight o'clock news...\n" + }, + { + "title": "009_BGSU1088.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree? \n \nMost people go to university to prepare themselves for a future career or at least because they are interested in a particular area of study. To become specialists they need an academic education and in this sense the university is the only means by which they can achieve their goal .\nIn my opinion the degree they receive is essential for their future career .\nOf course, the knowledge students have acquired should be put into practice after graduation. At this point some find out that their expectations do not match with the real world .\nHowever, one should not rely entirely on the degree to cope with the situation. Experimenting, practice, learning from one's own mistakes is needed to suceed on the working place. These are things that one discovers for oneself and that cannot be taught. There is not such a degree which can fully prepare us for life. The best of educations will not help a person succeed if he or she is uncooperative but has to work in group. The degree is the background we need but it is us who have to learn how to cope with reality. That is why I think that university degrees are far from being worthless .\nThere are majors that can be called \"more theoretical\" than others. For example, studying Philosophy or History means studying mainly theory while Medicine involves a lot of practice. For some areas of study practice is much more important than in others and that is why we should not expect the same ratio practice:theory in each field. Moreover, the theoretical fields prepare students for the real world in a different way. By encouraging them to think critically, organise and express their thoughts orally or in written form, make comparisons and associations, use logic or imagination, they prepare them not only for their career but also for life as a whole. Those are qualities which are essential for managing even in the most difficult situations .\nMany majors produce mainly teachers, lecturers, writers or just theoreticians. For these professions practice, too, is needed but a deep knowledge of theory is essential .\nOn the other hand, practical excercise is crucial for other fields of study like Performing Arts, Fine and Applied Arts, Dentistry, Computer Programming etc. There is no doubt that after graduation, a student in one of these fields will be well prepared for his or her future work .\nHowever, even those majors can not do without theory. For medical students, for example, theoretical knowledge is no less important than practical skills .\nThe value of university degrees is not in their being theoretical or practical. In one way or another every academic education will help a student to cope better with the real life. The most important thing is that the graduates are good specialists in their field and intelligent, independly thinking, self-confident human beings .\n" + }, + { + "title": "010_BGSU1139.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree? \n \nEvery intelligent young person dreams to graduate from the university one day. It seems to be the highest goal in most of the young people's lives. They do anything possible to become suitable applicants to a certain university. On the one hand the troubles they take are reasonable - after graduating you have more possibilities for a career; there are quite a lot of roads you can choose to walk along. You can even choose whether to walk or run. On the other hand, the things you study, especially here, in Bulgaria are so far away from reality that sometimes you forget what exactly your subject is .\nAlthough it might sound too sophisticated, the University as an institution is a dream .\nBefore having the chance to be part of it your imagination makes it look like a dome. You fascinate about just teachers and friends; you dream of the hundreds tones of knowledge you are to get there but when the last thrill about you being a part of the Great Dome is gone, you feel as if you are on an entirely different planet. What is more - and entirely different HOSTILE planet .\nAnyway, you suppose there is a kind of mistake... And you keep on hoping. Until one day you forget the subject you are studying. There are so many courses you have to take that there is no time left for the ones you like. You do not have time to read a single book, you do not have time to do your homework... But who cares! You have chosen to be there and dropping out is out of the question. But you keep on struggling. You fight for the right to learn. I, myself was extremely excited last year, when I was a First year student; on the one hand I was totally ruined physically and psychologically by everything I had to do, on the other hand I was absolutely pleased with the things I learned. This year I am able to see that most of the courses we have to take are so far away from reality, from anything that could happen to us, that I start to get amazed .\nEverything is so theoretical and unintelligible that I have, subconsciously, begun to think of transferring to another university. But I know that this wouldn't change anything. There is no chance. There is no hope. The situation is the same in the universities all over the country. You get so much information, you loose so much of your time that after five years you feel like an old person - you remember things and faces but almost nothing from the nearly fifty exams you have passed because the information you have got has nothing to do with everyday life .\nAnyway, you graduate as a specialist. But it turns out that you are an expert only according to he documents. Otherwise it is all the same as if you have not spent these five years in the Dome. You have learnt everything by heart; you know how it works but you cannot make it work, you cannot turn it on. Nothing has been said about turning on in the textbooks and grammars...\nDespite everything I do not think that it is not worth studying in the University. On the contrary, you learn and become better informed but I believe that it would be much better if students had the chance to study real things and to get better-prepared for the real life and the real problems they will face after graduating .\n" + }, + { + "title": "011_BGSU1143.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree? \n \nI agree to a great extent with this statement and, especially with the part preceding the comma. I can talk, of course, out of personal experience most objectively but I think I can express as well the feelings of many students from other fields. These are people I have talked to about this partucular subject thus I have gathered their opinion .\nJust before coming back home I met a friend of mine who after hearing I had to write this essay offered his assistance by giving me some ideas. He is a \"freshly-cut\" graduate from the University of Architecture in Sofia. What he said was that the topic of my essay was very precise in its determining the problem of their education. They studied piles of most probably useless information and data but did very little on the practical level. They did not attend the actual planning of a new building, park, stadium etc .\nAnother major problem this friend pointed out was the lack of updating students with the technological progress in the particular field of study or work. He says that now that he has graduated he has taken up a course in computers. At university, instead of using ready-made packets of computer programmes especially devised for the utilization of the architect's work, they studied programming which once again is obviously useless. Nobody is giong to create his own programme .\nIn the field of ceramics, for example, the problems are serious. The students' time is occupied by theoretical courses such as technology of clay, perspective, aesthetics, etc. but nobody teaches the students how to use the pottery wheel and how to whet on it. They are not taught either how to draw the different types of patterns that decorate the dishes .\nIn our department problems are similar. Instead of having as many contacts with native speakers as possible we take theoretical courses in syntax, semantics, morphology etc. We don't know how to use the vast number of English teaching computer programmes. We don't use any TV or VCR equipment to aid our education. To make the course more practical we could also increase the number of translation classes .\nTo sum up then problems seem to be quite the same in the different field of the higher education. To make the study more useful a balance should be reached where we are given just the necessary and important theory, thus leaving space and time for practical courses which prepare us for the actual face of the profession that we are to be confronted with in our \"working future\".\n" + }, + { + "title": "012_BGSU1183.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today? \n \nFinance in our modern world plays the greatest role of all. As a matter of fact it deserves an Oscar for its performance so far. It reigns over all aspects of human life and society - money has become a vital part of our existence and we need it as desperately as we need air to breathe and sun and water to support our living .\nThe famous quotation: \"Money makes the world go round!\" sums up as briefly and accurately as possible the essence of human society today. A plain and well-known fact is that people are obsessed with money and this is no longer considered a mental disease as other obsession are but the normal state of human affairs. In the society that we have built our life depends wholly on the money - if you have it you will be well-off and you'll live, if you don't then you can expect only the worst .\nSo, logically here comes the question why some people have more money than others and there are such that have no money at all. It is not an easy question to answer but if we take the title to be the most justified answer that we can safely conclude that there is something very wrong in our society. In fact there is, it is exactly this unequality of rights and possibilities which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer .\nProbably the decision of this problem must be careful and exact application of the title of this essay but then it appears quite difficult to estimate someone's contribution to society. This is such a subjective issue that it is almost impossible for extremely subjective creatures as ourselves to accomplish the task. If we manage to do this then all our problems will be solved .\nEquality as a social issue has been one of the major problems in the human society for centuries .\nSince the dawn of civilization, the human society has been structured and divided into levels, ranks, classes or whatever one likes to name them. And since then the struggle for equality has never seized .\nBut what exactly is equality and how has it been treated through time?\nIn the past centuries equality was understood more or less in terms of wealth and nobility. There were rich and poor, noble and ordinary people. Society was divided into classes and one was considered equal only toe the people belonging to the same class .\nNowadays, things inevitably have changed. Our society is still divided into classes although many people deny that. Moreover, more divisions have been made in terms of religion, sexuality and so on. However, people feel more equal than ever before. Not only because the gaps between the classes have become smaller but because today equality is a state of mind .\nToday, the first part of Orwell's statement \"All men are equal\" is the basis of many constitutions and declarations for the human rights and all politicians claim that people are equal because they have been given equal opportunities to succeed in life. Perhaps there's some truth in that .\nPerhaps today it is not so important who you are, where you come from, how rich you fee. It is what is in your mind that counts, not in your pocket .\nHowever, there are people who cannot \"feel equal and think equally\". The paradox here is that the problem is not in their mind but in their pocket. Because in our money-driven world it is extremely hard to live, exist even, let alone think and feel. Many poor people are bound to struggle for their living and does not consider themselves equal in any way to a rich businessman, for example. It is not that they cannot think and feel, they are stupid or insane but because they are mentally suppressed by the injustice of their life. In this sense, Orwell's statement is still true today. Some people are more equal then others because they have or are given the ability to feel so. Perhaps, it is trues in milder terms but let's hope we will be able to change that .\n" + }, + { + "title": "013_BGSU1184.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today? \n \nOnce the American president John Kennedy said something about the issue which will be discussed in this essay. His point was that one should not ask what the United Stated can do for them but what they can do for the United States. So, in the ideal situation one should contribute to the society they live in without expecting any reward at all. But as far as anyone has financial obligations, such as bills, rents, taxes, etc. this idea cannot be applied in real life. Besides, there is no living creature, at least not a human being, who can be made to work without and reward, whether it is financial or of some other kind. Of course, when stating this we should say that it refers to the present only it was not so long ago when slavery existed. Yet, slaves were at least given food, so even they got some kind of stimulation .\nFrom the things mentioned above a very obvious conclusion can be drawn that in order to meet their needs people go to work and get a certain financial reward for the job they do. But here arises the more important issue of how much exactly should a person get for his or her contribution to society, or in other words who contributes more to society? Doctors or businessmen? At first sight it is clear that doctors should get the highest financial reward because there is no need to question their contribution to society, at all. But it is common knowledge that businessmen earn a lot more than doctors. However, this fact can be easily explained .\nBusinessmen are not paid by somebody else for their job. That is, they hind of personal reward themselves, so that is not a good example of fair distribution of remuneration. If we go back to the doctors again, it turns out that in some countries, particularly those of Eastern Europe, they get even less than skilled manual workers, whose job is not of primary importance to society but who work in the private sector, so if everything works right (which is often not the case in Bulgaria) the more they produce, the more they are likely to get as a financial reward. So, it turns out that the meaning of the word \"contribution\" has to be redefined for every particular society .\nIn addition, I would like to mention two more burning issues: pensions and women's payment, including child benefits. People who are retired evidently do not contribute much to the society, however they have done so far the most part of their lives and in my opinion, although they do not have the needs of a young person, they still deserve an honourable place in society. When mentioning women I mean that in some countries they are not equally paid with men even though they do exactly the same job. Besides, how can one estimate the contribution of a mother by paying her child benefits which are not enough even for a pair of baby's shoes .\nTo conclude with, people's financial reward is often not commensurate with their contribution to society. However, there was one tiny bit in the statement discussed. It says \"the society they live in\". So, it is not their fault if they live in the wrong society, that fails to provide them with what they really deserve .\n" + }, + { + "title": "014_BGSU1187.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today? \n \nBefore going into discussion of the topic it might be better to specify what exactly ' equal ' mean .\nWhat do people understand by the word ' equal'? And by giving a clear definition it would than be easier to explain what we think about the statement and how true this is nowadays .\nWe live in a free country where you have the right to have your own point of view, to share your ideas with no fear what so ever. Therefore, even the meaning of a simple word requires your own opinion which varies from one person to another .\nWhen we talk about people being \"equal\" what I personally imply in the meaning is that all people deserve the same rights as each other; they should have the same status; there should be no class division. But does this reality hold true today? To my opinion, the answer is ' no'. it is true hat we are all born equal, but what happens to us afterwords. Our lives take different directions, some live in luxury while others are on the other side of the line, wondering how to make it until the next day. The sad think is that if you are wealthy enough you can achieve all your goals although you may not deserve it. But if you are poor, if you cannot satisfy your needs no matter that you are clever you cannot develop as a person. You cannot achieve any progress in your life .\nOn the other hand, men can be equal but only before God and the law. God created us all the same and one day when our turn to stand before him comes he should than regard us a s equal .\nNo-one knows weather this is true or not but at least that is what the Bible teaches us .\n\"We are all equal before the law\". The law is the same for everyone. But again if we stop and think more carefully about this statement we may spot certain gaps. Nowadays, we have witnessed how people who really deserve to be punished get away with it, and this arises yet another question: Is Temida blind? So, how can we say that all men are equal at all?\nAs I previously said to be equal people should be treated the same way with no exeptions what's so ever. But today there is no evidence in favour of this statement. I have tried to find even one but again, as it always happens, there is an exeption for everything. We have lived with that so far and we will continue this way as long as the world exists .\n" + }, + { + "title": "015_BGSU1234.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree? \n \nIf we are to consider the practical application of the knowledge one has gained during one's years in university, the first think that we must consider is the career one has chosen. If this career has to do with scientific research or the profession of a teacher (no matter whether it is a school or university teacher) then the preparation universities offer might be of considerable help .\nOtherwise university education does not, as a rule, make young people flexible when it comes to their professional realization .\nAlthough university education tries to give a wither perspective in certain areas of the achievements of human thought and culture, it very often fails to provide suggestions as to how the information received may be used by the individual. In other words, students are sometimes too much preoccupied with what other people have thought or said without being given the chance to assist themselves in the complex system of human experience, although they too take an active part in a constant recycling of information. If at least a small part of what is thought at university does not coincide with a student's personal beliefs, then we come to the question whether we need university education at all .\nAnother aspect of university education, which sometimes terrified students very much, is suggested by the saying \"The more I learn, the less I know. In fact this really is the case when it comes to learning: there appear more and more interesting, or important things, which seem to demand close attention and sometimes students feel lost in this flow of interconnected details .\nSuch on abundance does have its influence on personal motivation and most often this influence is negative .\nThus we come to considering the role of the teacher which is closely related to the curriculum in terms of focus on different aspects of the disciplines thought. Although students at universities are not little children, they still may be very strongly impressed and even influenced by someone else. An important thing teachers must not forget is that students are individuals and personalities on their own and what both teachers and students should have in mind when it comes to communication is mutual respect. In my opinion, a very important thing about the process of education is the atmosphere of cooperation which is closely connected with overcoming certain difficulties (together) on the way of reaching s set goal. If teachers themselves are not convinced that what they do is what they want, or at least what should be done, then students cannot be convinced and motivated at all. Thus the years spent in university become a mere waste of tine and students are not given any idea of their own importance and potentials when it comes to intellectual achievements or just the satisfaction of a well-done job .\nActually, what makes university education of little value is not only the curriculum, but also the fact that students seldom get the right perspective of viewing the world in its complexity, no matter whether on the base of technical disciplines or the humanities .\n" + }, + { + "title": "016_BGSU1243.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today? \n \nThe question of equal opportunities for all has been very topical over the last few decades in the West, and the problem is beginning to gain momentum in our own country nowadays. Yet, it is interesting to note that the movement started in the USA as a backlash against the century-long oppression of the blacks. Which leads one to certain speculations - whether it is possible at all for everyone to have equal opportunities or this is just the next product of American hypocrisy and utopian thinking. In my humble opinion, the latter is the case - because people are not born equal and they are not raised in the same way, the result being that everyone is unique, and different from all the rest. And if equal opportunity be given to everyone, that would mean propping up the less competent and restricting the more able .\nIf we start from the very beginning and go as far back as birth, it would perhaps be less obvious that people are unique. And yet, however alike babies might look, they are never the same. As crude as it may sound, their genetic material is different, and that's a major part of who you are .\nAfter all, your genes predetermine most of your future \"parameters\" such as potential looks, potential IQ, potential health and what not .\nThen, who you become very much depends on your parents and the choices they make - who they are and what connections they have, how they bring you up and what opportunities they give you in terms of social environment, schooling, health care and so on. As a result, even identical twins are not the same person although they have the same genes. The uniqueness of everyone is not a racist or Faschist idea as some claim, it is a fact. And it stands to reason that you don't provide the same opportunities to people with different abilities. Race and nationality would seem to be excluded from the list, at least it would be logical, but experience show a different thing .\nWhile it is only sensible to discriminate against people who are incompetent - because if you need an employee or a partner in business then they have to be the right person and quality for the position - it is only a prejudice to discriminate against people, or groups of people as it might be, on the basis of race or nationality. And however illogical this is, we know that the West, and the States in particular do that all the time, although they wouldn't admit it openly .\nIt seems to me that the most striking example of this is what happens in the admission offices of their colleges - though very few would actually say so, most of them have quotas for racial groups and for international students. Then, there are special scholar-ships awarded to minority groups - and that's discrimination as obvious as anything, only this time it is against the white people. And there's thousands things like this, official and everything, although contrary to the general appeal for equal opportunities .\nSo I would ask these American gentlemen if they would please keep their hypocrisy to themselves. I'd give discrimination the thumbs up, but only as long as it is based on sensible criteria, that are actually relevant, and not on things like I'm black, you are white. I'm tall and you're short, I'm American and you're a Pole. These are a part of who we are, but it's important that we order our priorities and judge people on the relevant points .\n" + }, + { + "title": "018_BGSU1259.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare us for the real life. Do you agree or disagree? \n \nImagine yourself not taking an university degree. What will your future be like? Working as a shop assistant, a taxi driver or ...? I wonder if this will make you feel satisfied .\nSo what? As it turns out, you're left with very little choice indeed? That is why you go to university, spend another four or five years of your life there - and then you are ready to come face to face with life that crushes and smashes. For most people nowadays tend to look on university degrees as the stepping-stone to success. What you study is not so important. Nor what you get. What matters in this case is the diploma - the precious leaflet that is believed to be the key of many locked doors. Is it really so?\nReality tells a different story. During the years one spend at the University, one really learns a lot .\nIt is true that most of the time you've got the feeling that your head is constantly being filled up with heaps of useless information. It is also true that you spend many a sleepless night in desperate attempts to somehow absorb all this stuff - to cram it into your brain just for the sake of the exam, and the moment the exam is over, forget all about it. This is definitely a crack in the system, you must confess. It would undoubtedly be better of students were somehow made to study throughout the year - not just at the end of it, when session begins to haunt their dreams .\nBut such changes are a matter of years .\nAnd here comes the question: what dos the university give you and what does it take? No doubt it takes a lot - maybe more that it gives. Your free time, your freedom and carelessness. And in a way it robs you of your previous self. Slowly but inexorably you change. You grow up to take responsibilities, to realize who you are, what you want from life and how to achieve it. And this is not little at all. It is not only due to the university, it is up to you above all. But it can not be denied that the university too is a major factor in this process of self-development .\nAs far the theoretical side - well, it is always there. And perhaps it will always be. And still you can really learn a lot from a single exam only - provided you know what to take and how to take it. What is more important is that during all these years of studying, taking exams and so on - you become mature - and ready to face life. The real life .\n" + }, + { + "title": "019_BGSU1291.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today? \n \nWhen God made the human race he made all the humans equal, Equal in their possessions, minds, absolutely everything. But I guess that when God mixed the mixture he put a wrong ingredient too without noticing. And it spoiled everything, it transformed into a flow of the first men. Then he condemned us and it was inherited by the following generations .\nAs a whole we the humans are a cursed race. It is deeply rooted in us to kill, to steal, to lie .\nSooner or later it all comes out. We've been living on that planet for thousands of years now but there are certain things which will never change. One of them is the evil rooted in us. George Orwell was right because he was writing what he was seeing, he was writing reality. The present time is not much different from the time before two hundred years for instance. The bad people have always been bad and the good people have always been at the bottom. This is mostly true today in the 21st century when the driving force behind every person is the personal success at the expense of the others. Well, almost every person. The people who think only of their wealth think they are something more than the others, they think they can do whatever they want - these are the people we call \"more equal\".\nOrwell's comparison of humans to animals is perfectly adequate. Because what are we? We are claimed to be the highest animal kind. Like them we are often guided by the instinct of self - preservation which makes us do bad things to others. Makes us neglect others, betray them, hurt them. When we follow that instinct we are blind for everything else but our survival. Another reason that makes people think they are \"special\" is money. Yes, the powerful money. They can put a man high in the clouds and block his common sense. When a person has money they think that the world is their, that it belongs to them. And what happens when they get a lot of money?\nThey become the world's best creatures. And want more and more money, this is loftiness and arrogance come from, from their sense of superiority and importance .\nYet another reason would be if a person has a right social position. For instance, a congressman, a TV journalist, a rich banker. They watch people from above. The \"special\", \"more equal people\" are everywhere, there isn't a certain place where they could be found, they are all around us. Of course, there are people who don't have any basis for their arrogance and \"speciality\".\nYes, Orwell couldn't has been more right than. People are cruel, they kill each other, they destroy their lives. And this is because one thinks that is more than the others. it's hard time we live in and everyone tries to play their role in this life neglecting the others .\n" + }, + { + "title": "020_BGSU1299.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today? \n \nAll men are equal. It is presumed that God made them so. Still all throughout the history of his species man have fought for equality. It has turned out that indeed some men are more equal than others. at least socially. And that is quite naturally .\nAll men cannot be equal. Each one of us is born with different capacity of mind and heart, at different places, under different conditions. Some have more wits or are more open-hearted than others, some have loving parents and a happy childhood, others do not. Some were born with a certain position in society which have secured them better opportunities for education, professional realization, personal or social success, for achieving their goals. Some were handicapped by the conditions of life under which they were born from their first breath of air to the last beat of their heart, entangled in a cruel reality, fighting for every piece of bread in order to keep living just to be able to go on fighting .\nSome like their inherited position of life, others do not. Some conform it, others rebel. Some fight for equality, others for a higher status to be more equal than the others .\nAll men cannot be equal. Not each of us want to have the same conditions of life, opportunities or privileges as the others, some want better ones. Some want to be rich. The some money from the rich, give it to the poor and then we all shall be equal and happy. But there will always be someone who will wish to have more money, to be more equal .\nSome want to have social power. Give more civil rights to the oppressed, restrict the influence of the powerful and we again shall be equal. But shall we be powerful? Over what and, most of all, over whom shall we exert our power? Here comes the need of unequality. There have to be oppressed to make the others feel powerful. Moreover, being influential and having power is not easy as it seems .\nAll men cannot be equal. That is just an utopia. A beautiful dream cherished in the hearts of generations of men throughout the centuries. Our life is based on inequality. Society, even nature is based on inequality. Some say that life is a jungle. In the jungle one cannot afford themselves to be weak and unfit. If one is not strong enough, they simply perish. The stronger need the weaker to live on them. It is the best that survive. The most equal one. There should be death to secure life. There is life owing to inequality. Inequality produces the fittest, the ones who survive .\nIt makes the world turn and the social system work .\nInequality is recognized and accepted by men. What else is the evolutionary theory about the survival of the fittest than a rejection of equality. If all were equal who would have survived.? All of us?\nStill men are fighting for equality. The idea of it lies in the foundation of one of the most powerful social ideologies - socialism. And its realization proved that even among equal there are some that are more equal. It is inevitable .\n" + }, + { + "title": "021_BRFF1068.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nThe society we live in establish patterns which well-succeed people should follow, otherwise they seem impossible to reach. People have to work, to study, to go to the supermarket, to pay the bills and at the same time, they have to be the most efficacious professional, the kindest parents, the most regardful spouse and so on. Moreover, all these stuff has to be often changed, updated and renewed. For women, these obligations can be a little more stressful. In the past, women could fulfill all professional requirements when they got to the market. In some cases, as they were considered inferior, these new workers had to be better than the average. Unfortunately, prejudice brought this behavior to current days. Nowadays, .many women have shown a unbelievable efficiency in order to keep their posts, especially the chief posts. Moreover the conquer of the right of having a carrier did not liberated women from the housewifery duties. These unrewarded job can be as tiring as their profession or even more than it. As a soften policy to ease up all these pressure, the Brazilian government allows women retire five years before man . \nDespite of all these efforts, another question comes up: the woman's role in kids education. Many kids are brought up currently without constant presence of their parents. Absence in fathers case is acceptable because most of the fathers role is to provide family. However there is a belief in which the absence of the mother could be harmful for children. Mothers absence should not be connected to lack of affection. Carrier does not overcome mothers role therefore, it does not destroy the link between mother and child. Even because only the quality of the free time both spend together can measure the strength of this link. In many cases, this is a really hard chore, because lots of women have to provide their kids by themselves. In fact, what is really harmful for kids is lack of attention from mother and from father due to their unsubstitutable role in growth and education . \nBeliefs like these are part of a great range of concepts which comes in and goes out throughout minds that constitute our society. Sexism is a kind of prejudice which is neither too weak to be ignored nor too strong to complaint about it. Prejudice does not favor women or men, both just have to deal with the limitations it puts in their lives. Thus, female behavior and beauty patterns, that are practically impossible to follow, are everywhere. Maybe, nobody can get rid of the judgements that can be made based on them. They can make a woman lose her job, her marriage and sometimes, her health if she did not fit in the exigencies of these patterns, which demands on extreme beauty and eternal youth. Thus far, to things can happen: some women just get depressed while others submit themselves to plastic surgeries, treatments, diets that not rarely put their health in danger. Everything in order to follow an unwise pattern of beauty and behavior . \nProbably, women obey these patterns lead by the education they received before, which sometimes sustain focus on obeying and submission. Young girls growth is plot in a imaginary world in does not incentive the development of decisions or the ways to solve problems. They are just made to believe the charming prince will come and save the princess then all problems are solved. At the same time, boys are brought up with different point of views, such as make decisions and take the control of the situation. Notwithstanding the fact that nowadays, kids are having more wise kinds of education a lot of concepts about education related to boys and girls should be revised . \nAn individual item that really deserves to be revised are the laws related to abortion in Brazil. Illegal and bad-succeed abortion is related to the main cause of dying of poor women in the northern state of Bahia. In So Paulo it takes the third place. The Brazilian health system and laws gives a woman all the support if she wants to get pregnant and have this baby. However, if she does not want have this baby due to a great range of reasons, her rights just end up left in the lurch. Then, she might apply herself to become part of the figures shown before . \nThe presented until this point just try to elicit that if female conquers have started to do harm, some of them ought to be revised, renewed or updated. And It also must to be realized that lots of these conquers are not enough anymore . \n\n" + }, + { + "title": "022_BRMG1110.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nThis issue carries an important meaning if we consider that dreaming and imagination are embodied in human nature. There are different opinions about it, for example, some people think that technology has improved our imagination. This essay will consider that dreaming and imagination have decreased in front of the advance of technology and industrialization and therefore our skills related to those aspects have been damaged . \nDreaming carries a great deal of importance in human nature. If we consider that technology and industrialization have reduced our power of dreaming, we can say that our nature has been damaged. Dreaming is concerning more about the future than about the past and that is why human nature has lost most of its creative power. Without dreaming there is no prospect of future, and then people live just for the present, clung to the boundaries of a world without dreams. And dreams play an indispensable role in our lives, since they give us reasons for living and fighting for our plans. Furthermore, dreaming teaches us to be resolute in our actions, to pursue our objectives . \nWhen it concerns imagination, technology and industrialization have decreased this power belonged to the human nature. Nowadays we have on the Internet everything we need without any effort; this fact contributes to the self-indulgence and to the shortage of imagination. People nowadays do not need to be creative since they have at hand everything. Instead of creating things, they look for on the Internet . \nBoth dreaming and imagination have an important role in our lives, they go together well and increase our power to create and improve things. Without them human nature is limited to works already done, leaving no room for creation. We need them, inasmuch as we need to be creative in the work environment; there is no success without the effort to bring into light new ideas and dreams. And once technology and industrialization have reduced our power to do things by ourselves, we can consider that, beyond the benefits which both of them have brought to humanity, they have as well brought damages. The capacity of dreaming has been reduced, the power of imagination has been trimmed. The losses with the advent of technology and industrialization play out in full view of humanity. We live on technology and industrialization, not leaving room for dreamers and creators . \nIn conclusion, if it is true that technology and industrialization have brought benefits to humanity, it is also true that both of them have brought jeopardies which have limited the human nature, i.e., we are losing our power of dreaming and our capacity for imagination. The consequences can be dangerous, since we have people focused on the present without caring about their future, since we have people with the power of imagination reduced, losing thus their ability to create things. We live nowadays on the edge of human nature, we need to be conscious of what damages technology and industrialization have brought to us in order to improve ourselves and shun a collapse in our nature . \n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "023_BRMG1116.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nGoing to university is most peoples dream and they rely on this opportunity to get a great job and to be well succeeded in their professional lives. At first, there is the dilemma of choosing the right career. After a long and hard way, the course is chosen, but the university is not. Then it is time to select the university among a range of options. When this is done, the next step is to study as hard as someone can to do the entrance examinations. Unfortunately, after all this effort, the student can get frustrated when the university does not live up to his expectations. It usually happens not only because of a badly structured pedagogical plan, but also because of the lack of opportunities to get experience before graduating . \nThe excitement of going to college makes the student feels full of energy to start learning about everything. He attends seminars, takes part in special projects, and spends lots of time in the library. But, after some time, he finds that some difficult and essential subjects were very superficially studied, whereas a lot of time was spent on less complex topics. A deeper analysis of specific contents would make him more familiar with the field. In addition to this defective time management, it is also common to conclude at the end of the course that if some subjects had been studied before others, it would have been easier to learn the whole thing. The order the subjects are taken interferes the way the student learn. An effective pedagogical plan is crucial to have a god quality learning process . \nIf a bad academic structure is combined with no opportunities for real practice, things can get even worse. When a student keeps studying, but there is no chance to see in loco how things really work, it will probably be very difficult for him to become a good professional. By the time a student finishes college, he must be ready, at least, to perform fundamental practices of his occupation. Otherwise he will be an intern with a college degree for a long time before getting more confident. Every student must have opportunities to deal with real situations in a daily basis, especially from the second half of the course on . \nIt is known that a lot of renowned universities have helped hundreds of thousands of students to develop their knowledge and become excellent professionals. However, on the other hand, it is also possible to find poorly structured universities that keep on forming professionals who are not well prepared for the market force due to too much theory and too little practice. Students spend their time, money and energy in a four, five or even six-year course in order to get a good job and keep on improving their skills. Thus, there should be a very rigorous government inspection to guarantee a minimum level of excellence in education, so that there would not be a great difference in terms of knowledge and practice when comparing graduates from different educational institutions . \n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "024_BRMG1119.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nMost university degrees are theorical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value . \nI think that there are a lot of universities that don't make the necessary role that is to prepare the profissional to enter to job market. The students begin in the school with a dream. They believe that they will go out the school with a profession and they will gain a lot of much money . \nSometimes, the parents will not buy important things to their family to put their sons in the better schools. They believe that the study would be the solution to all problems. Sometimes the student can stay disappointed. Unfortunatelly, we live in a society where a lot of people still think that the certificate is more important than all others things in the life. I don't think that the study is not important but I think that it is not vital . \nToday, there are a lot of Universities graduating people, but there are not enough work to every these people. The graduation will not help people to get a work. There are a lot of people that know how to embroider, to sew, people that work in the field planting our food. There are millions of people that know to do many kinds of works that are very important to our life even not being in the universities curriculum . \nwithout never have been in a university. But, as long as the certificate more important, these people don't have the value that they deserve . \nThe teacher besides not being valorized, is still a good example of how the learning university is rather theorical. When we go out the school, we think that we are ready to teach our students. We think that it will be easy because we are profissional, we have our certificate . \nBut the frustration is big, when we begining our work. We are alone in front of the class with fourty different pupils. Each one with different personality, different knowledge. This moment, you realize that we don't know to do this. Which procedure take? The university don't teach us what to do in front of situations that will appear. Each situation is unique and we have to be resolved. This situation could happen in all jobs, because surprises always happen and especially when we work with humans . \nIn the university we have opportunity to learn some subjects as Methodology, Sociology, Psychology that can help us to live better together with other people and to do a new graduation in future. The university can offer us a base and a part of knowledge, but is necessary we will continue to learn a few more every day and we will adquire the experience only with time . \nBut we can not say that the university certificate is not important. Despite the university do not prepare us for the real world, it can help us . I think that depend of us. If we will have interest in learningand work it is sure that we can be excellent profissionals . \n\n" + }, + { + "title": "025_BRMG1120.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nWhich person has not seen another one acting inappropriately in his or her professional area? It is very common to see professionals doing wrong things in their jobs, although these people have studied in university courses. Getting a degree in most of the universities . \ndoes not mean a person has learnt everything necessary about how to act and work in the real world . \nIn the educational area, for instance, it might be said that each student should give their best to get as much as possible from the academic world he or she is into. Many people claim there are different kinds of students and for that reason there are different types of professionals. It is claimed that some students are more interesting in learning; other ones simply have a medium development throughout the under-graduation period. However, even the best student of a class may not have everything he or she needs to put the abilities learnt inside class into practice if the university chosen by that student is not qualified enough. It is possible to see some teachers, or even professors, who do not have any didactics at all. Even though they have got a teaching degree, and have also had teaching method classes, their way of teaching seems not to match the students way of learning. Some universities, who form these teachers or professors, are not capable of offering a good quality teaching course. They do not research enough; neither they are open to the modern discoveries about different didactics . \nIt can be stated that the practical experience is only gotten through a lot of years in one specific profession. However, universities should be the places where real life is reproduced. Still making use of the same example, the courses involving teaching degrees, should consider, for instance, amid many other issues, the inclusion of people with audio disabilities. Unfortunately, many universities are not taking them into consideration. An under-graduate student may learn how to teach, however he or she might not learn the sign language, neither might they learn about the importance of having this minority of people in the same class as people who are able to hear normally. And when these students graduate and face real world in schools, they are not prepared to treat these special people. And this is not something one can get only through professional experience. Actually, before having had any contact with a def student, a teacher should be ready to work, knowing how to deal with the necessities of his or her special student . \nIn conclusion, there are few universities that can really prepare students for the real life of society needs. As it is difficult to change institutions like a university, a student should realize the importance of his or her graduation according to real world, and chose the best universities to ingress. The educational area is a good parameter to notice that even if a person has got a degree in a university, it is not enough for him or her to be prepared to face the practical world of the professional chosen by him or her. But if there were a bigger involvement between theoretical and practical world, it should reach all types of courses in the universities . \n" + }, + { + "title": "026_BRMG1279.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nSince the beginning of the humanity history, at least the history that is studied at the schools along the country, we can clearly notice that we live on a constant fight for power. Much of what is behind this power is related to money, and naturally who has money, has power as well . \nWe have learned that in the old Rome, they fought for land, the more land they conquered the more people they had under their control and as a consequence the Empire got bigger and bigger spreading the race of Cesar, as much as they could, around the world. Jesus knew what was behind a simple coin which represents money and power so that he showed that it wasn't what he was searching, in the contrary, he wanted to leave the money for those whom wanted to fight for that, to whom were willing to die for that, to the false people who search power and control behind richness and that's why he spread love as a way of life. Unfortunately it was the ruin of his life but fortunately because of his death and his reasons he is still remembered today and I'd say forever . \nBehind a slogan of a pure race, Hitler convinced millions of Germans to kill and if it were possible, to exterminate completely from the world the race of the Jewish. Isn't it a big coincidence that they were one of the richest people in the world?, couldn't he support all Germany alive by taking the Jewish money and richness during his war? His plan was quite simple. He convinced his people that their race was superior, the Jewish were inferior so they needed to be exterminated, of course and consequently Germany would keep their money. This money would keep them in the war and they would end up victorious on an episode that is considered one of the most tragical, violent, bloody, sad and so on, in our history and what was behind all this pain, the bloody money. The amount of money in gold deposited in the swiss bank with the suastic is something incredible. Will it be delivered to their real owners? This is what is planned, we just hope that they don't fight again for this to happen . \nIn the middle east they have been fighting for at least 2,000 years. Though it's said that it's an ideological fight, power is behind their ideal as well. They can't put up with each other's ideal and so they kill each other but it happens that the most powerfull submits the others and who is the most powerfull?, the one who got more money. Again we see episodes of suffering because of money . \nHere in Brazil we live with it every day. People kill for less than a hundred real. Killers have different prices according to who they are going to murder. We hear on the news everyday cases of people who fools the others to get some money, sometimes the other is even a brother, a father, or a close relative of the person who is being fooled. I myself heard a report where the person said on the to the other who he had fooled; \"I'm sorry to have done this to you, but we have to do it to live\". The person in case had bought a car by the newspaper but never received the car or the money back . \nMoney can change (as drugs do) the personality of a person. The riches want to get more rich, no matter what they have to do in order to it. They've got good salaries but even thus they risk their integrity and steal public money even to eat. We see doctors who don't assist serious pacients because they don't have money to pay. A good example for this is when we see on the TV people collecting money to save a person or a child on an important surgery . \nPerfect would be when people are developed enough to create a society where money doesn't exist. There was a time when it happened. A long time ago people exchanged services, benefits and material goods without the presence of money . \nIf you needed a doctor, you just went to a doctor, if you needed food, you picked it up on the nearest grocery but of course you would be responsible for any kind of service. I guess this society is each time more difficult to happen because of the presence of the money. The powerful people got so powerful that they would not agree with this proposition and then, more war for peace. That's way I totally agree that \"money is the root of all evil\". \n\n" + }, + { + "title": "027_BRMG1295.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nRecently, a research about the television was done in the United States of America. It discovered that most of people spend hours of their lives watching television. Men watch television about forty hours a week and women about twenty. It means that men watch television almost six hours a day and women more than two hours . \nPeople, around the world, need the television, and if they need even a little bit of this every day, they are dependents. It became a \"drug\" in their lives and it's gonna be proved here. The television is accompanying the people's way of life since its invention (1928). \nWhen the industry of \"media\" discovered the power of this means of communication, it began to use the television to rebuild people's way of thinking, creating shows, soup operas, novels, movies, etc. and commercials in-between that have told watchers what to do, what to wear, and who to be ever since . \nThe more the television became fashion the more people went to the market to purchase the way of life it preaches. But the sad part of this is that people have done so, more and more unconsciously . \nNowadays the TV has became inseparable part of our lives, and generation after generation has born in the TV era, thus we no longer judge its use anymore, although we should, especially for our children. We have grown up taught by the TV set and we have never stopped just a bit to think if these things showed off in TV are respectable and decent to help building our children's personality . \nMost of these children of yesterday are us today, and the reader shall agree with this: that nobody notices how much TV is inserted in this society context, and it appears like a conjunctive tissue to fill the holes of the main tissue of our lifetimes, and, as it was told here in the beginning, alarming amounts of time have been spent in front of the TV set, therefore, two important things have emerged from this: the former is that our way of life hasn't been doing so fine, the major part of our society, the masses, has been put into forced laziness situations (unemployment, poverty, general discouragement) that end up substituted by something; and the latter is that all the things one uses tp skip from these \"forced situations\" (not to face life) are called drugs, and TV watching fits it. So, the television's become a drug; an opium of masses that dopes everybody to have not to face the reality, while it recreates an \"would-be reality\" to please the watcher. When the watcher is already addicted it starts to suck him/her, inducting her/him to spend money, time, space of his/her life...! It can be qualified as a very powerful and hazardous drug, but nobody realizes it! The worst drug is the one that is used and present without revealing its real identity. Let's see the drinking, for instance, even everybody knows it is addictive, it conquered a certain acceptance and tolerance even by the law, so it's found all around normally. The TV is much worse, because the society doesn't even calls it a drug, perhaps because it's been suiting all of its purposes . \nSo, meanwhile the television keeps destroying whole homes by \"re-formatting\" the time which people should get together into a lazy seat on the sofa, with no talking not to interfere with the \"video-dialogue\", we may let here a question in the air: wouldn't these sexual and violent behaviour of our youth nowadays a consequence of letting our children be taught by TV instead of us? \n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "028_BRRS1024.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nOur society has changed over the last centuries and thanks to the science technology development and industrialisation we have a better standard of living. Consequently people have become more materialistic and have forgotten the basic principles to live happily. Therefore there has never been a place for dreaming in our society as today and people are more interested in reading and imagining how the perfect world would be . \nIn our modern world people don't have much time to spend as they like. Our lives are unquestionably better if we take in consideration the material standard of living but most of our time is spent in a stressful way. The process of modernization has affected the lives of individuals and it could be affecting positively if modern society were interested in abating poverty, inequality and ignorance, for example. However, it's not our main concern. The number of hours worked is gradually increasing because people are interested in making money to spend as the elite dictates. Unfortunately most individuals don't set value on remarkable things and getting new appliances in the market and paying for unnecessary surgeries are the present concerns . \nDespite the several achievements human beings agree that some aspects of the ancient societies were better than ours. Because of it there is the surprising fact that people want to bring back the looks of the past by reading about them. They are interested in documentaries and movies about primitive tribes, the old civilizations and also by alternative life styles too. It makes us conclude that human beings have become dreamers in order to compensate our sad reality . \nAuthors who have written self-help books are famous and also the imaginative ones who make people believe in a world where everything is great. Everybody knows it's not a way of changing the society but it's certainly much easier to imagine the ideal world than to make it comes true. Being attracted by an utopia is a way of forgetting the civilization problems. Hence, the science technology and the industrialization have attracted peoples attention to literatures which give them the opportunity to dream . \nOnce many are looking for another type of life it make us believe that people are becoming aware of the fact that not everything is okay and that its the time to the world undergo change. The first important step is to realize that there are problems which we have already done. We are definitely getting closer and closer to the answer to our difficulties. Imagining is not the answer but it's comforting to know that human being have not lost their faiths that better days will come and continuous to dream . \n\n" + }, + { + "title": "029_BRRS1028.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nThere are few topics so much linked to modernity and our contemporary tradition as the discussion of the role of women in society. Throughout the years, the feminists struggled against the domination of patriarchal models imposed on women, many times fighting as fiercely as they could to have their voices heard. Harsh, biting positioning and attitudes of these women have been regarded as a step back for the building of a relationship of equality among sexes. Many people truly believe feminists as a groups have done more harm then good to the cause. However, one can draw their own conclusions by observing how far the fight for fairness has advanced and the achievements of women since the movement started to grow in power, despite some minor misunderstandings on their way . \nOne does not need to be a History expert to get in contact with the conditions under which women had been kept in traditional society; a brief look at history books or novels is enough to bring to the mind of the contemporary female the mistreatment and disregard towards women. The first feminists lived through the hardest conditions for a male dominated society could never be possibly open to dialogue and changes. It is easy to find historical examples of legendary feminine characters who directly raised their voices against the submission and limitations imposed to them and were severely punished and scolded. Women who dared to confront the patterns often received unsympathetic to say the least treatment. No wonder then, feminists at the very beginning of their organization as a movement had to take extreme actions not only to protect themselves from the rebukes of society, but also to create a sort of power that allowed them to be heard . \nThe achievements of feminists are visible. Every woman that is allowed to write, choose a partner, decide whether to have children or not, drive, work and go to college should keep in mind that none of these freedoms came to them out of waiting and passive action. It is true that feminism brought with it natural risks of extremism and ideas that deviated from the original purposes proposed by the first feminists; on the other hand, it also made possible for women to advance so much that many should think it as a necessary evil, if so . \nThrough a modern perspective, many have criticized the movement of feminism for its excessive combativeness against males and their straight tolerance. The image of a bitter, unloved, unwomanly woman stridently bashing men and everything slightly masculine is probably the image that prevails for many people every time feminism is brought into question. As it hold true for some representatives of the groups, it is certainly not this grumpy female who is the best portray of the movement which gained respect and rights for women all over the world. This stereotype of a hysterical feminist activist contributes very little to the real amplitude of the achievements feminists had to offer society. Many women sacrificed a good deal of their personal lives and concerns to the greater good . \nEven if some of the most combative feminists really contributed to create an atmosphere of competition and inequality sometimes even hostility between men and women, it can be tranquility taken as a mild pitfall on the long path of struggles courageous feminist activists took for the good of all women all around the globe. In a nutshell, there are undoubtedly those who affirm feminists had done more harm than good to the cause; nonetheless, a careful observer can refuse this affirmation by taking a look at the long list of realizations performed by these women at the cost of their private lives and interests . \n\n" + }, + { + "title": "030_BRRS1036.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nUnlike people tend to believe, the Feminist Movement has existed since biblical times. The Old Testament mentions that the five daughters of a man who had died claimed for their right to his inheritance instead of their uncle. They claimed Why should the name of our father be omitted from among his family because he had no sons? Give us a possession among our fathers brother. Thousands of years have passed and the struggles have been persistent. Women are still establishing their position within society. But at what cost? \nIt is unquestionable that the Womens Movement contributed a great deal to strengthen women's rights. Before the rise \nof the movement women were not aloud to elect or be elected in local elections. Moreover, they had no right to own any property: it would belong either to their father or to their husband. Some were not allowed to work or wear pants because that would be inappropriate behavior for a lady . \nHowever, being entitled to the same rights as men was not enough to the feminists, who claim that not only should women have the same rights, but also no gender differences should be considered at all. Having the same rights is not a synonym for behaving or being equal. It should only mean that these differences will not be used as excuses to discriminate one another . \nAs a result of this lack of boundaries, the Womens Movement did not consider the inner differences that exist between man and woman. Science has already proved that the males brain works and reacts in a distinct way from the females. And instead of valuing and developing what each gender has of best, the movement tries to ignore genetics . \nTherefore, women assumed many male jobs in order to prove their capability while man made no efforts to take on female responsibilities. It generated three main consequences to the modern woman. The first one is the postponement of motherhood, which can lead to infertility and increase the probability of abnormalities in the fetuss formation. The second result is full-time jobs: women not only work regularly but also have to take care of their homes and children, most of the time with no help from their partners. It raises stress levels, and, consequently, the occurrence of illnesses and also creates tensions within the relationship between the woman and her family. Finally, it created a contingent of well-succeeded single women. Most men are not ready to date women more powerful than them and with better salaries than theirs. Even considering this kind of sexist behavior, the problems still persist: women do not want to remain single but they just can not find a partner . \nIn short, the Feminist Movement has done a great job in relation to women's rights. But we should reflect on the results of some of its claims, as some of them did more harm than good to women. Instead of accusing Harvard's president Lawrence Summers of being sexist, the movement should analyze the ideas behind his words. It should keep defending women but also take into consideration that gender differences are innate and can be better exploited so as to act on their own behalf . \n\n" + }, + { + "title": "031_BRRS1045.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song, \"Money is the root of all evil\"\n \nIn a capitalist society, where money is the fuel responsible for the functioning of this big engine, it is not surprising that it is also the main cause of all violence, and even in general terms, that money is the root of all evil, as it is said in the old song. People are moved by the goal of earning more and more money, many times, regardless what they may have to do in order to achieve it. This way, money has become the reason for evil in small as well as in large proportions. From robbery to war, evil has been mostly caused by peoples eagerness in pursuit of money either direct or indirectly . \nIt is broadly known by anyone who lives in a big city and it is obviously the main filling of newspapers, radio and television broadcasts, that violence has been largely motivated by economic reasons. What is worth mentioning is that not only upper or middle class citizens are victims of violence because of money, but that low class citizens suffer with the same kind of violence as well. Evil may assault poor people in the form of robbery, for instance, from which not even they are free of. Among the poor, robbery mostly happens at buses and at the dangerous streets of their equally poor neighborhood. These citizens have their already few and hard earned belongings such as watches, mobile phones, shoes and engagement rings taken away from them by robbers who most of the times sell the robbed belongings with the exclusive intention of getting money to buy drugs for their own use. But it is true that there are also robbers who commit small crimes as a means of providing food and other kind of essential things to their families, what is not an excuse, but yet, seems to be much more reasonable. The type of violence that usually assaults the rich, on the other hand, involves the suppression of larger amounts of money through the breaking into houses and kidnappings, for instance. It does not matter if it happens to the poor or to the rich. The fact is that these are all violent actions that involve serious psychological terror and may end up causing trauma in the name of money . \nTurning the spotlight to a much bigger proportion we can discuss the cases of evil deeds being directed by the leaders of whole nations aiming at the destruction of other nations. The word is war. It does not matter the excuse officially presented. It does not matter if it is said to be a war against terrorism or in the name of God. We can always identify economic interest behind such excuses. In a capitalist world, economic power is what defines the power of a nation. Worldwide leaders of nations try hard to increase the power of that nation they rule, and some get to the extreme point of starting wars and killing masses of innocent people in order to gain power . \nIn summary, we can conclude that living in a capitalist society represents a strong reason for money being responsible for so many evil acts. Violence is broadly caused, in different proportions, due to peoples blind pursue for power and as a consequence, for what determines ones power in a capitalist world, that is money . \n\n" + }, + { + "title": "032_BRRS1048.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nThis line was said by the American singer and songwriter Billy Corgan in one of his songs with his band The Smashing Pumpkins. Many times, this is the exact feeling that people have in relation to the modern world in which we are living nowadays. It seems that our world sucks our time, our pleasures, our capacity to think and analyse information since it all comes in such a fast way. And that is the reason that makes so many people wonder where the dreams fit in our rushed lives . \nHowever, if on one hand it is possible to see people simply taken aback by the speed and modernity of our times and forgeting about their own lives and dreams, on the other hand, this is exactly what some other people need to trigger their imagination. One thing is for sure: modernity is coming as a rocket and cannot be changed. So, why not make the best of it? This positive philosophy is what moves people to use their creativity at the most. These people have the ability to take something that is seen as negative by the majority of people and turn it into something not only good, but creative, hopeful and imaginative . \nI think I fit in this second category of people: the optmistics. I strongly disagree with the statement that affirms that there is no longer place for dreaming and imagination. There is certainly room for both in our lives, even though they may be rushed as previously mentioned. But you have to find room in yourself to dream and imagine, and many are those who just cannot do it very well. It is necessary to forget about the outside world and look inside for a while, as if you were making a pause of everything else that doent concern you and your dreams. Dreams are what make people move on with their lives. If it wasn't for that, where would we find reason to keep on going on? Where would we find motivation not to give up? \nFortunately, many people are just like me: dreamers. In my opinion, it is almost impossible not to dream. Some dreams are totally unrealistic and their dreamers know that they will never come true. But even these dreams are good for us, we use our imagination, develop our creativity and even laugh with the absurds that we wish. Some other dreams are totally possible to become reality. They may not be easy to achieve, but if you go for it and fight for your wishes they might come true . \nIt might seem a little crazy from my part, but I really believe that even the world in which we live the world that is blamed for our lack of dreams just got where it is now because somebody dreamed of it. All the scientic experiments and technological devices that are totally common today, didn't exist before and have only become alive because somebody used his/her imagination, and struggled to make them real. So, to sum up, dreams are what make the world goes round and is something that is inside us, something that we just can't deny. Even if the world doesn't allow us much time to dream, we always find a way to do it! \n\n" + }, + { + "title": "033_BRSM1348.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nWhen the word feminism appeared, people experienced a different reality - considering the fact it happened during the nineteenth century in the United Kingdom and the United States. The consequences of the movements which have taken place back at that time have really caused changes and what we currently have is actually a completely different world, but the question is: has it changed for the best? \nIn fact, for a long period of time mens and women's roles were very well defined and now people are going through a huge role change. Even though this change is not as global as it could be, its worldwide influence can be easily observed. In Japan, the group (wether a family or a society as a whole) is greater than the individual and this means a particular woman must follow the old rules based on Confucianism and Buddhism both combined with the military class, which is basically look upon her husband as if he were heaven itself. On the other hand, in South Africa, divorced men claim maintenance payments for their children from their former wives . \nFeminism is concerned with gender difference, and its discourse aims at equal rights. In a general way, when it comes to the Western society, it is possible to say that feminists goals are gradually being achieved. It is soon to say if the consequences of the theoretical equality of genders is good or bad for the society, but the reactions that happened so far show that this is a controversial subject. Before the revolution, it was easy to define mens and women's responsibilities men were the hunters, gatherers and providers and women, as the care-givers, took care of the children, of the house and, of course, of the husband. Today there are fathers in charge of the housework and mothers providing the financial sources . \nIt is important to consider that both women and men can benefit from taking on more than one single traditional social role, and that there is quite a bit of research to prove it they show that multiple roles can be beneficial. The researchers have found that employment was associated with health improvement for both single and married women who had positive attitudes towards their jobs. Likewise, men who held multiple roles also had better health researches have shown that multiple roles do improve physical and phychological health . \nHowever, a routine that includes work, home, children and husband doesn't seem to be that easy. The studies and theories about the subject don't really mention the quality and the results a life with multiple roles has. Children education is another controversial issue and the problem with it starts at home. If a child doesn't have available parents, bad consequences will come, sooner or later. And if you don't have enough time to dedicate to your job and to focus on your career because you are taking care of your children, how far will you be able to go professionally? If you work too much and, when you are not working you are taking care of your children, how will you be able to keep a good relationship with your husband? Then, you have a mutiple role life - but with what kind of results? After all, are you really equal to men? And the most important thing: By living the supposed equal life, will you have time to actually live? \n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "034_BRSM1351.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nSince the word was first used in English to describe the mobilization for women's suffrage in Europe and the U.S. during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and even before that, when the term was still not in use, feminism has been one of the most controversial topics for discussion in modern society. It attracts, both the sheer passion of those who advocate for it and the repulse of those who are against it. But most people speak of it without fully understanding what feminism is and what are the implications it has had upon women's lives. Men and women, who deny the importance of feminism, and, at times, even consider it to have done more harm to the cause of women than good, say that what the political movement has mainly brought to women is not more freedom of choice or better opportunities in the workplace, but rather, it has taken women away from the house, not giving them any choice of staying in and taking care of their families without being undermined by modern thinking. Furthermore, feminism has deprived women from their most important characteristics and has been turning them into the men they never wanted to be . \nThose who advocate the feminist thinking, on the other hand, believe that feminism, as a social and political movement, has been the most successful, and even only one to achieve its goals in the 20th century. Feminism, indeed, has proved itself as a powerful opinion former, and its ideals have been gaining space in mainstream culture every day. Women and men who have never even studied the feminist agenda are, and have been, passing forward its ideological thinking, having understood that both genders are equal and can take part in the same social, economical and political activities, as opposed to the understanding of the past generations, which considers women and men to have different roles that should be respected and not surpassed . \nIn conclusion, there certainly is always going to be discussions as to whether feminism has brought any kind of improvement in women's lives and made them freer and more complete as human beings, but, the fact is that, being able to discuss such matters and to defy the roles that were once set for women and men is, itself, an evidence that women, and men, have benefited from the struggle that feminists have put since their beginning as upper-class Suffragettes until their present as police officers, carpenters, doctors, executives, academics and even Presidents . \n\n" + }, + { + "title": "035_BRSM1369.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney is the way we use to buy a lot of things today, like food and drink, but also plesure, entretaning and good moments in travels arround the world. It was made just for it, to be the highway to change things that we have in other things that we want. Without it we would need to transport cows to a change point and get some corn. The question is, with the power that a lot of money bring in our capitalist world, could we simply have anything if we had enough money? \nFirst of all, the kinds of things that we can buy are not just simple things that we need or substantial things to change our lives. These things we are talking about are mostly a representation of status nowadays. We can define it as eccentricity or any other word, but it is something that, in its most, looks like a selfish, meaningless way to show oneself. In addition, we can directly relate eccentricity with fame too. So, the famous and rich start a movement to spend their fortune in nonsense actions . \nSome says that eccentricity is related with geniality too. For exemple, Edith Sitwell, the British poet and daughter of the eccentric Sir George Sitwell, 4th Baronet, of Renishaw Hall, wrote: \"Eccentricity is not, as some would believe, a form of madness. It is often a kind of innocent pride, and the man of genius and the aristocrat are frequently regarded as eccentrics because genius and aristocrat are entirely unafraid of and uninfluenced by the opinions and vagaries of the crowd.\" For sure, Edith Sitmell has her point, if you consider that Albert Einstein was used to picking up discarded cigarette butts off the street in order to circumvent his doctor's ban on buying tobacco for his pipe, piloting his sailboat on windless days, but nowadays, eccentricity became a instrument to rich and famous just strive for attention. In particular, we can describe rock bands like Nirvana and Guns and Roses, known for destroying most of their instruments or their own hotel rooms just for fun . \nOn the other hand, not everything is lost. We still have many people that use their money in a good way, such as Paul David Hewson, Mr. Bono Vox, known for his cause and philosophy to help people around the world. Just like him, we have others, like Madonna, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, celebrities that do not use it to travel to the moon and call for pizza. They conscious of their status and use this on their side . \nIn conclusion, we cannot say that the way money and status are used today is only a matter of point of view and justify any act, or that money can buy anything, but we can see that the values of some are not on the right direction. If the capitalist system is not fair with everyone, we do not need someone burning their money in something stupid or selfish. We need more people worried about important causes and about others . \n\n" + }, + { + "title": "036_BRSM1372.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nIt is a common saying that money is the root of all evil. According to the Random House Dictionary of Proverbs and Sayings, the phrase first appeared in English circa 1000 A.D. The saying originated in the New Testament. For the love of money is the root of all evil. Timothy, 6:10. \nIt's obviously one of those sayings that has as great deal of staying power, having been around for two thousand years and still going strong. But how fair is it to blame all evil, or even any evil, on a medium of exchange? \nMaybe, it would be a much more accurate statement to say that the root of most evil is man's desire for status; either greed to increase ones status, or jealousy over losing in the status game to others. Money is the most obvious measure of ones status, so it's easy to confuse the two, but they are certainly not the same thing . \nIt's easy to point to many evils committed for the sake of status in which money wasn't involved at all, for example, in sports competitions, jealousy in relationships, and rivalry with relatives, Those situations have nothing to do with money, but everything to do with status and the need to be more successful then others . \nIdealists wonder why we can't live in a world where everyone is equal, and therefore where there is no greed or jealousy resulting from status differences. Unfortunately, they overlook the fact that our desire to have higher status than others is part of our human nature, and nothing can change it. The goal of communism was that an economic system would be created where no one would be rich or poor, where everyone would have equal wealth. The problem is that such a system is impossible. Mans desire to rise ahead of others is too strong, and money is not the only thing that man competes over. And because all men are not equal in ability and other characteristics, no matter what the playing field is, some will rise ahead and others will fall behind, and those who are behind will feel intense jealousy, even if the competition is about something other than money . \nDesire for money is a good thing when people play by the rules, and when their desire for money and status results in better ways of doing business and in inventions that help people and that make the world a better place. Desire for money and status is only bad when people do bad things in order to obtain what they desire . \n\n" + }, + { + "title": "037_BRSM1377.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nThe time when a university degree could guarantee one a better job is long gone. In today's world, not only has it become ordinary to all of those who are seeking a position in the market, it does not prepare those who do find one to the kind of work they are going to perform. As a degree became a prerequisite to enter the job market, universities all over the world started creating courses to all fields, including those that did not necessarily require a 4-year curriculum . \nTo start with, the syllabi of the universities courses are rather theoretical. Therefore, students who dedicate years of their lives being prepared for the career ahead of them find themselves ill-equipped when facing the world outside campus. Coping with the new reality is often a better preparation for the work itself than having all the knowledge involved in a particular area, but no practical experience. No sooner does one leave university than they realize that. Furthermore, much of the content learned in universities is irrelevant, while the process of learning it nurtures a plethora of attitudes and behaviors which are directly contrasting to what appears to be needed in real life . \nOn the other hand, there are many courses that are vital for one to perform their job properly. Careers such as medicine and advocacy have constantly been developed in order to adapt to new practices in their areas. These courses really prepare their students for their work, as all the theoretical knowledge passed to them during their years of study is an essential element in their careers. What is more, the acquaintance of theories and the familiarity with the foundations of the field contribute to the improvement of area itself, as these new highly-educated professionals will become the architects of the courses curriculum tomorrow . \nTaking everything into consideration, one can say that university degrees are overrated. If they do not prepare their students to the job market, why are they so prized? Managers and directors in all areas give more credit to a university degree than to a highly-experienced professional, but little do they consider that the latter has more tools to efficiently perform his tasks. While universities do not start considering these matters, their students will continue to learn about work at work, and about life by living it, as Charles Handy, an educator with many years experience in business and public services, once said. And he adds: We could do more to make sure that the process of education had more in common with the processes of living and working as they are today, so that the shock of reality is less cruel . \n\n" + }, + { + "title": "038_BRSS1344.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nLike is writing on the Bible, in the New Testament, and people says because of thousand years of common sense, money is the root of all evil. But, if we start to thinking about that, even the Catholic people, the phrase does not make sense . \nHow fair is it to resume all evil on gold, silver, salt, coins, or any other medium of exchange? Money is just one way of get things. The problem begins in man's desire for power and status. Probably, if they rethink about that phrase, it will be the root of most evil is the man's vanity. One should never expect the Bible to be consistent, and sure enough, it isn't when it comes to evil. One of the very first acts of evil committed in the Bible has nothing to do with money. In the Book of Genesis, Cain kills his brother Abel because he is jealous that Abels offering to God was better received than his own. He is jealous that Abel has achieved higher status or power than him . \nWhile the Catholic Church created this common sense around the money, the Protestants interpretation of Bible, and the human History, is money is the solution for all evil. This thought was and still is the base on all development of industrialized countries that did not punish who have worked to join money, or have had ambitions of growth social and financial since the old time . \nAnd today, are the developed nations maintain this thinking without any trouble? No. Idealists wonder why we can't live in a world where everyone is equal, and therefore where there is no greed or jealousy resulting from status differences. Unfortunately, they overlook the fact that our desire to have higher status than others is part of our human nature, and nothing can change it . \nGreed for money may be a good thing when people play by the rules, and when their desire for money and status results in better ways of doing their business or in inventions that help people and that make the world a better place. Desire for money and status is only bad when people do bad things in order to obtain what they desire, without think in the other people. And even then, it's not greed that's really bad, but the person who's doing the bad things who's bad . \nThe goal of communism was that an economic system would be created where no one would be rich or poor, where everyone would have equal wealth. The problem is that such a system is impossible. Mans desire to rise ahead of others is too strong, and money is not the only thing that man competes over. And because all men are not equal in ability and other characteristics, no matter what the playing field is, some will rise ahead and others will fall behind, and those who are behind will feel intense jealousy, even if the competition is about something other than money. The goal of a just government should not be to punish people for being successful in obtaining money, but to create rules to ensure that competition for money results in good for society . \nOn the contrary like the old song says, Money is the root of all evil / Won't contaminate myself with it / Take it away, take it away, take it away, take this though away, and do what is right, to you, to your neighbor and to humanity as a whole . \n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "039_BRSS1345.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nOne of the most popular main of communication nowadays is television. There is one in each house in the occident and now it has been arrived in the orient too. Children grow up seeing its programming and it is forming character of many, surpassing until the education obtained in school. This occurs because of many factors and maybe there are no more possibilities to revert this situation . \nMarx once said that religion was the opium of masses, but today it is no longer truth, because a greater opium has risen in our society, the television. He couldn't imagine so strong instrument of control in his time; he has only determined the manner how this control functions, but it can be applied not only to religion but to all kind of control and television is the most relevant and common instrument nowadays. It's that what well talk about in this text . \nParents use television like a babysitter. They goes to work and lead their children to school and after that, the children stay home alone with nothing to do beyond to watch television. Or parents stay home with them, but they are not interested in having any activity with theirs suns, so the TV is the easier way to solve the problem. All the programs in any part of the day are very interesting, attracting attention of the children but have no profundity neither are important or educative. The children passes all day watching TV, they learn that to read is a boring duty and become victims of the system of control . \nToday there are many adults that have grown up in this kind of TV education. They are problematic, presenting problems in communication and socialization; they don't like their jobs and many of them are unhappy. Besides, they are absolutely abstracted and don't have interest in politics, economy or culture. They are only guided by the mass, following and believing exactly in what they see in television the new music of the moment, the new season of their favorite TV series, the manipulated and limited news of the newscast. They are zombies of the system, exactly like they are meant to be . \nMatrix is a movie trilogy that represents well this alienation of reality. All the human beings are controlled by a computer program that makes they think they are exactly what they want to be. They are used by the system like batteries to make the world of machines functions. It is a representation of control that really exists in our society, but in a more veiled way but so harmful as the example . \nBy the way, there are very important questions that have been done and in which answers we have to think about: Who makes television to do what it does? Why can anyone want a thing like that? In the real matrix, we-batteries are used to make what functions? If anyone could know the answers for that, he certainly would be out of the manipulated mass and would become a manipulator too . \n\n" + }, + { + "title": "040_BRSS1346.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nNowadays, we live in a world where people are totally dependent on modern facilities. These facilities have began to be introduced in our society from industrialization which allowed a great improvement on the life of people . \nThis progress brought with it a great change in economy, politic, science and society in general, but mainly in culture. People became fascinated to the progress of technology and then, so many inventions like telephone, computer, microwave, etc, transformed the life of people. All these changes came to improving the living conditions of population but they caused an acceleration of time. Nowadays, everything is so much faster and the velocity of information makes people have rapid access to facts which are happening around the world. Add to that the globalization is also a result of this all transformation . \nThere are no doubts that inventions allowed a great development of the society but what did happen to feelings? What did happen to dreams? What did happen to imagination? Well, people are so much worried to acquire more and more material products, they are working in an uncontrolled way to get so much money to buy too expensive houses, last generation cars, last generation cell phones, high power computers, notebooks, etc, and the scientists works to make the best technologic discovery of the century. Anyway, people are living to get things, material things, but they are forgetting to live a real life . \nSo, I think it is a wrong way to live. In my opinion, they are loosing the essence of life because all efforts are concentrated to technologic searches and natural values are in a second level. But, where are dreams and imagination? They are also concentrated to build an artificial world. It is obvious that there are exceptions but now population is thinking in an individual way. They are destroying nature in name of progress and scientists don't mind with the consequences of scientific researches . \nIn the university, there are some courses that are considered theoretical and because of that they have less importance than the technological courses. It is a portrait of being thought. The courses that prepare students to think or the courses that claim imagination not application or courses don't prepare people for the real life, these courses do not have the same relevance than the others because the world needs the great technological discoveries and not only people that are thinking about the matters of society . \nOne day, I read in the internet that the human imagination is what will allow us to control science and technology for human needs and I agreed with that, because nowadays we are more needs than dreams. Everything what we want, we easily get, everything is on our hand. By the way, science and technology exist to provide these needs and then, dreams are easily achieved. Because of that the life looses sense. So, it is also necessary to cultivate our soul. I think it is necessary to give more importance to relationships, nature and human beings. It is necessary to use our imagination to make something good to our animals, ours plants, our planet and human beings. It is a dream that can be get through science, technology and also imagination . \nAnyway, we are living in a modern and industrialized world and it is impossible ignore science, technology and industrialization because they are part of our lives. We must use them to supply our human needs but we must use our imagination and dreams to feed our souls . \n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "041_CNUK1005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nAs a university student, when I entered the university and chose my major, I found a phenomenon that some subjects offered are theoretical, which caused the students' complaints. They think the theoretical courses are not only boring and difficult to learn but also less practical. The present would needs people with practical skills and knowledge to solve the problem in their work. Moreover, when they apply for a job, they stuck in a dilemma situation: they possess the diploma or a degree requested, but they haven't experience or lack adequate practical ability .\nWe are now entering a brand new era, a completely new stage in its history. The new century is a time of advanced scientific and technological knowledge. As the rapid development of science and technology, there are rapid changes in all aspects of our life, even the value concept. Today is a era quite different from the time when those writers, poets and artists were highly respected. They most desired and hot professions are president of big company, CEO, manager, engineers, doctors, and so on .\nSo when the students choose their major, their parents also approve them to choose some hot majors, so that they can easily find a decent job, make a comfortable life or even make a fortune .\nHowever, there are also some people agree that superficially some theoretical courses have no practical value, but without the theoretical knowledge, one cannot develop overall. But we should know everyone has limited time and energy, therefore it is impossible and unwise to emphasize too much on some theoretical subjects. We have to face the reality, we should remember a worthy saying: \"the survival of the fittest.\" The heavy pressure from the job market forces us to put our limited time and energy into practical courses. If we don't adopt ourselves to the development of our society, we will be eliminated in the fierce competition .\nWhen we were children, our parents often told that if you don't study hard you will be a unuseful person. So they toiled everything to support our life and education. They send us to the school and hope us can get good education and will find a good job in the future. That's their plain dream, but what we will see? A student study three or four years in the university, after graduating he find that it really hard to find a decent job, and the knowledge he acquired in the university is not as useful as they expected. In contrary we may find some people without high degree but they have high practical ability and skills, they really like a duck in the water when they apply for a job. Education aims to arm people with more knowledge so that adds to their competitioners in their future career and enables them to live better. If the education is the university don't follow the development of our society and the courses offered are too theoretical but less practical, we dare say the education just decorate our life but give us nothing .\nThings are always changing, with the passage of time, some major are not to be in great demand. We your generation should keep pace with the latest advance of science and technology. Here I'd like to mention another thing - teaching material. Not long ago a friend of mine talked about his university life, he said, in his first class in the university the professor told the students that the subject was not only boring (because it was a theoretical course) but also what they would study was the research result of fifty years ago. He felt very angry and asked the professor a question \" Why should we learn this subject, we come here is to learn the up-to-date knowledge, not such useful rubbish. When I heard this, I felt very sorry. The school administrators have to know what is in need in the labor maket and then decide which courses they should offered to the students. I still remember a passage which said \" We'd not educate children only for the purpose of educating them; our purpose is to fit them for life.\" That 's really true .\nWhen I talked here, I think of our education system. It has to improve. Education is key to strength of a country. In long-term, the school cultivate the young generation not only enable them live better but also cultivate more talents for our country. It is the high time to pay more attention to this issue and do something for it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "042_CNUK1029.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should military service be compulsory in your country or should the army of your country consist of only professional soldiers? Discuss.\n \nChina is a nation which has the traditions of unity and strivation. According to the law, every chinese citizen has the duty and responsibility to serve for the army when the nation is in danger of being threatened by other nations, in danger of losing the sovereign and territorial integrity. For us, military service should be compulsory .\nWhen you look through chinese history books or when you call on at chinese history museums or martyr monuments, you will get to know many chinese citizens who lived in the tumultuary age were willing to join the military service in order that they could drive the intruders out .\nMaybe you will remember the father of the nation, Mr Sun Yu-Xian. In his time, the government of the Qing Dynasty was a puppet. It was under the control of other contries. As many other patriots, he joined the military service and managed to overturn the governance Qing Dynastywith great efforts accompanied by other fellows. Eventually the Democracy government came into being under the guidance of him. It made a good foundation for the complete liberty of China .\nAlso, chairman Mao Ze Dong, one of the founders of the People's Republic of China. In his age, the situation in China was worse than before. Several countries such as Britain, France, Japan etc had been longing to split China into pieces or to under their fully control. At that time, he followed the call of the country and served for the army without hesitation. He and other revolutionary people tried ways to relief China out of bad situations. Finally they succeedeed in having resisted the invading forces and having put down the domestic war and having founded the new China .\nIf we don't have the principle of impulsory military force how comes the achievements today .\nNowadays, the world structure has greatly changed. Though we live in a peaceful age, cold war is still existent. We don't know when another war will begin. Also recently, the news about terrorist attacks can constantly strike on us. We should be courteous .\nIn order to defend on ourselves, we need the army which consists of only professional soldiers. They are the main force on this matter. Only can they know how to operate the equipments well. Only can they be good at the strategy in that crucial time. But from the combat capacity point of view, owning the professional soldiers is not enough. We also need up-to-date weapons and equipements to improve the quality of the army as a whole. They can reflect the comprehensive national force and economic power of the country. They are also connected with the GDP and scientechnological level. Take the U.S.A. as an example .\nBoth the economic power and comprehensive national force of the country are on the top of the world. These advantages will contribute to the combat capacity of himself. It is possible for him to spend large funds and high-technology on manufacturing up-to-date weapons and equipments. It is possible for him to train the professional soldiers to become more capable and more competent. It could be fully manifested from the Iraq War .\nFor Chinese army, it is the same. It needs strong combat capacity and it also need more competent professional soldiers, which will contribute to our construction .\nSince the reform and opening up, great changes have taken place in China. The economic power and comprehensive national force are better and better. We need a peaceful environment in the course of modernization. We should have the army which consists of only professional soldiers to keep the safety of the country. At the same time, we, every chinese citizen should be ready to join the military service to keep fence for the revival of our great country .\n" + }, + { + "title": "043_CNUK1042.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nIn my opinion, feminists definitely have done a little bit more harm to the women who are now living in a world filled with heavy workload and under severe atmosphere. Some of them even have no time to take special care of their children. Probably, some feminists for such compromise will defeat me. However, in the view of my point, the world is combined by two parts: the hard one and the soft one, the former is male, and the latter is female who has gentle but great power to create the beauty world .\nTraditionally, especially in East, woman used to be categorized to the part that could do nothing but give a birth to a baby or weave something at home. They have quite low status in the society; some of them even cannot eat at a table with their husband. Accordingly, in order to get higher status, female have been battling for quite a long time to obtain the same status with male until today. Of course, female is equal to the man, and they should have same right as man has. Nevertheless, nowadays, feminist go too far from the \"right\", they worked as a man, drink as a man, and some of them even refused to have a baby. Actually, it will do harm to such crazy female .\nOver the world, the basis of a steady society is family. Consisted via male, female and children, such a complete family is able to do favour for the society. Over wise, lots of feminists believe in that the family could do nothing but destroy a gifted woman. So they suggest woman go out to work day by night, abandon the right to have a baby, even wear as a man. That's not the equal right! Man play his role in this world, woman does as well. Female have hundreds of ways to express their ability, not only on hard working. In Japanese, most of woman, who hold bachelor or above degree, will not go out to work after having a baby; they draw all attention on the family and children. Children could be taken special care during their growing period. When they come back home, mama could give them a cup of hot chocolate instead of cold dinner; when they are ill, mama is able to stay with them instead of working in a company for a large project. Certainly, woman will be respected for their contribution .\nBoth male and female are playing a critical role today via various ways. Father teaches us how to know the realistic world, and mother teaches us how to love others. Either of them is so important when everybody grows up. Feminists would like us to ignore the gender, and each woman should have a hard and cold hart to conflict in this serious world. However, achievement is not only formal working, and real \"right\" indicates that we should have right time, right place, and right lift-style. We should root our dreams and life in a warmer solid. Feminists, please be gentle!\n" + }, + { + "title": "044_CNUK1049.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nAs the development of society all over the world, more and more people from developed and developing countries tend to go to universities and get various degrees. However, there is an opposite opinion that university degrees are theoretical and of little value .\nAlthough universities degrees seem to be of little value in the real world, they are still very important for most people. In general, the effect of university degrees can be divided into two main parts .\nIn fact, university is an important place to teach people basic knowledge in the academic fields, meanwhile, it is not easy to pass all the courses and get university degrees at last. There are five processes that you can take control of in your strategy for getting a good degree, which are: wanting to learn, needing to learning, learning by doing, feedback and making sense of what you are learning. First of all, from hard study people can learn to capitalize on teaching-learning situations smartly by making the most of lectures, small-group tutorials, seminars, studio work, field work, laboratory work and group work, which will be used as basic skills to be in charge of how to treat with work in real world in future. Furthermore, a lot of essays, reports, peer assessment, self-assessment, research projects, presentations and work placements may make people intelligent to contribute to the overall quality and classification of their degree. So the situation in the real world is. One more thing, in society, more people seem to be suffering from stress. Being a student has its own stresses as well. However, while at university many students can manage their stress levels as possible as they can by many scientific methods, which are analysing the causes, making lists to save somebody cluttering their mind, and trying counselling. It is definite that it will be made use of the real world. In addition, people can gain more basic skills used in the real world through attending to university programmes because of doing plenty of extra work that can stimulate their specific experiences, such as doing some investigations in depth. For example, people can develop their interpersonal skills that are highly valued by employers while at university. The reason is that university as a small society reflects the real one. What's more important. As we know, most university degrees could be seen as main factors to apply for their jobs. This is a reason for the recent condition that more and more people go to study at university. It is also a realistic thing in the modern society that high university degrees symbolise as high techniques in some specific fields. It can be said that university degrees can be seen as a strong competitive strength to compete in future .\nHowever, universities degrees have a few problems. The most significant one is that people may not have a chance to get a lot of experiences for their specific fields .\nAccording to the above discussion, it can be easily found that university degrees have both advantages and disadvantages. It can be believed that a few disadvantages can be solved in the future, even if there are a few disadvantages .\n" + }, + { + "title": "045_CNUK1051.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder. \n \nIn most countries, capital punishment is carried out in the murder and some other very serious crimes. However, in latest years, somebody argues that if it is the best and the most humanism way to punish such a crimes. In their views, when you use the capital punishment to punish the murderers, you just kill another people, no more meanings than that. If you keep the murderer alive and execute the life sentence, you can make him to work in the prison for the left of his life, through such a punishment, he or she can do something good to the society. In their opinion, this way is both good to the society and the criminal as well and there's a fact that some countries or some parts of a country have abandoned the capital punishment. So, they advocated that should not be carried out. Unfortunately, nothing could be more misleading than that. In my view, as long as the serious crimes exit in our society, capital punishment should not be abandoned. The following are several reasons to support my opinion .\nFirst of all, Executing of capital punishment is fair to the victim. Somebody says that just kill the murderer is not humanism enough; I think it's totally wrong. They killed other people, if depriving their life does not punish them, is it fair to the victim? Of course not, the life is the basic human right, nobody can deprive it just at his or her pleasure .\nBesides, Capital punishment helps to decrease the crime rate and achieve a more peaceful social surrounding. It is common sense that human being fear of death, if everybody could realize the consequence of the serious crimes, they will take it into a second thought, and a lot of horrible deed behaviors could be prevented. The reducing of the crime rate will result in more peaceful surrounding .\nFurthermore, keeping the capital punishment could upgrade the public's moral standard. The aim of capital punishment I feel is not just kill people who killed another one, is not just an eye for an eye, the true meaning of it should be educate the people what is good and what is bad, it makes the sense that everybody's life is important and could not be invaded. By doing that, each one in our society will regard other's life as precious as his or her own, love other people then care for other people, this the reason why the public's moral standard could be enhanced .\nThe above-mentioned points can clearly show you why the punishment is still indispensable. It is fair to the victim and their relatives, it helps to make a peaceful society and it upgrade the people's moral standard. Although it is important, on the neutral basis, I do not advocate the abuse of the death sentence, if some power wants to use capital punishment to achieve their bad intention, it should be absolutely given up. As a conclusion, if we can use the capital punishment properly, it helps to make our society more peaceful and orderly .\n" + }, + { + "title": "046_CNUK1090.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder. \n \nIn the modern century, many countries have the capital punishment in the legal system which is contoversial in the world. It is because the capital is cruel fine and many people said that if should be carried out. Although many countries abolish the capital punishment, it still survives in some countries. People would like to illustrate the capital punishment by looking at justice and equality to victims, to prevent the voilent crimes, an inhumanity punishment and a good fine to murder. This essay will be to explain and discuss the capital punishment applied in law and utilize the US and China to do examples. People can look at about execution in their society conditional .\nThe capital punishment is more equality and fair to the victims who are harmed or killed by murder. If someone is killed by murder, the murder has not got a heavy punishment. Many people think it is very unfair. Therefore, if someone support the capital punishment, it is rational to the murder cases. For example, China and US enfores the capital punishment in some murder cases. The aims are to gain revenge to victims or their relations .\nThe capital punishment enforced in the law which can prevent the violent or serious crimes to happen. It is because the execution can be more efficiency to stop the serious crimes such as murder assault, drugs problem or terrorism. In addition, in the criminal psychological, the capital penalty appear in the law which can help someone to stop the crimes to happen and it can threaten criminals to decrease .\nAlthough the capital punishment seems to be very reasonable in the legal system, it is not true because the capital punishment is an inhumanity penalty to the criminal. The execution, in US, it is to kill someone with an instrument which injects poison to death. In China, if someone had a conviction a sentence, which is the capital punishment. It is shot to death. The government sometimes show this punishment in the news, which is terrible, savage and justies to the criminal. In addition, some execution cases is charged to make mistake but the criminal is punished. Form this show, Is the capital punishment really suitable for all of murder cases? Is it fair? All of sentences are true or reasonible for them. Nobody can answer that .\nAt last, someone said the capital punishment is a good solution to have a heavy punishment to some criminal who are imprisonment for life. Some countries can remove the death-warrant which change the life imprisonment. As a result of some criminals have not got any freedom in their life. If the excution is used, it is maybe more suitable to the criminal .\nIn conclusion, the capital punishment is an inveteracy in some countries. It is very difficult to escape the execution, which is very useful in the law. The capital punishment can be justice and equality to victims, prevent the voilent crimes, a inhumanity penalty and a suitable fine to murder or criminal. In the future, if the victim or victim's relatives decide the capital punishment be applied to the criminal, it is maybe better as result for the victim or their relatives .\n" + }, + { + "title": "047_CNUK1105.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder. \n \nHuman life is valuable and unique to everyone. Now one can decide when a person dies. Murder is a kind of most serious crime ' commonly ' around us. Everyone should be protected by the law and those murder should receive their appropriate punishment. However, should we send the murders to death in all kinds of murder cases? Life is valuable, so is there any contradiction to what we said above?\nCapital punishment is not really applied to many countries which is bounded by law. It is a punishment that sends the criminals by hanging, injecting poisonous materials into the body or by using electricity. No matter what way is used, it is also horrible to the criminal. Therefore, before we decide if we should carry out the capital punishment, we should know clearly about what are the reasons to do so. Also, are there any other alternatives to replace it?\nUndoubtedly, the death penalty is really threatened to the public. It is a good signal to threaten people not to the serious crimes. However most cases of murder may not be a ' well planned ' crimes. The murder may commit the crime unconsciously. Most of the murders may kill a person when they were in a condition of uncontrolling. It could not be denied that the criminals really felt guilty because of their unconscious decision. Moreover, murder is a case that difficult to be investigated. It may not be rared to find a case that was really determinated wrongly. Therefore if we sent the criminal to death, we might do something wrong and which is no return! Although there might be some ways for the criminals to appeal, it's still difficult to convict the judge to believe since in fact the case was determinated before. Besides, those cases with really evidence to prove the criminal is not guilty .\nPeople may argue that since the murders killed people. It is fair to punish them by the capital punishment. However, is ' life replaces life ' is meaningful? In fact, sending the criminals to life sentience has been destrive their life freedom. They have no right to do what they want, besides receive orders in the prison. Actually, if the murders were punished for their who life time in the prison, the public has been protected. There are some restrictions to apply to the life penality if the capital punishment is abandoned. The reason for this is to gurentee the safety of the public .\nIn short, I think all people's life are valuable and important. The people being killed are pity and depressing to their families. However, killing the murder is just the same cases of ' murder'. Life is also being destrived. Moreover, we should let people admit their faults and give them chance to change. Human life is unreplaceable, we should not carry out the capital punishment because of ' fairness' to those were killed .\n" + }, + { + "title": "048_CNUK1115.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should military service be compulsory in your country or should the army of your country consist of only professional soldiers? Discuss. \n \nIn china, the PLA was consisted of only professional soldiers. But in many other countries, military service is compulsory and every citizen will have to proform as a soldier for several years. especially young university students. And in my opinion. military service should be compulsory .\nThere are several reasons why I think so. First, China, as the largest country of East Asia, had the widest borderline. To keep the whole borderline safe is not an easy thing. It need a large military force to be on duty all the time. But the soldiers sent to a certain place may not be familiar with the environment. Even they are professional soldiers, they may probably meet some troubles. If military service was compulsory, the border line can then be guarded by soldiers selected from local people who were familiar with local environment. And they can certainly do the job better than soliers from other places . .\nSecond, nowadays' young man are lack of life experience. They often care little about others and lack of discipline. Some of them even had never had any hardship and always waste things. Although Chinese government forced every university student to have a month's military training, it had little effect. People can't be changed in only a month. Comparing to these young man. those who had joined the army and serviced as professional soldiers are much more disciplinal and energetic .\nSo just imagine that if all the youngsters will have to serve in the military for several years, will it still be so many problems about youngster? \nThird, although the world is peace now, it still has the possibility of breaking out a war. And after so many years of disarmament, china's present military forces may not be enough for a war. But if military service was compulsory, those people who bad had military training can form a great military force at any time. That means almost every citizen can be the part of resistance to the invasion. Such things had happened once during the Second World War, when the Japanese army invaded China. At that time, almost everyone: soldiers, guerrillas and even citizens fought against the Japanese invader. And everyone may know that we won the war and defeated Japanese invader successfully .\nForth, armies formed by professional soldiers often developed slowly. Because every soldier had the same training and this made them always thought and acted in the same way. For this \"the army had few good commanders and new tactics. This will cause the army losing the ability of fighting. Now the PLA was starting a \nrevolution, \"trying to avoid such situation. In fact, I think the best and easiest solution is to let military service be compulsory .\nAlthough letting military service be compulsory has so many advantages, it also has disadvantages comparing to forming the army consist of professional soldiers .\nFor example: more money is needed to train soldiers, and soldiers may not as good as professional ones. But after all, make military service be compulsory can do good to not only the army \"but the education as well. That's why I choose it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "049_CNUK1137.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should military service be compulsory in your country or should the army of your country consist of only professional soldiers? Discuss. \n \nShould military service be compulsory in my country or should the army consist of only professional soldiers? It raises me deep thinking of the formidable military service image .\nIn my opinion, not only should the military service be compulsory but also the soldiers in the army of my country ought to be professional. Army is part of the main strength of our country, whose members, the soldiers are required to be the most honest defenders of our country and our people. Professional soldiers play a very important role in our country, by doing their utmost to resist the invasion and be ready to sacrifice for our motherland .\nIn my country, soldiers are all selected strictly from all over the country, and then get professional training which makes them into qualified professional soldiers. However, considering China's whole national conditions, it is not good enough just to have professional soldiers .\nIn the first place, China has such a large population than other countries' that it needs a great formidable army to protect the country and the people. There are a great number of teenagers who have not continue to study in school nor to find a job, roaming in big cities or the countryside. Maybe they will come up with crimes which do great harm to the society. They drop up their study maybe because their poor family or because they themselves do not want to obey the rules in life. To some extent, in spite of their misdeeds, such guys are not so bad for they have sturdy bodies, tough personalities, which indicate that they can be fit for professional soldiers. Therefore, compulsory military service can help the country avoid the lost of talent and have better control of the society, by gathering all the possible strength to form a firm army system .\nWhat's more, compulsory military service will do good to the education system. Once the policy that military service should be compulsory is carried out, the situation will be different. If a guy reaches the age of serving in the army, he must make a choice that whether to go on study or to have a job or just to join the army as the rules require as long as his body condition is qualified. In that case, the rebel guys are forced to make decisions to be a soldier or a student or a worker. In this way, guys need not be a member of the military service unless they continue their study or work. They will stay at school and have to learn. Education system is to influenced by the compulsory military service. Instead of roaming in the society, the guys will find their real direction of life. Thus, it is obvious to see the good that compulsory military service does to the education system .\nThe last but not the least, compulsory military service does not only mean guys should join the army at proper age, but also requires professional soldiers in the army. Professional soldiers should have good health first, and must acquire sufficient knowledge, keeping the pace with the fast changing world. Nowadays, the army system is much advanced with hi-tech equipment which provide soldiers excellent training environment. For example, the guys of our hometown who got professional training in the army are no doubt taken pride in by the people. They return home as both professional soldiers for our country and for themselves in life. The smart minds and tough personalities which are further developed in the army enable them to bravely face and cope with the difficulties they meet in life. They hold quite optimistic attitudes to life. In the long run, compulsory military service can play an important role in developing a person's personality into more optimistic and tougher form .\nIn a word, it is obvious that compulsory military service of my country should be compulsory and the army should consist of professional soldiers, for that will well improve the army system and benefit the society security control and the education system, even help develop the quality of people's mind .\n" + }, + { + "title": "050_CNUK1138.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder. \n \nFor many years, capital punishment has been discussed whether it should be abolished. My answer is certainly \"No\". Murderers are cruel. And they are usually referred to the violent thugs. They should be sentenced to death. What they put them do put them beyond the pale of humanity. They are not humans and, therefore, they cannot expect to be treated as human beings. They must be made to see the error of their ways, and the only way of doing that is the capital punishment .\nMurderers whose motive is money should not get off lightly. The professional killer who would not think twice about using his cosh or crowbar to attack and batter some harmless lady to death in order to rob her meager life-savings. It is absolutely wrong to think professional killer are insane and need hospital treatment, The only thing that is the most suitable to treat him is to punish him the same as the pitying old lady was suffered. Maybe it is too cruel, but it is quite necessary. Criminals must be made to see the consequences of their crimes . \"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth\" is the very basis of justice .\nCapital punishment used to be a major deterrent. It made the violent robber think twice before pulling the trigger. It gave the cold-blooded poisoner something to ponder about while he was shaking up or serving his arsenic cocktail. It protected the most vulnerable members of society, young children, from sex-maniacs. It is horrifying to think that the criminal can literally get away with murder. Therefore, we cannot abolish this punishment, \nOf course some people claim that it is ruthless to punish the murderers by the cosh or hanging. But had the thugs had thought that it was too heartless to the innocent people before they committed the evils. It is not the proper thing they need to worry about. Executing by shooting, hanging or injecting the poison are more humane than the other penalties at present imposed. Thanks to the modem methods the capital punishment is quick and painless. It is only the agitators who campaign against the death penalty who say it is cruel. The reality is that it is a kindness to the murderers. Far better to be shot or hanged than to suffer the slow torture of life imprisonment which is in any case a burden on the long-suffering tax payer.. it is also inevitable that some people are always willing to hold liberal views at the expense of others. It is always fashionable to pose as the defender of the under-dog. So long as you, personally, remain unaffected .\nWe all know that \"life sentence\" does not mean what it says. It is only a nominal sentence. It leaves a chance for the criminal to escape. After ten years or so of \"good conduct\" the most desperate villain is free to return to society where he will live very comfortably, on the proceeds of his crime, or he will go on committing offences until he is caught again. In no time at all, the murderer will be released. How can ordinary people feel safe knowing that there are murderers on the prowl and probably seeking their next victim? \nOnly the capital punishment can ensure that people can sleep safely in their beds. So, there should never be suspension of capital punishment .\n" + }, + { + "title": "051_CNUK1149.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder. \n \nCapital punishment is the harshest form of punishment enforced in the world today. Whoever violates the law should be sentenced, by either serving himself in prison or being given a death penalty. Consequently, it's quite clear that criminals who had committed murder should face the executions for their evil deeds .\nHowever, death penalty strikes some people as too cruel, and it is believed that it shouldn't always be carried out to deprive the murder of his life so easily. Therefore, capital punishment becomes a difficult issue in discussion and there are many different opinions about it, especially in America, where human rights are highly respected and capital punishment has already been abolished in some states .\nAnyway, it is always true that everything in the world cannot be defined exactly as right or wrong, so we should be objective toward an issue, and look at it all-roundly. And it is the same with the view that whether capital punishment should be carried out in all cases in murder .\nGenerally speaking, capital punishment should be carried out in most of the cases in murder. First of all, it's obvious that punishments are made to punish those criminals and to prevent crimes, and would positively give a potential pause in the thought process of the murderer, using fear as an incentive for preventing recurrence. The harshest punishment for murder will set up an alarm for those potential criminals. If only they value their lives, they would not commit murder so carelessly .\nBesides, once a person is proved guilty of murder, he should be sentenced to death, because justice must be served. Only placing murderers in prison isn't a tough enough punishment, since in jail they would have a possible chance for parole. But they actually did kill someone, and they should pay for it life for life. What's more, for the sake of the security of the whole society, we have to be some kind of inhuman or cruel to sentence those murderers to death, so that justice is served by executing them. They deserve it. They have caused much grievance to the family and friends of the victim, and execution seems like the only way that justice can be served. And only in this way, would the punishment fit the crime and would the victims' family and society get some comfort from the grievance and recover from the resentment .\nHowever, things are not so absolute. When we return to the \"nature\" of the crime committed, there are some cases in which the murder has some reason to be excused. For example, he might be arguing with someone when he suddenly flied to rage, and beat that person to death without control. Actually, he didn't intend to do so, but in such a circumstance, he was out of ration; after the tragedy happened, he had regretted to death .\nSimilarly, there are many other possible cases that people killed someone by accident. They are not guilt in nature, but made some terrible mistakes - against their will. They don not seem to be that detestable to be executed just because of their offence through negligence. Some punishment in jail is enough to them, since he has already been condemned by the society, suffered great pain in his heart, and served himself in prison as punishment. He was taught to know that one should control his temper however bad the situation is. Provide the family of the victim and the society consent to forgiving the murderer, he can be given the chance of being good again .\nOverall, capital punishment is an effective approach to punish murderers and prevent crimes furthermore. It should be carried out to protect the security of the society, and to hold the justice firmly, but there can be some exceptions. When the case of murder is special and when the murderer is pitied and forgiven by the society, the justice and the jury can make their decision by taking into consideration the circumstances, and try to avoid using the capital punishment .\n" + }, + { + "title": "052_CNUK1184.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder. \n \nAs you know, thousands of people would lose their lives everyday for lots of different reasons. Some are die of disease, some are die of the old age. Some are die from traffic accident, some are murdered, and so on .\nHowever, we can avoid so many person lose their lives. Reasons of disease, accident and age that are can't control but we can stop the murder cases raising. We can protect the right of life. We can also forbidden the unfair matters happen by rules .\nEven though, in the society, there are still so many reasons that make someone to kill a person. Take money for example, someone will lose himself, will lose the humanity, just in order to get more money. They just think about themselves, they just want to enjoy the life without any effort, they just want to get but giving. In a word, they are selfish. They are harmful to every member of society. Once they are arrested, they will be capital punished. That's no doubt. And no one will feel pity about that. People even will say that, \" That's the result they ask for.\"\nBesides the money, under the seduction of the power, murder becomes more and more common between two different governments or two organizations. In some foreign countries, many political leaders were murdered, just because their political opinions go against their own. Here, we can't tell which side is right or which side is wrong, but we are sure that, \" To kill a person or more just in order to build a new peace government, just in order to bring the fortune to people, all of these is not humane. It is even an excuse to clear the way for his own benefit. This case is also unacceptable. What's worst, this kind of case usually is abused by the whole world .\nHowever, there is another kind of murder, which still needs discussion for the punishment. Why does it need discussion though it is illegal? Here, I will show the background to you. A cadre oppress the people with his power, and get much extra money from the people, who make the people live under a terrible sutuation. The people do nothing to him though they hate him very much. As days past by, this ill-treat makes people feel terrible. Finally, someone can't stand for him any longer and kill him. Well, he did a good job for people. And he would be praised by the people. But, from another point of view, he breaks the role, his behavior is illegal, he should be punished by the judge. In fact, the dead man is really not a good cadre, but maybe is a good husband or a good father. As his death, his families may go crazy, and couldn't live on normally. In another word, the murderer also did harm to people. Why do the people will agree to kill the cadre? Why do they will surport the murderer? That's because these people don't know much about the rules, and they don't know how to use the rules to protect themselves until they can't turn back .\nAccording to this example, we can see that no matter for what reason, once you break the rule, you must be punished. If not, this world will become disorder, the life will be at danger all the time, the whole human being will stop developing. At least, human being will die out from the world. From that case, we also found a serous problem, that is, \" so many people are lack of knowledge about rules.\" I think, that's the reason why so many people break the rules .\nSo, in order to keep the world peace, we must learn the rule and we must use the rule to protect ourselves. Besides, we insist that we will go on to punish the murder strictly no matter for what reason they kill a person .\n" + }, + { + "title": "053_CNUK2008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nWhy do people want to go to universities? Some people might say university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. Well, in my point of view, people who said that might not be educated in university in their life. I admit that preparation for entering the real world is not enough for students in universities. But think about that, why those people with university degrees are easier to get a job? Doing degrees in university has both advantages and disadvantages .\nThe advantage of doing a degree in university is obvious. Why those companies want graduator of university? Because those people already have been educated in a high standard although in a very theoretical way. But theoretical does not necessary mean useless, instead, it is the experience of those people learned before, which can help university students preventing making the same mistake. Theoretical knowledge is totally not a bad thing. Let us compare to what happens in the real life, think about our driving lessons. I believe that pupils read awful a lot about how to drive before putting their hands on the steering wheel. Just like university degrees, they must pass the paper work like theory test then take a road test. People said that students get too much theoretical knowledge than practise. I do not think it is the weakness part of university education. Studying theory knowledge is the best way to prepare the coming challenge in the real life. The preparation to entering the real world is not just study theory test as well. As we are all university students, we know there is huge amount of research or business enterprise and all sorts of activity in the university campus. Within university you can meet lot of different people as well, just like the real world, people are coming from all over the country or even from different nations. What a chance to study different things! In the real world, we probably do not have those sorts of chance. So in my point of view, I think university is the best place to do preparation to entering the real world .\nOf course, doing theory studying without doing practise is useless. In some university, it does happen which means when students enter into the society, it might cost them more time than others to be fit where they will be .\nAnyway, I am a university student right now. I benefit from being a university student a lot and will be in my whole life .\nI \n" + }, + { + "title": "054_CNUK2017.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder. \n \nNowadays whether the capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder is a controversial issue. Some people believe that the murderer should be seriously punished by the capital punishment, while others hold the opposite opinion. As for me, I vote for the latter .\nThere are numerous reasons to support my point of view and I would like to list some of them as follows:\nOne of the first primary reasons is that the murders can be turned into useful persons if they were sentenced lightly. There is no denying that they have a harmful effect on the society and public, however, I do think everyone is kind and decent when he or she was born. Maybe sometimes they are forced to do that, therefore, they should be given the opportunities to correct what they have done. If they are killed by the capital punishment, it is true that they will not gain any chances. That reminds me of a TV programme which was shown a few months ago in my own country. There was a youth who had robbed and killed a taxi driver after drinking. At first, he should be sentenced by the capital punishment two years later. After entering the prison, he did not lose the confidence of his life. On the contrary, he tried his best to correct himself and did very well in all of the things. Maybe you cannot imagine, he even learned the courses relating to accounting by himself and got the diploma in the final examination. Due to his efforts, he has been lightened for his crime. Now although he is still in the prison, he has continued to do his best as well as his studies. From this example, we can easily see it is not necessary to sentence all the murders into a capital punishment .\nThe other main reason is that everyone has the right of living. So I do not think the murders must pay for what they had done with their lives. I maintain that the murders can be taught and trained by the appropriate approach. They may be changed and after they enter into the society, they can devote themselves doing many things that are beneficial .\nHowever, as everything has its light and dark sides, we must admit that some murders who had extremely impact to the society and public should be carried out by the capital punishment. For example, they had been given some opportunities once. So I claim that the judge should distinguish the details and then make a suitable sentence .\nFrom what I have mentioned above, I think that capital punishment should not be carried in all cases for murder .\n" + }, + { + "title": "055_CNUK2032.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nWith the development of economics and technology, people are more focusing on their own rights, power and freedom. In this modern society, women are becoming more and more important than before in many areas. They gradually have the equal status with men. While some people thought it was feminism and feminists had done more harm to the cause of women than good. It is unfair opinion. I am strongly against this kind of ridiculous thought. I support women could have enough freedom and the same right as men. I will illustrate four reasons to strengthen my idea .\nThe first point which is also a basic one is that women had a sad story of the past. As it is known to all that women's status was much lower than men's. They had no chance to be educated, go out like men and no freedom. They were thought they were weak and prejudiced. It is seemed that men control them and they were just like their husbands' slaves. Men thought the reason why women lived is that they need to bore children for men's families, especially in old China. It was a common phenomenon that women stayed at home to take care of their children and the whole family. They lost themselves. They had no freedom and any right in daily life and communication. So women who lived in the past were poor and symphsized. They had huge disaster which should have the same rights as men. Time is changing, the female should have chances to be treated and recognized as the same as the male .\nSecondly feminists show the equal relationship between females and male. They do not harm to the cause of women but good. It is not wrong for women to own their freedom and power, there are some advantages displayed. Firstly feminism reflects that women have waken up. It helps women be more confident. They will notice actually they can do what they want to do and even something they never considered before they could do both housework and jobs as well. Women will be respected as well by good achievements what they received .\nIn addition, many careers need women such as teachers, nursery, caring and sellings. Women are careful and patient. They do better than men. Thirdly, feminists brought the great challenges to males. Male feel engineering and law. This kind of pressure helps men work harder than before. They thought they were men so that they should be better than female otherwise they will feel uncomfortable and lose face .\n" + }, + { + "title": "056_CNUK3065.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder. \n \nSuppose you are shopping in a supermarket, when you have chosen a lot of things and gone to pay in the cashier, will you feel fair and comfortable if the staff tells you that no matter what you buy, you have to pay at the same price? Can you imagine you have to pay $100 for only a cheese cake? Similarly, if all kinds of murders are punished in the same way - capital punishment. It will be a kind of misuse of punishment and the laws will lose its real meaning - to protect every body's right and freedom justicely. There are various kinds of murders in the world, such as serial murdering, slaughtering, bringing other people to death, etc. Accordingly, we should set down the relevant laws to punish a guy who breaks in the same extreme way. If so, it will be a tragedy for a civilized society, and also for the equalization of laws .\nMoreover, although some people hold it is as general truth that to punish these bad guys heavily can largely reduce the crimes by giving a signal to those potential criminals, things are going to the reverse. On one hand, the \"real\" killer will try to escape and even kill more because he knows that it makes no difference for him to increase the number of victims to 2 or 20. The result is the same. On the other hand, people who kill someone by mistake dare not to confess his guilty in the police station. Because the judge will not listen to his explanation, but also focus on the fact - someone is killed. So capital punishment should be exercised. Hence, no one will admit his behaviors. All they want to do is to hide themselves in order not to be arrested by police. Consequently, the whole society will become a mass .\nFurthermore, for any human society it is not a wise way to prevent crimes from happening by setting up cruel punishment methods. Crimes do not exist at the every beginning, but happen unwillingly in most of the cases. As a result, the legistrational institutions should try to strengthen the constiousness of laws in public. And the society should provide sufficient resolving methods to its people, to help them get out of difficult situations both financially and mentally. Thus, less crimes will happen and the whole society can be peaceful in a real meaning .\n" + }, + { + "title": "057_CNUK4002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder. \n \nln the modern century, many countries have the capital punishment in the\nlegal system which is \ncontoversial in the world. lt is because the capital is a cruel sentence\nand many people said that if should be carried out. Although many\ncountries abolish capital punishment, it still survives in some\ncountries. People would like to illustrate the capital punishment by\nlooking at justice and equality to victims, to prevent the voilent crimes,\nan inhumanity punishment and a good threatment to murder. This essay will\nbe to explain and discuss the capital punishment applied in law and\nutilize the US and China to do examples. People can look at about\nexecution in their society .\nThe capital punishment is more equality and fair to the victims who are\nharmed or killed by murder. lf \nsomeone is killed by murder, the murder has not got a heavy punishment .\nMany people think it is very unfair. Therefore, if someone supports\ncapital punishment, it is rational to the murder cases. For example,\nChina and US enfores the capital punishment in some murder cases. The aims\nare to gain revenge to victims or their relations .\nThe capital punishment enforced in the law which can prevent the violent\nor serious crimes to \nhappen. lt is because the execution can be more efficiency to stop the\nserious crimes such as murder, assault, drugs problem or terrorism.ln\naddition, in the criminal psychological, the capital penalty appear in the\nlaw which can help the crimes to stop or happen and it can threaten\ncriminals to decrease .\nAlthough the capital punishment seems to be very reasonable in the legal\nsystem, it is not true \nbecause the capital punishment is an inhumane penalty to the criminal. The\nexecution, in US, it is to kill someone with an instrument which injects\npoison to death. ln China, if someone had a conviction a sentence, which\nis the capital punishment, he is shot to death. The government sometimes\nshow this punishment in the news, which is terrible, savage and justice to\nthe criminal. ln addition, some execution cases is charged to make mistake\nbut the criminal is punished. Form this show, ls the capital punishment\nreally suitable for all of murder cases? ls it fair? All of sentences are\ntrue or reasonible for them. Nobody can answer that .\nEventually, someone said the capital punishment is a good solution to\nhave a heavy punishment to \nsome criminals who are imprisoned for life. Some countries' the head of\nstate can amnesty the death convict, and the death-warrants change the\nlife imprisonment, for examples, Hong Kong a. lt is very common although\nthere is the execution in the law. As a result of some criminals have not\ngot any freedom in their life, it is more cruel threatment. lf the\nexcution is used , it is maybe more suitable to the criminal .\nln conclusion, the capital punishment is an rootedness in some countries .\nlt is very difficult to escape \nthe execution, which is very useful in the law. The capital punishment can\nbe justice and equality to victims, prevent the voilent crimes , a\ninhumane penalty and a suitable punishment to murder or criminal. ln the\nfuture, if the victim or victim's relatives decide the capital punishment\nbe applied to the criminal, it is maybe better as result for the victim or\ntheir relatives .\n" + }, + { + "title": "058_CNUK4011.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nFeminists, belonging to the most arguable issues in nowadays, play a core\nrole of job - dividing and social status' forming. Those who support the\nequality of male and female believe that feminists are good for women,\nwhile others insist that what feminists have done to women is definitely\nmore harmful. The argument has been continued for several decades. Along\nwith the researches of the scientists, new evidences are revealed to give\nthe latter one stronger proves. Following are the details of this issue .\nTo begin with, feminists do have given female more chances to prove their\ncapabilities and creativities. In many working circumstances, women are\nplaying more important roles than men, or at least equal to men. However,\nscientists claimed that there have been too much more working stresses\nput on women resulting in the unharmonious between family members and\nhome violence. According to Jerry Z Muller (2003), nearly 30 percent\nwomen are facing home violence or quarrels with family members result \nfrom too strong working pressure, which all come from the ideas of\nfeminists. Dr. Muller said that women are the most significant elements\nof a specify family, whose hormone are secreted to keep everything they\nmay concern into a certain balance, to reduce potential quarrels. The\nmore attentions women pay to their job, the less they spend to their\nfamily members. What the feminists done is already harmful to women in the\npassed decades .\nMore over, another important difference between men and women is the\nstrength differences. Women's abilities of heavy work are less than\nmen's. This phenomenon results from the different amount of water\ncontained in blood of men and women, the latter contains more than about\n15 percent as well as that of men, reducing the oxygen delivering\ncapability of female. So, it is not strange that men are more suitable to\ncarry heavy things. Hence, it is too arbitrary to carry out feminists\nwithout concerning the differences between male and female, even though\nmen and women belong to the same species .\nIn addition, it is obviously that women are easier to feel tied than men .\nIt is proved by Mr. Muller that there are more red cells in men's blood\n(about 20 percent higher) than that of women's. Since red cells' duty is\nto supply the oxygen to the body cells, less red cell inducing women are\neasy to get tire in general times. Appropriate concerns about the\ndifferent situations between men and women are good to improve the\nefficiency of the latter's .\nTo sum up, though men and women are both human being, they are still quite\ndifferent from each other, not only as individuals, but also as two\ndifferent genders, which lead to the unlikely job adaptations and family\nmaintenances. What feminists did in the passed several decades is\ndefinitely too arbitrary to reduce the inappropriate situations that the \nmajority of female were facing. Although everything has both sides, the\npros and corns, which is just like a coin gets two sides, each one-sided\nview is not justified enough, what feminists have done to female is still\nmore harmful in the course of women than good .\n" + }, + { + "title": "059_CNUK4012.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nAdmittedly, universities and colleges are academic institutions, and they\nare designed to teach students theories mostly. We can not get work\nexperience from university. Theories that we learn in university are not\nenough for us to succeed in our future life. However, it does not mean that\nuniversity degrees are valueless; on the contrary, they are extremely\nessential, because they indicate that we have learned things we have to\nknow and our personal quality has reached a much higher standard .\nAs is known to all, theories we learn in university are core knoeledges\nthat our forefathers summed up from experience. They are priceless and of\ngreat value, and we must obtain. It will be easier task to keep theories in\nmemory first then practise in the social world .\nAs far as I am concern, What matters most we get from university is that we\nknow how to learn, which is vital for us to succeed in the future. There are\nso many things we have to learn on our own while climbing career\nladder. Therefore, I think it is quite necessary we enter the university and\nget a degree .\nMany students begin to live an independent life after entering the \nuniversity. We can not live with our parents, with our sisters and brothers\nlifelong. We have to come out, live independently and live our own\nlife-That is what life is. Universities provides us a chance to live\nindependently. While we are preparing to get a university degree, we are\nlearning beng independent. In this aspect, we may say university degrees are\nof high value .\nAfter entering into the university, students get along with \nteachers, classmates and roomates; we also begin to make new friends. Each of\nus is a social unit; it is our duty to get on well with others-this is a\nlife skill. Students become more polite, more considerate and more patient\nafter one year or two years' life in university. we have got that everyone\nis a unit and everyone has his\\her own idea. We should repect them. It is\nobvious that university is a good place to learn this social skill .\nStudying in university, we always see differences we never seen before. We\nbroaden our mind and vision here, and become knoeledgeable and sapient\ngradually. We have got our own ideas; we can identify what is right what is\nwrong. we know what we should do and what we shuld not .\nperhaps university degrees do not value themselves very much; but beyond\ndegrees, we can really get a lot of things of great value. Therefore, I do\nnot agree the idea given at the beginning of my essay. University degrees\nare extremely important and we ought to work hard to gain the entry into\nuniversity, and also take every effort to perform better in university .\n" + }, + { + "title": "060_CNUK4013.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "NA", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Discuss the view that capital punishment should be carried out in all cases for murder. \n \nThis essay will discuss that whether all the cases of murder need to be\npublished as capital punishment or not. In my opinion, not all of the\ncases of murder need to be capital punished. I will give you two cases to\nshow you why I think so. One is unter the heavy stress, people murder,\nthe other one is under emergency situation. Nowadays, the law prescribes\nmurderer need to be taken the capital punishment. Sometimes, murderer\nneeds to be understood why they kill the man. Some reasons I think people\nought to understand. If you were her or him, what you could do? So, in\nthe court, judger ought to know the situation, make decision what to do is\nright or not. For example, I saw a message in the newspaper, it said, a\nman lived with his three children, a daughter and two sons, and his wife .\nThis man liked drink, usually being a drunker, and he had a bad temper .\nAfter drinking, he always beat his children, the women in order to protect\nher children, always be beat, the neighbour always headed the noise came\nfrom their home. However, the women had stood for a long time. One day,\nafter drunk, he came home, but he wanted to rape his daughter, his wife\nsaw that, she could not bear it, with the long times torture, she killed\nhis husband. In this case, judger need to consider her situation, under\nthis stress, what she needed to do, and she killed a bad man, no benefit\nfor the society, but had harm for the children and women, so in this case,\nthe women ought to free, she totally do not need to be punished by the\ncapital punishment. Another case is if the people under the emergency,\nthey killed the people, but after that, they ask the policeman actively,\nso I think in that situation, people do not be punished by capital\npunishment. If two people fight with each other, one people did not very\ncare about the other one, he or she did not mean to kill the other side,\nafter that, he or she asked the policemen voluntary, then told the\npolicemen what had happened, and he or she was not mean to kill other\npeople, only fight to each other. Under this situation, I think judger\nneed to consider this problem in another view. At least, the murderer\ndoes not need to be punished by the capital punishment. Only putting he\nor she into the prision for many years is enough, do not need to have his\nor her life, let him or her alive, and make him or her does more\ncontribution to the community. To sum up, this essay discussed whether\nmurderer need to be capital punished or not. In the two cases, the\nmurderer did not need to be punished by the capital punishment. One is\nunder the heavy stress, and other one is under the emergency, they did not\nto be punished by the capital punishment .\n" + }, + { + "title": "061_CZKR1003.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: All armies should consist entirely of professional soldiers: there is no value in a system of military service \n\nIn this rational world where almost everybody seems to think rationally especially about things concerning money 1 have sudendly found that people act highly irrationally if they have non-professional army. Every professional army draws a big sum of money from national gross product. And what about non-professionai armies? If they have every single year new men. And they are not trained and prepared to work with military hardware as the professional soldiers. They can easily cause a great damage or misfortune . 1 know several cases when a soldier injured or even killed his colleague because he did not know how to operate his gun properly. What a luck we do not have nuclear weapons. Military service lasts for one year now . 1 think that in such a short time period soidiers are not able to acquire habits how to do their job correctly . 1 think if they were professionais they would not need as much money as they do now .\nBut the question of money is also closely connected with the time that the young men have to spend in their military service. All of them have just finished theîr studies, their training for their future jobs which they want to do ali their lifes. They have been trained, they have been prepared, they are ready and they have to fullfill their honourable duty - to lost at least one year in some nonsense institution that is calied army. lf you are for example cîvil engineer you will spend the year listenning to some orders instead of projecting new buildings, bridges, etc. After this year you will forget a great part of your université knowledge. If you wants to run your own business and you a great idea, you almost have the money you need and it is the right time for you to start you have to put it off till next year and it is usually late. And the same goes for any other occupations - teachers, carpenters, doctors, artists, bricklayers .\nAnd the worst problem with military service have the young marrîages with children. Some of them got married during their studies at université. They do not usually have their own fiat and their have to live together with their mothers and fathers-in-law. Terrible. They do not have enough money because he or she or both of them have just graduated. They cannot find a job. Their child is often ill. Mother usually stays at home with the kid at least for a year or two. And in such a situation father has to do his military service. Of course, he can ask for deferment. He can get a deferment for a couple of years. And the government promises that in such cases father will be placed near the family, not further than 20 kilomètres away from their hometowns. But ib 1 know a family where the husband is more than 200 kilomètres far from home. Their military service lasts only for five months. What can they learn in such a short period? The officers often know it and so the soldîers just spend 5 months killing their time by reading books or lying on the beds and doing nothing. What is the reason of taking away the head of family? The only person that is able to earn some money. Well, the family gets a smala amount of money from government but it is only minimum of living standart .\nSo I say: \"Let\"s stop the military service. And what more. Let's dismiss the army at all.\"\n" + }, + { + "title": "062_CZKR1005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nThe human imagination has been till now the most perfect and unbeaten computer of the world. After all brainwashing by computer games, video, TV and mass advertising it can't be replaced by any computer or robot .\nReally? Is it really still true? I remember a sci-fi story which I've read several years ago. A lonely woman, operator, by chance got acqainted with a man by phone. Their phone-calls became more frequent and the woman thought that she had finally fond someone, she would like to stay with, someone who understands her and accepts her. What was strange was that the man always avoided meeting her and he didn't even want what he looked like. The curiousity and the desire to see her beloved made the woman search for his phone number. What a shock it was to find out that her friend was a computer!\nThe present science and technology have accomplished so incredible things that we could even hardly dream about several years ago. Scientists experiment with so delacate materials as the genetic information and brain cells are. Don't they fear that once they'll reach the top, they'll have created a perfect robot which will be not just a perfect copy of human body but also a copy of human feellings and ideas?\nSome people say that in our modern warld there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. But on the other hand there is exactly the same number of people who thing just the opposite. They realize very well the danger which goes along with the technical progress. They try to draw our attention to it and fight against it with their own means .\nArts have always been a way of a balance and resistance to modern world. Artists have been expressing their opinions towards science and technology. Apart from a few euforic periods when they glorified them they usually warn against them. Take Jules Verne as an example. How many of his utopic visions have come true! Certainly many sci-fi writers could have become the prophets of modern era .\nRemember how many poets wrote ethusiastic poems about technical civilizations. And what conclusions did they arrived at in the end of their work? They usually glorified the nature and natural life of people far away from the technical world .\nWhy are present people becoming more and more interested in ancient myths, philosophy and religoin of the Orient? Perhaps it's the archetypal need of man to whom modern science failed to answer the most crucial question of human existence, the need return to the very beginnings when the white was white and the black was black .\nLook at the present film production. What makes a commercial film successfull? The story which is put into an interesting setting somewhere in the Universe, exotic country, ancient history or unexisted world of fairy-tales, shortly in the environment which we can hardly know and which incites our imagination, But this presentation and imposition of some topics could be risky because the choice of topics for dreaming is limited. If kids are attacked by dinosaurus, turtles and Barbies from all directions their imagination is preset. The children aren't able to choose the right for them. Their parents should protect them from pressure. I know that it isn't easy to persuade children with quite a high level of technical education that the magic carpet and wand existe. But they also long for romantic stories. If some classic film fairy-tele appears in cinemas it's always a box-office draw .\nYou needn't be a fanatic freudian to understand that human creativity and taste have their roots in the early childhood or what you learn in the childhood accompan you for whole your life .\nBut there is another problem. Can arts protect themselves from the influence of science and technology? We know that already exist computer programmes which are able to write books and draw pictures themselves. Could happen that the most important element in arts - the man - will be useless?\nNow let me quote several words from I-t'ing: \"We can't loose what really belongs to us even if we threw it away.\"\nWe have strive to protect the most important assets we have - our mind. Once it could be stollen to us .\n" + }, + { + "title": "063_CZKR1007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \n\"Feminists have helped women to be free and independent but they have made them unhappy\". This has been repeated in American media for last several years. Such hints have appeared in Czech press too, though feminist movement has not influenced our society much yet. Susan Faludi writes about this phenomenon in her book \"Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women\". She says that many women do not want to call themselves feminists, though they think women's movement is still neccessary. Faludi claims it is not feminists but the continuous campaign of the White House, press and Hollywood against feminism, who are to be blamed for women's unhapiness. Who is right the, Faludi or media?\nNothing in life is so simple. The answer is much complicated and the causes of the problem lie deep in our minds. People of the end of the 20th century are used to systematic thinking. The flow of information is overwhelming and we are afraid of the complexity of the world. That's why we need to put everything in a group: works of arts, , people, their opinions, ideas. Everything has to be classified, everything has to be clear. If you say something that is considered a feminist idea, then you are proclaimed a feminist. If you say something against feminists, you are proclaimed sexist. Never mind what your doings are; what other people think you are - that is what matters most. This systematizing the world brings people relief; they believe they have beaten the complicated and hardly understandable world. But the result is not so pleasing: we do not understand one another .\nWhy don't we understand one another even when we use the same words? We speak in categories and classes when we discuss a problem. But everybody has a slightly different idea of the same category or class and eventually we do not speak about the problem but about what we mean by our words .\nWe can use a metaphor to describe this incident: we buy wine according to the label on the bottle (without being able to tell the difference), and also we do not discuss the quality of wine but the brand of it .\nAs far as feminism is concerned, the result of such attitude is blaming feminists for women's unhapiness. What is actually feminism. It came into being in 19th century when women were totally dependent on men, could not vote and work. Suffragettes are also classified as feminists (this women's movement at the turn of the century became famous for its agressivity), as well as other movements in the 30s or 60s, some of them very radical. S. Faludi says that during the feminist revolution in the 70s feminism was understood as an effort to bring women the same rights that men have always used. Carola Biedermannova; a Czech feminist answers the same question this way: \"Feminism is making women's economic, political and social rights work in real life.\" Those definitions are the same as one definition in Webster's dictionary: \"organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.\" But definition 2 says that feminism is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes .\nWell, what do we mean when we say someone is a feminist? Does that mean that he or she fights for women's rights or that he or she only believes in the equality of the sexes? We cannot blame a group of people for something when we don't even know who belongs to this group .\nNo, it is not feminist's fault that some women are unhappy. It is obvious that women needed their movement because they were not socially free. Now they are or at least they can e. If they are unhappy, it is neither feminists' nor anti-feminists fault. The reason is in them and in all of us who cannot get rid of the old view of woman. Our attitude towards woman does not accord her new position in society. But this is not a political problem, it is a problem of human culture, a problem of bad communication .\nWe should strive for making our communication work again. It is no use to contemplate whether someone fits to a certain category, either feminist or sexist. We should rather try to listen to what he tells us and how we can help him. Then we will understand one another .\n" + }, + { + "title": "064_CZKR1009.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney - for one a big trouble for another a possibility to buy almost everything. Since it has been established money became a need for all people .\nMoney is a reward for our work, money can be a theme of a novel or a film, sometimes money is also a scale of somebody's success or station and unfortunately money can be a reason of a crime. You can hate it you can also condemn it but you must have it because you need it. Where is the mistake? In money, man, in human society, in economy or in government? I do not know and I also do not now any solution because I can not imagine a society without money yet - it was only a communistic Utopia. Money is still needed to assess results of human work but I think that society should lead each person to arrange his or her own scale where not money but morale is in the first place, where human life has the greatest value, where love and human honour can not be bought for money .\nMoney is important in our contemporary society but it is not the most important thing. Who says that money is not weighty he or she is a dreamer. Without money you unfortunately can not buy meals, clothes, books, car, house, flowers or a small thing which makes you pleasant. I thing that money can make one independent. You need not live in a stereotype, you need not be worried about your job, salary, accounts and debts. You can take holiday everywhere, you have much more opportunities how to spend your leisure time. But you can not buy love, health, friends or feelings .\nWho affirms that money is the most important thing he or she is an agnistic person without possibility to feel something or believe in something or somebody, he or she became a slave of money and he or she would de everything to have it. People like this exist all over the world. They can kill because of money, they can steal and rob, they sell drubs to young people, they organise prostitution, they do business with arms and weapons, they blackmail others, there is a coruption in this world - this is that evil because of money; Why does it exist? I do not know why but I mean that the evil is not money - this is only reason - the evil is in people .\nBut I believe that people can overcome it. They have to improve relationships among them, they should regard each other, they should not avoid feelings, they should educated their children in love and in morale and in respect of our life and life of other people, they should teach their children to find the real beauty in small, common, everyday things. They should believe in something. People should not measure a person according to his or her money, they should find inside them because not that one who has the most money must be the best but the one with the great personality .\n" + }, + { + "title": "065_CZPR2001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nI will try to prove this statement by giving an example of the law of Domestic Violance, which is often regarded to be a great success of the feminist movement. During my visit to the U. S. this fall, I had a chance to experience an interesting situation concerning the law of Domestic Violance. I will tell you a story, which didn't happen to me. I heard it from a person, whom it happened and I know this person rather well. The law of Domestic Violance (understand in California because I think that each state has a slightly different one) may be a good way to get rid of an uncomfortable husband. All of this happened about 2-3 months ago. A wife together with her boyfriend, a former wrestling champion, arranged a plan how to fire her husband from their common residence. As several times before, the wife provoked her husband by cutting by a pair of scissors his credit cards, which arrived in the afternoon mail. To defend her I have to add that these credit cards were common for both of the wife and the husband and that she didn't want to be a part of them. They had several quarrels about it before. So, the husband started to yell at her just in time when her boyfriend was approaching the door with a not too well acted friendly smile . \"How are you, guys, doing ? I was just passing, so I thought ...\", he tried to explane. But soon he changed his tone of voice because the wife told him : \"Nick, he hit me and held me under my neck !\", she pretended. Her boyfriend, twenty years older than she is, but still in a good shape after many years of his wrestling career, started to tremble with anger . \"You, get out of here or I'll kill you. I used to kill people for four bucks during the war in Vietnam, you know ! \", he threatened. He was getting more and more nervous. So, the husband didn't hesitate a minute. He left the house immediately without saying a single word. He didn't want to get hurt or provoke that silly old man. After he left, they called the police together and reported that the husband hit the face of his wife and held her neck. The restraining order has been signed by the judge that the husband can't get closer than 100 feet distance to his own house. What a terrible surprise it was for the husband, when he returned home the next day. The door lock was changed and nobody was at home. So he went to his wife's boyfriend's house to get the keys. He thought that his son might have been playing there. He didn't know about the restraining order. His idea was to take some things from his home and move to his friend's house before things come to order again. But what happened was really a painfull shock. His 12 year old son, manipulated by his mother and \"uncle Nick\" shut the door in front of his father's face and called the police. The restraining order was valid for the boyfriend's house also. The disappointed husband and father was lucky to escape. He couldn't believe what had happened to him. He remembered the days he spent with his son. There weren't many because he worked hard 7 days a week. He remembered how he was buying his new house, all the things he bought to equip it ... What happened to him doesn't happen twice in life. Now there was no possibility for him to return home. There was really no save area in the whole situation. This story seems unbelievable but the worst thing about it is that it happened \" in accordance with the law \". Practically, he couldn't appeal against the judges decision. He didn't have any witnesses, while Nick would say or do anything to gain the wife's liking. He could have hired a lawyer to represent him in a case but with all the charges etc. He decided to let things go by their natural way. Such a case would cost him a lot of money. Actually, with the law as it is, he didn't have a chance to succeed, anyway .\n" + }, + { + "title": "066_CZPR2008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nMarx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the end of the 20th century, he would replace religion with television. It would be interesting to have Marx in late 20th century. Maybe, he wouldn't replace religion with television. Maybe, he would say that the religion, hand in hand, with television is the opium of the masses. Television and religion don't compete each with other, they cooperate to form the ideal conforming, consuming, religious T. V. addict. One can watch T. V. during one Sunday morning and can find all the things he or she needs: T. V. preachers keep telling you what to believe in, what is a sin (don't forget that also not paying taxes is a sin!), what is good and evil, what will happen after your death . .. Then we have a short commercial break and they let us know what to buy, they let us know that life is funny and easy when you know how to spend your money. Don't worry if you have no friends to talk to: you can talk about T. V. programmes on hot lines advertized during commercial breaks. Commercials are propably the biggest evil because one can hardly avoid watching them, especially, when they are in the middle of the movie. It is also difficult to turn on the T. V., when the chosen programme starts, just in time to see the titles and at time to avoid commercials. Besides their omnipresency, the second danger is their artificial presentation of reality. At the beginning we usually see desperate person deeply in troubles but, fortunatelly, there is a product able to solve his or her troubles and brighten his or her world, which is after using this particular product suddenly full of nice, often young, but always successful, smiling people. Who cares about reality ? Definitely not producers. How does it effect the thinking of people who are not able to see the borders between T. V. fiction and real life ? Are children clever enough to realize that that nice, artificial world is not a reality ? Taking this into consideration commercials focused on children are the worst kind of blackmailing. Parents are those, who are able to earn and therefore spend money, but children are exploited to squeeze their parents' money. Everybody should be able to decide what he wants to spend money on and when a child doesn't know the value of money, it doesn't mean that it can be used for increasing one's profit. Fortunately, there are not only commercials on T. V., but also programmes with some educational impacts and valuable films, theatre perfomances and it is also the source of news (hardly an independent source, but still quite accessible). Key to the using a television as a source of valuable entertainment and of education lays in a creating of certain public taste. In some cases religion can also sometimes help someone when becaming the source of comprehensive approaches towards eternal questions, but we should keep in mind what reality is and we still should keep aloof - not to be addicted on these two opiums, because every addict is a slave of his drug .\n" + }, + { + "title": "067_CZPR2013.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney is the root of the evil Does it mean that the evil was born when money became the medium of payment ? No. The evil was there - in people. Money just gave much more possibilities to grew up human vices such as jealousy, greediness, and envy. Money came and society began to differ. People began to make money and to differ from each other. They began to distinguish as for how heavy money - bag they had. Money - market was born. It gave the possibility for such a inborn feature as a rivality is. Money makers began to look for whichever - good or bad - way of geeting money. Everything had to get its money form and such a relative value was getting to be the only value that people accepted. Everything, every work, everyone is touched by money, is valued by money that became the most important value one meets on the way to the real thing, the work and the human being. Of course, people want to compare, to have knowledge of facts so that they do this through their money form of value. But they often forget that it is just a relative value given today, tomorrow it is different. It is not possible to rely on it. Fortunately, a lot of people consider money form as the only value. It causes blindness - stupidity and simplicity. It is comfortable to live for money. People like money, want money and are dependent on it. One cannot have a bread without money. People are dependent on society they live in. Miloš Forman said that money gives him freedom. Does it mean freedom in the society ? I think so. One needs money to be free in ones society, to enjoy ones life. One can eat whatever, buy whatever, travel wherever, see whichever performance or movie one wants. Simply - to be happy and free. While people short of money have to check and divide their money among many things they need, want and they would like. So that they have to realize prices, compare them and count and count. To be in a dictatorship of money. When people loose their freedom as for money, it is really the evil thing. Secondly, it becomes the sense of life. It is very simple and stupid. It is dangerous too. People who in a hunt for money are loosing them are near to loosing their lives. But the evil is in people, money just caused confussion in us, in values we have, in society we live in .\n" + }, + { + "title": "068_CZPR2016.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \nOut of non-representative sample of all pupils from basic schools one third - the same amount of boys and girls - wanted to study university. I am speaking about CSSR according to research of 1989. Parents of all children that have been observed considered practical reasons to have influenced them . ' Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. Does it follow that the one third of these children was interested in practical aspects of university adducation and either didn't know about or mind it's not preparing for the ' real world ' ? Sounds strange. So something is wrong? Had parents known about their children's fault and warned them university had neither practical value nor it was preparation for the ' real world ' ? How to explain that only 30% of pupils with excellent school achievements and low-adducated parents are going to study school preparing for university and 60% specialized schoools ? With children doing as well in school and having one parent with university degree at least, the proportion is right opossite. After the first research was over 57% of observed children was accepted to study secondary schools. That makes approach to university possible . 38% of scholars claimed they would attempt to study for university degree. Have parents known about little value of university degrees ? Or didn't they want to ' close the door ' before their children mature and decide themselves wether to study or not ? Did they ask only secondary adducation for their children ? Or weren't they interested in ' real world ' of their children and desired only practical advantage they hoped degree was giving ? ' They are therefore of a very little value . ' Are they of a value ? Don't they - university degrees - rather constitute values ? ' They are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world . ' But they prepare \\ theoretical \\ attitudes. These change the real world. Thes even change the world that is not real now : these prepare the world for future generation - people without any attitudes, not knowing what is to be attituted to. According to responses of children from working - class families, one quarter of them thought the best way to ' life success ' is to be workful - have frinds - be conflictless. To be workful - adducated and specialized was being chosen as the right way to ' life success ' by children of highly qualified specialists . 60% of pupils haven ' t chosen being skilfull in something as the right way to life success : 40% refused adducation as way to life success. Only one fifth have chosen both. Of these children who expressed the highest adducational aspirations, one third didn ' t consider adducation important for life success. One half of children with this aspiration did not consider being skilful in something more than the others important for life success. How to explain it? They expect university will not prepare them for practical life? Is it the reason why they have chosen to study for degree ? And what happened than was the missunderstanding between these two generations ? Most parents thought their child's decission to study university to have been chosen for practical aspects? Or isn ' t the question wether to study for degree influenced by thinking about ways to life success at all ? Do children think about life success ? Is there any selfevaluation required? Teachers recommend 80% of children of higly adducated parents and 30% of children of unqolified workers to study on secondary schools. Doesn't the idea of the way to life success - even when there is no adducation or qualification required - cancel the decission to study for degree ?\n" + }, + { + "title": "069_CZPR2020.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \n. If he was alive at the end of 20th century, he would replace religion with television. As I do not like Karl Marx, I must say he was right in some cases and some parts of his ideology. For example his theory of socialism was very different from its later version presented and provided by Lenin or Stalin and their followers in many countries. I do not want to say that I would like to live in Marx's socialism. However it could be good and progressive in the middle of l9th century, today it is old - fashioned and step back. But strightly towards the main topic - television. Even when there are some similarities between the influence of the religion (by my oppinion more correctly the \" church \" as an institution) and television I do not think both things are something like opium. Surely, it can be used to manipulate with people as we could see on the examples of so called brainwashing sects last time in Switzerland and Canada in October l994 (as for religion) or on the example of state - controlled and censored televisions in totalitarian countries (as for television). But there are also many differences between religion and television. In the past, churches (of any religion) were very strong, centralized, effective organizations, systems that couyld achieve nearly everything they wanted to. What about television now ? Each television (TV station) is also very well organized system, but there are hundreds or thousands of such and all together they make an unbelievable mixture with nearly no common purpose or target (except earning money). And spectators can choose. I should say some of them are sometimes frustrated from their opportunity of choices. They do not know what to choose. There is noone to tell them what to choose or how to choose. Someone tries to catch everything and another one becomes to be depended on television. But not all. It is not problem of the masses. There are also a lot of people who are TV abstainers. The main problem of television I see in its influence on children and youth. There is no doubt that television works sometimes as opium. Some children are able to watch TV all the day. There are of course many educational programms and TV helps to improve knowledge, but on the other hand also damages imagination of children, their own activity, independent thinking and shows the world in the different way than it really is . (i. e. increasing number of programms showing violence or cruel scenes . ). Many children then do not know, they can not distinguish between reality and fiction, they think everything shown in TV is normal and it belongs to life . (To kill a man on the street just because he had coat colour I did not like, it is normal. TV heroes do that, don't they Mom ? ). Children watch television for many reasons: it is very funny, it entertains sometimes it isw adventurous and mainly it is very easy. Just push the button and sit or lay or what else. Many parents do not have enough time for their children and they often say: \" Oh, be quiet, be good, go and watch TV. \" Then television becomes to be the only thing that educates the child (if it is young, later of course thereis also school - but as I can say from my short practise - two years - of teaching at elementray school, during the school breaks children very often talk mainly about what was on Tv yesterday, what is today or which new film they have on video . ). Is there any chance to stop the evolution of Homo televisionis growing from younger and youger generations ? We know about some, some new things will have to be prepared and thought. We will have to pay more attention to the personal contact with the child during the process of education. More attention and cooperation from parents, teachers and other adults. We can not educate children just through TV screen or other machines. New methods of education should be invented, more involving programms for youth (I do not mean TV programms), another types of entertainment. And entertainment is the main thing that children demand. I am not sure we can solve the problem with ways we use today. It is similar to teh problem with opium or other drugs. Legalize it ? Abolish ? Reduce ? Fight against it ? No, something completely, completely new. There is a time for new Einstein or for new J. A. Comenius. Prague 22th November l994 " + }, + { + "title": "070_CZPR2029.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nIt has been so long since people used to read poetry as an entertainment, since they used to go to the opera instead of going to the cinema as it happens today, it has been so long since people knew the names of the writers, painters and composers of their time, both the famous and the condemned. Nowadays there are computers, videos, CD players, cameras etc., nowadays there is a new and modern world here. We all know the great differences between the life at presence and the life let us say hundred years ago. We know that the time has been changing and that it has been changing fast. We have the things we could not have before but on the other hand we don't have things we could have before. We no longer travel by carriages and I don't think we ever will and we don't invite our friends for the evenings of poetry reading. That all means the time is different but does it also mean that the man is different as well? It's true that the man is different but still he is the human with his desires and expectations, with his griefs and pains. He is still the man full of dreams and imagination. Some people say there is no place for dreaming and imagination in our contemporary world but their arguments are rather weak. They usually say that we are enslaved by the mass culture and omnipresent modernization or (it's another frequent point of view) that imagination and mainly dreaming belong to the age of romanticism and it is, after all, gone. It means that only a few romantic souls could be still dreaming in this time and that imagination (according to what people think) is for the artists who we can simply call fools. But this is a wrong idea. We have to realize that there are specific things in this world which can be hardly destroyed by any technology, science or even politics. Imagination and dreaming are such specific things. If you are once born with it nothing can change it. So the problem is not that there is no place for imagination or that there even are no imaginative people but that there is a very bad acceptance of imagination. I mean that many people create something in their minds but often there is no way for them to realize it. I speak mainly about those cases where the imagination is concerned with fine art and literature. And why? Because for example poetry does not make any money. And so we should not say that there is no place for dreaming and imagination but that today it is no time for it. We don't need no place for dreams, no place for imagination, we all have one: our minds. But we do need to find some way to make our dreams come true. We know it was always difficult but maybe in our time it is difficult little more. Who cares about pictures, sculptures, music, poetry? Who goes to the theatre more often than to the cinema? Who cares about imagination?... It is too difficult to think about those strange things one's mind can create. It is too boring. Sometimes it is too old fashioned, sometimes it is too modern. After all we have much easier ways to entertain ourselves. It is so pleasant just to sit and watch TV where there is no end to fighting - we don't have to think so much. We are tired. We have to work because we have to make money. We need money and comfortable easy living. No imagination, there is no time for it. There is no audience .\n" + }, + { + "title": "071_CZPR3009.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nA definition of feminism stated in dictionaries is usually very simple and sounds very innocent: the principle that women should have the same rights and chances as men. This principle must be definitely considered as justified and rightful. Nevertheless not many people (especially not men) imagine exactly the above termed principle under the word \"feminism\". The bulk of the worldwide population would defined it rather as \"some sort of furious activities practised by over-ambitious females\". They imagine angry, rattled women marching through the streets, yelling \"We do hate men!\" the question is if such an opinion can be or should be contradicted and accused as wrong misleading or simplified .\nAll the main slogans proclaimed by feminism, i.e. radical feminism, because only this branch of the movement expresses itself aloud enough, those main slogans advise women not to get \"enslaved\" by marriage\", not to become \"factories for producing children\", not to let men use them as toys to play with... Such ideas might be not only unpleasant for both men and reasonable women but they might be also extramely dangerous for the growing up generation .\nGirls are as intelligent as boys but we cannot ignore the fact that the two sexes have different inborn qualities. It is a fact! Boys are rather rational, girls more emotional, boys are usually more ambitious or wilder than girls, who are very often placid and modest as far as their career is concerned. Everybody would agree that both girls and boys - or men and women, if you want - should have the same right and opportunity in employment and education but at the same time even the radical feminists must see that there is a certain number of girls who will be perfectly satisfied as housewives or taking only part-time jobs which will leave them enough time to look after their families, their husbands and children. And thereis no reason to blame the girls for following this traditional female role-model, no reason to call them \"slaves\" and to prevent them from their choice. Of course, not all young women will be satisfied with this social role. Despite of that they will be able to divide their interests between their professional and family life in most cases without any problem. There is something unnatural in the feminists'vision of a \"househusband\" or a highly career orientated woman .\nFeminists advise not to have children. Why? Don't the feminists see what power it is hidden in the ability of giving birth to a child? Females are not \"factories for producing children\", their bodies are ingenious, strong as also many male gynecologists state, they are able of something very special and inimitable. Why should women get rid of such an honourable status?\nAre women just men's toys? Another nonsense. Every real man, even the toughest one, becomes soft as wax when dealing with a charming, i.e. real woman. Men would never admit it and feminists don't want to see it but it is a lady who governs her cavalier'life. And her power is in concealing the fact and being aware of this fact at the same time .\nFeminists and their generally known activities seem not to fight women's discrimination to win equality for women against men, more likely they strive to be like men. Women should stay women. The original idea of feminism is undoubtedly right but the reality is very different. If real women don't stop feminists from their interfering in time we could have to face a very weird war soon - women versus men!\n" + }, + { + "title": "072_CZPR3013.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney is an important part of our life. Human beeing stands on the existence of money. Everyone needs money to satisfy his own necessity. Money produces evil among all people in spite of proverb: \"All is not gold that glitters.\" Same people have the only aim - to get money no matter how .\nMoney determines social position in society. High class is represented mostly by businessmen or employees of American firms. American firms offer to their employees high wages but they must submit everything to their job. Their families and children have nearly everything they want but they lose their fathers and their family life is missing. At that time children are influenced by their friends very much. So there is a dangerous of gambling, alcohol, drugs etc .\nGambling is important problem among young people. Gamblers need a lot of money to play games. They are dependent on the games in a while. They spend all their money and still need them. They are able to do everything to gain money for the games. Children often steal money at home. Dependance on gambling is something like dependance on drugs so gamblers are also treated in medical institutions .\nCrime is connected mostly with money. Thefts, robberies, murders are realized especially because of money . \"Appetite comes with eating\" so crime is spread more and more because some people wants still more and more money. They are able to risk possibility to get in prison but their yearn for money is stronger. For example gangs, which are interested in stealing cars, have been increasing. We can ask why? The answer is that they have a large sum of money from this. It is unbelievable that someone can exchange a part of his life in prison for money. Even if they do not hesitate to use violence or murder anyone only for money .\nEveryone is used to live in his living standart. Importance of having money we feel especially when we have not them enought. In this case we started to think up how money gets. People imagine that money can fulfill all their dreams. Actually it is truee but not at all. When you have a large amount of money you can buy everything, but you can not buy true friends, health, love of your wife, your husband or your children. By public opinion research in Czech republic, where people were asked to their value of life, we have known interesting things. In these years people's opinions have been changed. Importance of possessive has increased and overtook importance of education and hobbies. Result from this research is unpleasant not only for me. The people are not interested in education or hobbies but mostly in money. It never mind what a man does but the main thing is how much money he earns .\nAll people need money, it is natural. But important is how much they are able to sacrifice for money. Children suffer from their parents' work because they are all time in their job. Children having enough money can start with gambling. Then they need money more and more so they are able to commit a crime. People's oppinions have been changed in consequence of reaching money. Somebody has the only value which is money. Where a lot of money is, evil exists. Money and evil were and will exist. We must try to put it down .\n" + }, + { + "title": "073_CZPR3023.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nWhat role does money play in human life? We can hear in words of one old song:\" Money is the root of all evil\". On the other hand a lot of people are persuaded that money assures happiness. I think it is not possible to characterize money in general. There are many points of view from which money can be looked on. I found three of them the most important : money as an essential part of life, money as a means how to make life happier and easier and money as temptation to the sin .\nMoney as a condition of human existence in today society has also the great influence on human freedom. The word \" freedom\" has different meaning than it had in the history. Man is free if he is not dependent on anybody. To be independent means to have enough money to be able to live. To live independently means to do whatever one wants to do and what is not against the law. Money assures that. If you have money you can buy whatever you want, you can travel wherever you want, you can realize your plans. To be financially independent means not to be afraid of what you will have for dinner tomorrow. The feeling of material security is the necessary condition for effective human activity. Everybody is aware of the value of money and does his best to have it enough. The quotation \"He who says money has no sense for human life does not mean his money but money of the others\" perfectly expresses human mentality. Money decides what place you take in the society. Money motivates people to work hard to have higher income .\nMoney has the power to make human life easier and more pleasant. It can even change life into paradise. This all depends on who treats the money. If people treat money in common sense it can help them to realize their dreams and to reach happiness. Everybody has different ideas on what happiness is. It can be a new car, travelling or a lot of pets. For somebody to feel happy means to help the others who need money more than the owner. By the human acts of donating money to the poor and sick people many human lives were saved .\nFinally, negative human qualities can change money into the disaster. Money is the leading power of the world. People do anything to have money. Even though they can fairly work in classical way they prefer to earn money in various simplier ways - they steal, hazard with their and other's life even kill each other. Blind with the vision of wealth and better future they can not see the results of their acts - baffled fates of innocent people, baffled fates of themselves. Money works as a drug. If such a people feel how sweet it is to have money they want to have it all the time and they do everything for it. They steal and kill again and again. These people do not live normal life. They are victims of money. Not money is the root of all evil. The root of all evil is bad man with his negative qualities. Money serves as a means how to realise the evil. Money causes many disasters in family life. Because of money a perfect family can change into the pack of wolfs. Family tragedies are often caused by the question of inheritance. Children kill their parents, younger brother kills the older one, wife kills her husband. This all prove how strong position money has in human life. It has so big power that it can break the relations between the closest friends. Because of money the wars start. Because of money people do not live naturally. To gain money one has to learn to dissimilate, to trick, to lie. The lack of money causes human suffering even death. The example of this evil expresses the situation in the developing countries. Thousands of people die during one day because of famine which is caused by the poorness of the country .\nThrough ages mankind is characterized by the human qualities which were given to it by God. Positive qualities make the good and negative ones make the evil. Both together make the reality of life. This world has no chance to get rid of any of them. They are like energy - still constant only changing the forms. As I have mentioned money can not be characterized in general. The money in the hands of a wicked man causes the evil. An intelligent man, who knows what the real human values are, spends money in the positive way. So, money can not be characterized as a good or bad thing. It is just means by which we realize our life and fate .\n" + }, + { + "title": "074_CZPR3057.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \nMost university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value .\nWe can deal with this topic from various points of view. The first point of view could be an analysis of the assumptions contained in the title of the essay The statement contains three questionable assumptions, namely that most university degrees are in fact theoretical that even if they are theoretical they do not prepare students for the real world and they are therefore of very little value. Let us have a look at these 3 points in turn .\n- It is of course a big generalization to say that most university degrees are theoretical - that they are only theoretical and have no practical content. Such a statement ignores the vast body of vocational qualifications designed to train people for particular careers mainly in scientific engineering, medical fields. etc. Many such courses include periods of practical experience in industry, hospitals or other appropriate areas. The courses must of course contain theory as well. A doctor must know how the human body works in order to cure his patient. A civil engineer must understand laws of physics before he can design a bridge. Therefore students are given special lectures on appropriate disciplines concerning their fields of study but they also have to spend a certain time in practice where they are supposed to make themselves acquainted with their future profession. For ex. students of Medicine have to spend some time in hospitals where they are thought practical things - they are thought \"how to treat a human body in practice\". They are sent from one ward to another to be able to cure all the human diseases and later they can decide what they will want to deal with. They can choose their specialization .\n- I do not know what is student teaching like in other countries but that is true that a period of student teaching is strictly limited in our country .\nIn my opinion students of the disciplines mentioned above should spend more time dealing with practical things .\n- Many university degree courses are not of this kind however. Those concerned with arts subjects and some very theoretical sciences might be at first sight labelled \"theoretical\". Knowledge of medierval history or works of literature might be considered to be of no practical value. However in such courses of study students are essentially doing practical things - reading, researching, analysing, writing etc .\n- This brings us cocnveniently to the second statement that such courses do not prepare students for the real world. It is arguable that if students are doing practical things even whilst studying subjects of a more academic nature they are acquiring skills and developing their power of intellect and understanding. These skills can indeed be of value in many walks of life not least business and public service especially when the information technology explosion of the 20 th century bombards us all with increasing data, information, statistics etc. In this case our theoretical degree could be of help for our comprehension of such demanding scientific and business fields. The students who has followed a so-called \"theoretical\" course of study can be well equipped to deal with this .\n- This conclusion brings us to the last of the three assumptions, in that \"the theoretical course of study cannot be of any practical value\". The theoretical course of study can indeed be of practical value as it is mentioned above. However to confine ourselves to a definition of \"practical value\" means to condemn ourselves to a utilitarian view of life. Study of arts, history, literature, music etc. adds to the richness beauty and fulfilment of life and must surely provide value. These aspects are as much part of the real world as a routine of day to day living .\n- Now let us look at the second point of view. It could be named \"the role of university education in society\". Society should have an understanding for a general role of university education. Such a type of education should be absolutely different from other types of higher education. Universities should help their students in developing their power of logical reasoning. A university graduate should be able to solve various problems but he should especially have a courage to admit that different problems exist in different types of society. He is supposed to be self-contained after his graduation of the last year of university. He is expected to be able to orientate in various kinds of literature and theory .\nIt is necessary to maintain an independence and sovereignity of universities. It would be regrettable if universities dealt just with disciplines and subjects that are convenient for practical purposes. It is possible to say that cooperation of universities and practical sphere is necessary and inevitable but an independence and sovereignity of universities must be saved at the same time .\n" + }, + { + "title": "075_CZPR3061.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nSome people say that in our modern world, dominated by science technology and industralization, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. But I do not think so. The mankind civilization could not reach its now-a-days standard without dreaming and imagination. Our dreaming and imagination are being fulfilled every day. So we can fly by planes, sail by liners and submarines, we discovered new lands, we are still finding new worlds in the universe. We have large cities where millions of people live together .\nLet's make retrospective outlook on our lives. When we were children, we dreamt about fairies, witches, princes, princesses, dragons and all these creatures from the fairy-tale world. We were imagining how it would be wonderful to be like they were, to live in their world. But time flew and we got older. We started to perceive the real world where no creature from the fairy-tale lived. I started to understand my life as a neverending row of problems. To live means to solve these problems less or more sucessfully .\nAnd when hard moments of our lives come, we dream about easy childhood how careless it was. We try to imagine the world without problems. But it is not like this, so we must keep on trying to create it according to our dreams .\nAfter finishing the school studies we meet problem how to find a good and well paid job. Everybody wants to feel that his work is needful and makes sense. Everybody, I hope, does not like to work just for himself, man wants to earn money to feed his wife and children. This is our dream to have a nice and happy family. We all remember the time when we first fell in love. When the first love came away and we felt so dissapointed the dream that we maybe would find new love and new meaning of life kept us \" alive \".\nI also dreamt about man who would be my partner for the rest of my life and who would be father of my children. As a child I wanted a prince, of course. Then I met several men, but my heart was beating as usually. Now I am married it means I found him. I can say I am happy. He is the same like in my dreams. He is clever, gentle, tall man with blue eyes and salt and pepper hair [ even if he is twenty five ]. We started to build our own world. He works in insurance and I hope that I start my teaching in this autumn, finally. We are on the very beginning of our lives we are talking about it every day, but not only about the way we want to live. We are also talking about those little important things such as f. e. the colour of furniture and carpet in our future bedroom, because now we live in a lodging .\nWe cannot get rid of our dreaming and imagination because it is just inside us and it helps us to live and makes our life more beautiful .\n" + }, + { + "title": "076_CZPR4020.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nPeople certainly need something to believe in any time, but I would probably not compare religion to television in this way .\nSome kind of religion was an important part of people's life from the very beginning of human existence. It went through a plenty of changes and it had a plenty of various rites, myths, legends and beliefs. But still in each of these variants religion was trying to answer people's questions about things like being, life, truth, death and so on; and it was trying to help the people to find the right way in solving their problems, it was giving them some certain hope of a better life, justice and retribution .\nTelevision, on the contrary, gives none of these. Television is just a means for entertaining but nowadays it certainly is the opium of the masses. People spend hours and hours watching TV, usually they even do not care what is on the programm, but they still have to have their TV set on .\nEven much worse, maybe, is the situation of the children. They have no other source of fun when their parents are at work. They come home from school and there is nobody to take care of them and to play with them. They are bored and the easiest thing to do is to watch TV. It souds like a horror that the children nowadays nearly do not read books at all .\nHere appears, of course, the usual question the violence on TV and its influence on children. I think everybody would agree that there are some programms which children should not watch, like horrors, psychological horrors, films about disastres, erotical films and so on. These films are usually presented late at night, so this is not the main problem. The main problem is, that the violence has spread all over the TV programm, and in many cases we can find a lot of brutality and violence even in films for children. Some of these films, or even more cartoons, are simply based on presenting violence as a way of solving problems; and the children, who are not really able to distinguish strictly between fantasy and reality, absorb this message deeply and use violence in real life as the easiest way of getting out from a difficult situation .\nTelevision, like religion, can show the people some models of social behaviour and ways of solving difficult situations, but the main difference is that religion, in each of its various forms, was trying to show the way which was considered as right and just in the society, it was showing the good examples to be followed, and every misbehaviour or crime was punished. Religion had a great influence on people, but it was an influence in a good sense .\nI can not agree with Marx then, who said religion was the opium of the masses, because opium can never be good; but I agree that television is the opium like that, although it can never replace religion .\n" + }, + { + "title": "077_CZPU1011.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nDo feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good ? It is not easy to argue not. Women now complete half or more of the places in law and medical schools. The salary gap between men and women is disappearing fast. Women are gradually doing their way into the top ranks of business and public life. At\nhome, middle class fathers took cooperating with great enthusiasm. Public intolerance for violent, sexist behavior is widespread. Crimes against women are taken seriously and punished .\nSo what ' s to do next? A lot of .\nThe most stricking women ' s issue of today is the situation of single women and their children. Sixty per cent of them live below the poverty line. They have a big call on our social resources .\nThese women and children need several kinds of help. First, we have to make divorce to cost more for fathers and to cost less for mothers. Divorce usually lowers everyone's standard of living, but it hits mothers and children much harder. Fathers should be made to pay .\nThe current debate about who ought to pay taxes on child support money is a ' red herring'. The real issue is, that about 40 per cent of fathers pay irregularly or not at all. Many methods of enforcing compliance come to mind. Someone has to support the children : better the fathers than the taxpayers. And while we are at it, there is a need for a complete overhaul of the runious adversarial way in which custody and support issues are negotiated .\nSecond, single women have to be discouraged from having children. Several hundred thousand dollars on TV commercials tellin men, it is wrong to hit woman is being spent. One wishes it would spend the same amount telling young girls it is wrong to get pregnant. Children of never married mothers fare worse than children of divorce, because they stay poorer longer. It is time for feminists to admit that having a child without a husband is usually a recipe for poverty, and to acknowledge that a child's right for a decent standard of living is more important than a woman's right to choose how and when to be a mother. Issues of morality, double sexual standards and the responsibilities of men are all interesting, but out of point. The point is to help young women to avoid bad outcomes for themselves and their children .\nThird, there is a need for more accountability from the whole array of women's services - especially shelters and rape crisis centres - to ensure that they are actually helping their clients, instead of fighting destructive civil wars over strange issues of race and class. All money spent on racism training should be immediately diverted to help people in need. The money spent on racism training alone would probably fund another two or three women's shelters .\nFourth, reward of employers who are trying to create family-friendly workplaces should be encouraged and publicised. Experiments with flextime, telecommuting and family leaves are more important for women than all the sexual-harassment policies have been ever written. A business needn't be rich to try these things. It must be creative and thoughtful.now the profits are on, family policies are creeping back into the radar screen .\nFifth, do they need more women in positions of power and influance? The more there are, the more certain it is that women's and family issues will be aired. That is why women still need fund raising to make sure more women are elected to public office. That is why women should keep holding companies accountable for recruiting women into their boards and into senior managment .\nA few matters are not on this agenda. They include legislated affirmative action and pay-equity programs, zero-tolerance sexual harassment codes, universal day care, condemnation of new reproductive technologies, fight against pornography and few more. Women's groups have wasted much time and money on these issues, which are marginal for women's well-being and are being conected with bad and ideological baggage .\nThere were days when sensible women and men from all the spectrum of opinion and belief united for real, progressive and thoughtful work for change. Could it happen again ?\n" + }, + { + "title": "078_CZPU1012.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney is the root of all evil. Symbolicaly taken, yes it is .\nFirst we must define what money is and what it means to people It is a sibstitute for property. Money itself doesn ' t worth anything as well as gold and other precious materials. And property in fact ensures the life. And the desire to survive is the basic and strongest instinct of any being , including people. In adition to this , in the animals world the power is based on physical abilities, while in the human world the power depends on finantial possibilities, on the amount of wealth. It is an endless process, a circle in fact. People will do anything for money - it will give them power - power to make other people to do something - for money of course. And we are back again , because people will do anything for money .\nPeople are imprisoned in this circulation of money and there is no way out. People, who try to escape will just dig through into another cell. I mean the area of religion or education .\nTheir hierarchy of their qualities is shifted some way. It is different in many ways, some would say it is more derveloped, less primitive, but the basic function is the same. I. e. these prisoners also desire to be more powerfol than the rest is .\nHuman nature is to own things that will make their life easier and more pleasant. Looking at the problem from the historical view we can hardly find the breakpoint - the first use of money and it is even more difficult to date when the people in primitive societies started to diferentiate according to their wealth. the first properties were probably a female partner and a piece of land. these two basic possessions can be observed also in the animals world and they in fact are the basis of all fights. It is not correct to say t they are the root of all evil because it ¡is only natural law. But a few thousand years later there came different properties such as a shelter, a primitive weapon and finaly the most important thing - the fire. Fire is the first sign of civilisation plays an important role in the human society developement. The group who had lost their fire could hardly survive. And the desire to survive is the strongest instinct. Thats why here start the fights and here starts the evil. And because Man is thinking and developing creature he brought the evil to extraordinary perfectness. He invented money that can substitute any thing .\nSome would say that you can t buy love which is at least a subject of discussion. The only thing that is absolutely out of the power of money is time. People howewer rich they are, are getting old and they never can buy their youth again. Some would say that getting old, weak, the ilnesses etc. is evil that hasn't been caused by money and the statement wouldn't be true but the process of living and dying is only natural and we cannot consider it evil. Evil is just a product of human mind and activity - the wrong side of his inteligence. There cannot be evil among animals, what seems to be cruel and bad to us is never a product of selfishness, envy and hatred but only natural law of life and love of life as well .\nSo we can agree. Yes, money is really the root of all evil, it causes all fights and struggles. But on the other hand these are part of human charakteristics and the same power ( i. e. the desire to know, to own and to rule ) that causes all the evil is the engine of all progress and civilisation. And it will go forward whatever we want or do. So it is necessary to build up a system that would minimalise this evil .\n" + }, + { + "title": "079_CZUN1006.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title:: All armies should consist entirely of professional soldiers: there is no value in a system of military service \n\nI am a woman. I do not have to go to an army and spend there twelve months .\nTwelve months of doing nothing. You earn no money besides a few hundred crowns of soldiers'pay. If you have a family or some property like a flat that must be paid monthly than you have a problem. In our republic these problems are still not solved. I have a personal experience with it. I am 22 and my boyfriend serves in military service as same as many other boys of his age that have no serious reason why not to be there. He has a new flat. He could not allow regretting it because problems are not only in an army resort but also with housing shortage. His mother pays the rent. She is single and must support his younger brother that stills studies. Our government pays a half of the amount but what if his mother could not have been able to pay? Czech republic is preparing to enter NATO. Our army must answer certain requests. This requires money. Money that is needed in every resort and army is not the most important one. It appears in many regiments. This is why my boyfriend spends a useless year in his regiment. He is doing nothing there. He learns nothing new, nothing that will help him in case of an attack. In my opinion, a meaning of an army is to protect people and country that are attacked. Young men who are made to go to Czech military service are about 18 or 19 years old and they spend a year of their lives there and they are to learn a basic knowledge about weapons, strategy and about how to behave in critical situation. I want to believe that in most of the regiments it already works this way. In the regiment where my boyfriend serves it is still going the old way. Soldiers from this regiment are to keep guard over oil-tanks. They keep guarding and keep guarding and doing nothing else. I cannot help myself but I thing it is really a restless year. Nevertheless, I believe that in today's world it is necessary to have a professional army as same as a military service. People should know how to protect themselves and homes and families. Although you can object that in our times only one bomb can be enough to destroy everything and the only thing that remains is the hope. But I guess that it is always better to feel prepared. I did not think like that a few months ago. I believed is a safe place to live where people sometimes do fight but that these conflicts are so far from our country that they cannot influence our lives. Later on I found out that our Earth is a very small place where any step even the smallest one influences events that follow. Conflicts that take place ex-Yugoslavia, in Iraqi or between Israel and Palestine or in some African states are not that far. They are also our business. Since the time when I started to watch TV news more carefully I am still more and more afraid about what can happen. I feel like if people are standing on the edge and now they must decide which way to go. Fights, wars and other conflicts just waste time and the time are not inexhaustible. I think that solving these problems is a priority. Countries that are rich must try to help those poor ones that can be easy spoils for aggressive countries. That is why I think that at least men must be prepared because we must show that we are. able to protect our selves. I wish I were more optimistic. Even though I am not a religious person I believe in some higher power that is above us and follows us. We must help our selves alone. Our lives are in our hands .\n" + }, + { + "title": "080_CZUN1010.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nWhen television was born in the early 20 s, new era of life started to develop. At the beginning only rich people owned TV sets as it was very expensive. At that time broadcasting took only several hours a day, but it was enough for people who eagerly sat in front of \" telly\" and watched programmes which were presented. It was like a miracle for them to have TV at home because they knew the screen only from cinema. No matter if it was news programme or a film people watched the programme with enthusiasm and expectation. Gradually more people could afford a TV set. Those who were not still able to buy \" the miracle\" began to visit their friends to watch a programme. It obviously became a special event. As the technological progress continued, the broadcasting got longer and the programmes were better. Regardless the age, viewers looked forward to daily programmes. Everybody found his or her favourite programme. TV started with one or two channel broadcasting and later expanded the offer. That fact drew attention of more and more viewers and more TV sets were bought. Broadcasting in black and white changed into coloured, mono was replaced by stereo sound. At one time nearly every family had their own TV.\nIn the present time when satellite receiver and video player are used there are cases in which people become addicted to watching TV. They watch television right after they come from school or work and stop being interested in what they were before. In consequence of that people don t go to theatres, cinemas or other cultural and sport events so often. Real sportsmen become passive sportsmen. Significant time on TV is taken by commercials. It is very often a favourite talking point. People talk about funny, crazy or awkward advertisements. They even try to imitate them. On the other hand we should not forget to mention the good influence of watching TV but only if a viewer chooses a certain programme and watches for limited time. No doubt there are programmes which are educational and especially children can broaden their minds. Competitions are one of the most favourite programmes which reguest knowledge. Another popular programmes which are much appreciated by viewers of all ages are programmes about nature. Particularly people from towns are eager for that kind of production. News programmes have also much attention as the viewers learn about their country and the whole world. Sport events draw attention of men in particular. There is a very positive feature, thanks to science and technology, that enables to deaf people to watch TV. Special programmes are provided with subtitles or sign-language. Hopefully every viewer, even the serious one, is able to choose a programme, ranging from education, entertainment, films to music and sport, that will satisfy him. There is also a great number of TV series that people all around the world are crazy about and when the certain programme starts the fans leave other activity and stick around TV. On the other hand viewers are influenced by broadcasting in negative way it concerns especially the young generation. The worst are violent and brutal films which evoke similar behaviour and the youngsters become dangerous to their surroundings .\nAll in all, television is very important in our life. It depends if we will make use of it or will become slaves of that mass media .\n" + }, + { + "title": "081_DBAN1016.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nIn six months time the incredible student life will be over again for some people .\nThey will set foot in the real world and start working in the field of their studies, at least that is what they hope for .\nBut will these students find work immediately and will it be in the right field, meaning will they get a function according to their training?\nRecent statistics show that the unemployment figure in Belgium has dropped slightly, compared to A992-1993. This, however, does not mean that whenever a person graduates he is offered a job right a way. The tendency nowadays in Belfium is that the majority of gradautes have to wait for about six months before they are hired under the [Quotation] (a governmental initiative helping young people to find a job).\nIn many cases they are fired after six months and have to start all over again .\nThis of course is a very annoying situation, but what, to me, is even more annoying, is the fact that \"experience\" is always required .\nJust fold the newspaper open and take a look at job advertisements; you will rarely find an add where a person with no experience qualifies the prospect .\nMy question then is, \"how can a just graduated, fresh ex-student, have experience\"?\nLet us look at the translators/interpreting section for example. It seems that most colleges or universities for translators and interpreters are not familiar with the situation of apprenticeships, contrary to the hotelmanagement section, where students can go abroad for four months and work in hotels .\nFuture social workers and nurses also have to work in their branch for a certain period and are evaluated then .\nWould it not be better for all colleges and universities to introduce these apprenticeships, so that students are already aware of what they are getting into, instead of just throwing them to the wolves when they graduate?\nNow we have come to the issue of doing exams in order to pas. For some courses the situation of permanent evaluation already exists, but for most subjects you still have to take an exam .\nIs this a fair system?\nIn my opinion it is not, because you are evaluated on two or three questions taken from a book of maybe threehundred pages. If you are lucky you can answer these questions. If not, too bad, then you are nicely invited to take your exam again in September, even though you knew the rest of your book perfectly well .\nIn my opinion apprenticeships and permanent evaluation are the perfect solution; you are judged by experts in the field, who can keep an eye on you all day, whereas at college or university a professor has to spread his or her time over 20 students or more .\nThe conclusion we can only make is that universities and colleges really have to take action to reform these situations, not today but yesterday .\n" + }, + { + "title": "082_DBAN1017.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nThe latest years it has become very difficult to find a job. It is often even moredifficult to find a job if you have a university degree than if you have a lower one. Is this because most university degrees are theoretical and therefore do not prepare students enough for the real world?\nIt is true that people who are for example a plumber or a technician do not need a university diploma and they can often find a job after they have finished their secondary school. These people are indeed trained to practise a certain profession and most of the time they have to do a work placement during their training .\nPeople who have a university degree, on the other hand, have almost or no practise during their education, the only thing they have are a lot of books or courses they have to know by heart. Unfortunately, students at a university also do not do a work placement in their last year .\nI think it is a pity that most university education do not have a work placement for their students in their last year, but if that really is not possible, I think the students themselves shoud have to prepare for the real world. There are several ways to do so .\nIn the first place, the students can prepare by acquiring knowledge about all kinds of things. During their student days, they should read a lot of books, newspapers and magazines. That way they learn a lot about politics, economics, culture and so on. The school can not learn you all these things, but you need to have a general knowledge if you want to become a part of the real world .\nSecondly, the students should insert a work placement themselves. They can, for example, go studying at a university in another country for one year, take a course abroad for a month during the holidays or do a holiday job in a company. By doing a holiday job they learn what real life is all about, they get to know life in a company and moreover they earn some money .\nIn the third place, I think that students should not only learn their books and courses by heart because they have to know the material for the exams, but they should really try to see the importance of all the things they learn for later life. Unfortunately, some students keep studying only for the exams and do not see the importance of a general knowledge .\nTo conclude, I agree that university degrees are too theoretical and therefore they do not prepare students enough for the real world. But university degrees are not at all of little value if the students themselves complement their studies with some general knowledge, a course abroad or a vacation job. Besides, in my opinion, one of the characteristics of a university degree is that the people who have it are independent people, who are, with or without a lot of practical training, very ready for the real world .\n" + }, + { + "title": "083_DBAN1019.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nReligion is the opium for the masses. According to Feuerbach, humanity cannot find salvation unless religion is abolished. Marx did not share his opinion. He claimed religion to be the opium form the masses. If he had lived nowadays, he would have replaced religion by television .\nPeople have a need to be entertained. Religion used to be a form of entertainment, when belief was still strong and people went to church every day. Nowadays, television takes over this role. Instead of spending our evenings outdoors, we prefer to sit in front of our TV-set, switch off our brains and watch whatever programme we are offered. Therefore we could call television the babysitter for adults, and certainly for the elderly people. They often are lonely, but, like every human being, need some kind of conversation now and again. That is why they really need a TV-set .\nAnother obvious similarity between religion and television is the fact that they address us on the same level; namely that of a thirteen-year old kid. This may sound pretty rude, but it is true! If television stations raised their level, people would be unable to follow and would not longer pay attention to it. Television once again took over the part of religion: giving uncomplicated answers to complex questions. Everything men did not understand, used to be attributed to the gods. But men became smarter and found more logical answers to those matters that were not to be understood. Technology grew and created its own god; it was called television and it was invented for the same purpose as religion: to keep the mass stupid and tomake sure that people do not think .\nDuring the inquisition, too many innocents were killed because the catholic Church suspected them to be devil-worshipers. It was a time where everyone distrusted everyone, only because the Church wanted them to .\nTelevision has this very same, frightening power to manipulated people and to mobilize them. Just think of the images some years ago of the Ethiopian children. Suddenly, everyone was ready to give donations and to dedicate themselves to help the poor and the hungry. But now, at this very moment, the situation has not changed and still hundreds of people die in Ethiopia every day. Another example: Americans used tothink the Chinese were creepy little men, not to be trusted, evil, etc... But then television showed their very president Nixon shaking hands with Mao, and all of a sudden, the Chinese were very wise men with an ancient and important culture. This proves that TV can really influence people, whether it is good or bad, just like any religion .\nReligion reshapes reality the way it wants it to be. Who is stupid enough to believe that Jesus actually walked on the water, or fed hundreds of people with only five loaves of bread and two fish? Well, those converted to Catholicism could believe this because it says so in the Bible. Television too recasts reality. What impression of a report on famine remains, if it is interrupted every ten minutes by commercials that show us all the best food in the world. No one will believe in the end that famine is possible! All the important facts that can be transmitted become faint due to a permanent fragmentation of those very facts .\nIt is obvious that nowadays Marx would replace religion by television. All the similarities are there, and less people go to church, while more and more television sets are being sold. And why would one go to church, if he can, every Sunday morning, attend cabled Mass? Opium from the masses, remember?\n" + }, + { + "title": "084_DBAN1032.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nIn our society , religion used to be very important for the people. In the older days, almost everyone believed in God. God used to be their source of inspiration, their support. In those days, people were religious, not only because they really believe, but also because it was a moral tradition and obligation for them to believe in God. Otherwise they feared to be pointed at by their neighbours and friends .\nPeole went to church every Sunday. They used to pray a lot. For instance, when there was a thunderstorm, people prayed for the thunderstorm to go away. They also prayed before dinner to thank God for their meal .\nNowadays, those aspects are more or less gone. People do not go to church that often anymore. A lot of people want to believe that they are good christians. They baptize their children when born; they do their first and solemn communion; they marry in church; but actually you only see them twice a year in church: at Easter and with Christmas .\nTo come back to the aspect of marriage: when people got married in the older days, it was [Quotation] . So it was an important step in life. Nowadays, marriage is still important, but if it does not work out, people do not hesitate to get a divorce. Divorce is not such a taboo anymore. It seems as if you can get a divorce every day .\nOf course, in this essay, I deal with some aspects of christianity. I do not say that this phenomenon occurs in every religion. These days, you still have a few strong religions e.g. the Islam and Buddhism .\nIt is possible that the weakening of christianity can be attributed to evolution, and especially to the advent of the television. This medium has an enormous influence on people. It is like opium for the masses but in another way. This is not the case with television. The good thing about television is that it provides us information: documentaries,... but also things that happen around the world. So in fact, it replaces the radio. But, unfortunately, television also has a bad influence. On television, you can see a lot of violence. May be that is one of the reasons why violence has increased during the last years. Violence on television also has an influence on children. They want to imitate people on television because they are not aware of what is right or wrong. In this way accidents happen. I think that television replaces in one way or the other our religion. But this phenomenon is therefore not so good. Violence has always existed in our society but still it has increased a lot and I think that is partly due to the television .\n" + }, + { + "title": "085_DBAN2005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nIn this essay I would like to talk about the negative aspects of money. Money causes a lot of trouble in the world: robberies, envy, damage to the environment etc.. Also war and politics go together with money. Money is often considered as the key to all doors, but on the other hand we all know the saying: [Quotation] . Let's have a look on its role in society and the negative consequences .\nMoney plays an important role these days. Even children are already confronted with the value of money. When you ask a child what he or she wants to become when it's grown up, you often get the answer: \"rich\". The importance of money is taught at a very young age and it doesn't leave our mind. Money is also considered to be equal to power. Someone who is rich, is powerful and when you are poor, you have nothing to say. So then you have the problem of classdifferences: upper class with power and lower class with no power. Already in early ages we saw this phenomenon. Money has always been a problem and it always will be. This is a very materialistic world, people think in a very materialistic way and there is nothing you can do about it .\nBecause of this material world and the importance of money, new problems keep arising. First of all there is robbery .\nEveryday, if we have a look in the newspapers, we read about robbery: people who are violently being robbed, banks that get unwanted visitors who want all the money that doesn't belong to them, and also shops are confronted with this problem .\nSo why do people steal? Easy. Because they don't have any money and money is something you cannot live without. If you want to survive you need money. Of course not only poor people go stealing. A lot of people steal because they are envious or they get a kick by doing it .\nSecondly, there is the problem of drugs. We all know that it costs quite a lot of money to buy drugs. Not all the addicts can afford this, so the only solution is robbery. But that's not the only problem. Drugs have one meaning, namely the big chiefs who earn fortunes by selling it. They are only interested in one thing: making as much money as possible and they don't care about all the misery that goes along with it: addicted people, overdoses, family problems etc.. The mere thing they want is to get rich .\nAnother issue is the environment. Why is the existence of several animals threatened? Easy. Because of money of course. Take the example of the elephants. The only reason why they are slaughtered are the ivory tusks. Ivory is sold for enormous amounts of money. Another example are the seals that are beaten to death because of their fur, which is used for coats and such. Then there are the Japanese who are fervent whale catchers. They don't just eat the whale fish. Some stuff in their brains is used for cosmetics and also \"amber\" in their intestines, is very very expensive. If they keep on hunting, there'll probably be no whale to catch in a couple of years .\nBut they don't think about that. All these people don't care about the fact that they are destroying nature. They only look at the reward they will get for their efforts, namely - yes - money, lots of money .\nThere are a number of other areas in which money is involved. Think about kidnapping. Sometimes there's a whole affair involved in a kidnapping case, which is not meant for the public to know about. But the main point is again money, large amounts of money, like in the Anthony De Clerck affair .\nAlso politics (Agusta affair) and war have to do with this evil thing .\nSo I don't think you can come up with positive aspects of money. It's easy if you have it, you can buy whatever you want. If people are willing then third world coutries can be given food, material etrc. to survive. But most of these countries are in trouble because of a corrupt government. Look at Mobutu: his people were starving, but he preferred to build an expensive palace or bridge, rather than to feed his country .\nIn fact you can look at this as a circle: one thing causes another. There's nothing you can do about it, unfortunately. People will always want money. This idea maybe isn't so bad itself, but it is a pity we have to pay a price for it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "086_DBAN2006.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nA long time ago, a family, or even a whole village, gathered at night to spend their evenings together after a hard day's work. They made music and danced; they told stories and the children played games. When it got dark, everyone (or almost everyone) went to sleep to get a good night's rest before starting another day's work early in the morning. In the winter people didn't go out very much; they spent the evenings close to the fireside, the women knitting and sewing, the men smoking their pipes or carving a toy out of wood .\nWhen electric light was invented, people tended to stay at home more often and to stay up later. They took advantage of the fact that they could enjoy the light as long as they wanted. They still spent the evenings in family, but started doing other things: playing cards or other party games, reading a book or the paper if they could read, listening to the radio when that was invented, etc... People in the villages tended to spend less and less time in each other's company, and in the cities this situation was even worse (because cities are more often than not, less social than cosy little villages).\nWhen television was invented and the greater part of the population could afford it, it got to be a new and very easy way to entertain oneself: after a hard day's work in a factory or somewhere else, most people were too tired to do anything and it was very easy to just sit down, put your feet up and let someone turn on the telly .\nThat is when television industry started producing all kinds of series and shows that would go down easily and that don't ask for a lot of effort on the part of the public. This practice started in America (like many other things, good or bad, do) and spread around the world. And it continues up to this very day, except for the fact that it has all become even more sophisticated and less primitive in a lot of areas .\nAn incredible number of soap series, some more successful than others, have been created with the sole purpose of entertaining people. Some of these series are of a higher quality than oters, but these aren't always the most successful ones; they often don't last longer than one season .\nAlmost every single one of these series is based on the same ideas: a group of people, mostly a family, in a particular place, and a number of problems and intrigues, very often because of love affairs or money, that these people have to deal with .\nThe remarkable thing is that most people don't seem to get sick and tired of seeing the same things happening over and over again. But then again, most people love to stick their nose in other people's affairs, and that is exactly what they can do in those series .\nSoap series and game shows seem to appeal to all people all over the world. Even in Third World countries, where people hardly ahve any money, they often have a television set, even if only one for a whole village. And you can then see those people, gathered in a hut, very attentively watching ' Dallas' or ' Dynasty ' or another flashy, glamorous series that the country's television company could buy cheaply. It nevertheless seems a bit illogical and ironic that those people seem to be able to afford a television set and at the same time have got almost nothing to eat .\nIn short, nowadays many people spend their evenings in front of their television set, without talking(=communicating) at all. And if there still is someone who dares to comment upon something that happens on TV, he/she is told to 'shut up, I am trying to watch that film!'\nMarx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was still alive at the end of the twentieth century, he would probably change his opinion and say that now television is the opium of the masses .\n" + }, + { + "title": "087_DBAN2032.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nIn Belgium, we have to make a distinction between university and HOBU (higher education on academic level). The difference between these two is the HOBU is a bit more practical. Still, a lot of theory is taught to get a wide knowledge of the world. When you want to become an interpreter, for example, you go to HOBU. You have to make a lot of translations; this is the practical side. But you also get a lot of theoretical courses, for example, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, sociology... The problem today is, especially for university students, that they only have had theoretical courses. They have a big knowledge but they did not get on-the-job training. They do not know how to use their knowledge in practice .\nBut why is this such a big proglem?\nWell, nowadays, employers always want to engage someone with an adequate certificate. But more important is that the applicant has experience. He should have worked, for example, in the same kind of company before, or he should at least have done a work placement in the same branch .\nFor those who graduated as a teacher or those who have studied German or Ramance Philology it is not such a big problem because they are obliged to do a teaching practice .\nfor the others, on the other hand, who just graduated, it is very difficult to find a job. there is a lot of unemployment and people who are experienced, often older people, are favoured. That is why I think that university degrees are a bit useless . (but not at all of very little value). It is the experience that counts .\nWhat can we do about it?\nUniversities and colleges (HOBU) should give their students the possibility to do a work placement but only for those who are interested. It should not be obligatory. In that way the students could do that work placement and write a report about it. And maybe they could write a thesis about that term of probation. If they are looking for a job later, they would not have many problems because they have experience. It is even possible that they can stay with the company they have worked with. Besides, it would also be a good thing for companies because they do not have to pay these workforces. I think this would be a much better kind of instruction than writing a pure theoretical thesis. We must though not neglect theoretical instruction. Practice and theory should go side by side .\n" + }, + { + "title": "088_DBAN2033.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nHow sad but true this is! Money and power, science technology and economy, industrialisation and education are the things that really matter in our society. Nowadays dreaming and imagination are becoming more and more second-rate. Our priorities seem to have gone through some changes .\nPower, money, technology... are the criteria for 'success' in life and for just being heard and respected. Without success you are nothing in this society. what is striking is, that we seem to have forgotten what it means to be truly happy. We confuse success with happiness. No doubt happiness cannot possibly be obtained without dreams and imagination, without feelings and emotions. Nowadays everything is insensitive, cold, unfeeling..., which is a big problem in our society. There is this fight for survival, everybody on its own in the big bad world. Feelings are inconvenient, superfluous in all aspects of life. They are considered to be the ' things' that hold you back. This is especially the case in business, which is no doubt a dominant factor in our society . ' Business is business' has become a common notion. There is no place for compation, charity, the same way that there is no place for dreaming and imagination. It all boils down to making a profit, productivity, accomplishment .\nThere is also a lack of time for dreaming, imagination and plain creativity. Our days are carefully planned and more than filled (the rush of daily life). Sure, we still dream but almost only at night, unconscious of it. by the time we have woken up we have forgotten all about it. It does not interest us anymore, we have other things on our minds like work, school, appointments...money, money, money. People get caught in this mill of things and do not see any way out .\nImagination and dreaming are a form of freedom where natural boundaries are exceeded. In our imagination we bare our souls, either conscious or not, with its desires, fears and creative possibilities. Imaginaiton is an introspective tool. We are in a world then where our minds take a broad sweep, where it is not relevant whether or not something is realised, or if problems are solved or created. Imagination is also not something we can force upon ourselves. But it is a necessity for humans to be whole. It is one of the things that distinguishes us from other living creatures .\nThe negligence of the importance of dreaming and imagination is prevalent at all ages. Even toys nowadays do not leave much to imagination. The more complicated, artificial (supplied with technical devices) the better. Children do not really play anymore. They are no longer creative. They are handed these ' revolutionary ' toys or just put in front of the television in order to keep them busy. This is very passive without the development of the personality or the mind .\nPeople in general spend a considerable amount of time watching TV, which is at the expense of other leisure activities. It has also been proven that TV steals time which would otherwise have been spend on imagination. TV is an ' easy ' medium which requires little mental effort. This leads to a passive ' let you entertain me'-attitude which undermines the willingness to think something up ourselves. TV also undermines the ability to focus your attention on something for quite a long time, which is needed for imagination. TV leads to over-excitement, impulsive thinking, a reduction of attention and restless behaviour. This is also determined by the kind of programmes we watch . ' Kind ' programmes leave our imagination undisturbed. Programmes with much violence and action, however, are adverse on our imagination .\nIt is really a shame, that we seem to choose for a life without imagination or dreaming. Is happiness not to be found in our minds and hearts rather than in material things, our bank account...? Chateaubriand once said that true happiness is to be found in little things, that if it costs much it is not of the right kind. Our priorities and values in life have changed. We need scientific arguments, proof before we believe in something. We are all very much involved in trying to make something of our lives without really living, experiencing it. We do not seem to care about dreaming and imagination because we believe that it does not provide us with something. Or is this my ' imagination'?\n" + }, + { + "title": "089_DBAN2034.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nNowadays, it seems as if money is the most important thing on earth. A lot of people already have a full-time job, but they still go out working in the evenings. And all for one reason: money .\nPeople have become too materialistic anyway. I certainly have to admit that it can be handy to be rich: you can buy everything you want; washing machines, dishwashers, CD-players, video's, cars, or what so ever .\nBut if you ask me, money isn't the key to happiness at all. I think money offers you more dis - than advantages .\nIf you become rich, the danger exists that you become more and more egoïstic. But another problem is that rich people can become extremely powerful, especially because they can afford everything. An example of this was Saddam Houssein, the offender of the Gulf War. That man was so rich, that he even didn't know how much he possessed. But because of his large amounts of money, he was able to put pressure on the whole world and he was frightened by everybody. So, you see: money is the root of all evil .\nIt also has to be very difficult to have a relation, if you are rich. You always have to wonder whether your partner loves you or just your money. And who are your real friends? You always have to doubt about this sorts of things. Other persons may also have this problem, but money certainly makes things more complicated .\nRich people often want more and more money. They would do anything to become richer .\nTherefore, it doesn't have to surprise you that riche people can become criminals. they betray other people and even grow richer. I think it is very dreadful that a lot of people don't see the little but so beautiful things in life anymore. They don't see the flowers and the trees and the bees anymore. They are only occupied with themselves .\nAnd what's far more terrible, is that those rich people are respected by the others. They believe that those people have to know a lot, because they are that rich. Well, they are wrong. Cleverness doesn't have anything to do with money at all. Although those rich ones also know this, they often discriminate other people. Sometimes, they behave like they were God .\nSo far, I have described the rich people as egoïstic. But this certainly doesn't mean that this is a general statement .\nRich people, who want to share their money with others; people, who want to give money to charity funds or what so ever... Well, they are OK. You may have lots of money, as long as you stay simple, you're on the good way .\nBut I wouldn't like to be in the place of these people either. Having a lot of money also has its consequences .\nIt isn't the first time, a rich man is kidnapped. You also have to be more frightened on the street. Because people are able to see whether you are rich or not .\nFor all these reasons, I believe, it's much better to stay simple. If you ask me, you'll enjoy life much more!!!!!\n" + }, + { + "title": "090_DBAN2042.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nPeople who agree with this statement generally believe that the only board woment are fit for is the drain-board. Whereas others will get annoyed just reading the title. They argue that women have to be radical in their approach to become the equal of the men. We are getting there, yet maybe a little bit too slow .\nThis brings us to the question:\"What does feminism really stands for?\" the women's movement aspires to improve the position of the woman in the cultural, economic, social, and political field. Assuming naturally that women are considered less important than men. There were two feministic avalanches: On the one hand there was one that started at the end of the nineteenth century, and on the other hand a feministic avalanch began in the late sixties .\nThe ideology of the Women's Liberation Movement has three main tendencies: Firstly there is the reformative or \"civil rights\"-feminism. They strive for the granting of equal rights to women. In other words women emancipation .\nSecondly we have radical feminism or women's liberation, they want to do away with the standards, values and patterns of behaviour that continue to make women inferior to men. Finally there is also socialistic feminism. They aim at the liberation of women linked to the struggle against the inequality between the social classes. These three tendencies all strive after equality, liberation, emancipation, etc. on the cultural, economic, social and political area. The cultural position of the women has won more and more prestige the last few years. Painters, writers, actrices, singers, models, ..., they all obtained a certain Hollywood status. A lot of them are the symbols of emancipated and liberated women. they can even be considered to be superior where models (and other areas) are concerned .\nOn the contrary, the married women's social position in society has not changed much. Women are still doing the housework and taking care of the children, even though they may have a job. But unmarried and divorced women are now becoming more independed. Two tendencies can be noted: A lot of women want to have a career of some kind so that they get out once in a while and not be financially depended on their life partner. They still have to fight twice as hard to achieve the same goal than a man. Some men though choose to be houseman while their wifes go out to work. The above-mentioned is still a taboo that has to be broken. To conclude we can say that the social position is \"gradually\" improving .\nFinally, there is the women's political position. More and more women are interested in politics and want to go into politics. The last few years we have seen an increse in women politicians. Some parties see it as a new kind of political propaganda to put women in important positions, but they still form less than ten percent of all the politicians. So the increase in women politicians should be strongly encouraged .\nTo conclude, the Women's Liberation Movement strives for equal rights, liberation and emancipation. They not only want it in the social, economic, cultural field, but also in the political field. All women, even men, should devote themselves to this necessity. So that the the only board women are fit for is NOT the dran-board .\n" + }, + { + "title": "091_DBAN2050.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney, money; money... The keyword of our modern society. When you ask someone about his greatest dream he probably will answer you: [Quotation] . People attach great importance to material wealth. When they don't have all of this they think they're poor and that their life is meaningless. They are unhappy and unsatisfied. Manu people want to lead a life of luxury without doing a thing, they don't want to tire themselves out with working all day. They aren't motivated anymore to do their job .\nOne of the reasons people get divorced is that they spend all their money on beautiful, material things; they buy expensive clothes, they go on holiday, buy a new car,... And suddenly they realize that they don't have enough money to continue to live like that. They can not adapt to that more \"normal life\", they're unsatisfied and they leave each other .\nThree or four decades ago, people were pleased when they got a roof over their head and the opportunity to feed their children and themselves. They thanked God the war had come to an end. Little presents brought real happiness, real appreciation in to the house .\nNowadays, children aren't grateful anymore when they get heaps of expensive playthings like computer games, little cars remote control, doll's houses, Barbie yachts,...\nThe enormous desire for money has resulted in robbery and burglary. When they can't or won't pay for the thing they want, they just steal it. The terrifying thing is that not only poor, I mean very poor streetpeople steal but also the rich, who can afford it, don't think nothing of it. They just want more and more, they never have enough, whereas streetpeople have to steal in order to have something to eat. To some, stealing is an obsession; they can't stop it anymore .\nHow many haven't become bankrupt because of gambling in casinoes or fun-fairs? They too were addicted to money but it got them into a miserable life. Result: they enter the world of alcoholism and drugs .\nAnother shocking thing is that their doesn't seem to exist kindness among friends anymore. In the past, almost everybody was prepared to extend help for free to friends and relatives. It was normal, it obvious. This statement doesn't hold anymore. People see money everywhere. They hardly help each other .\nA final sad situation has to do with \"money business\" It very oftens happens today that people are bribed by others to obtain what that other really wants. What terrifies me is that judicial authorities are given thousands of Belgian franks to defend a case in favour of a person who, may be, is guilty of murder, of robbery or who has commited forgery. He goes free and will probably commit the same crime again .\nPeople aren't honest with each other. They lie, they cheat, they steal... And all this because of money, only for the image. As the saying goes: [Quotation] .\n" + }, + { + "title": "092_DBAN3017.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nIn this essay I seek to demonstrate that it is only thanks to several feminist movements in modern Western civilization that men and women have, at least theoretically, equal rights .\nFeminist or women's movements advocate same rights and chances for men and women. They try to change the present system to give women equality with men, especially in the cultural, economic and juridical areas .\nThese movements also want traditional role patterns to be broken down. in my opinion, many feminists grossly oversimplify these traditional role patterns when they reduce them to a matter of social convention. The difference between men and women is basically natural, it is not merely culturally, i.e. artificially, determined. In primitive life, man's natural superior strength provided protection to women, particularly while they were in the final stages of their pregnancy. This of course does not mean women are inferior to men. Political equality for every human being, man or woman, black or white, is desirable and necessary. In this context the concept \"gender\" is often used . \"Gender\" is the sex which nature has imposed upon us, it is unchangeable, we must accept it .\nThe problem is that women are often regarded as deviating from the male norm. It is only thanks to several great women and their accompanying movements that this norm is not as rigid anymore as it used to be. The first important feminist was the Romantic Mary Wollstonecraft, mother of Mary Shelley and author of ' A Vindication of the Rights of Woman'. Romanticism was a reaction against the preceding Enlightenment. An important idea of the Romantics was freedom of the individual, so freedom of the female individual as well .\nAt the beginning of the twentieth century, a group of women caused upheaval by chaining themselves to important buildings. These women called themselves ' Suffragettes': they fought for suffrage, i.e. the right to vote, for women. But the agitations did not have an immediate success. It was not until a few decades later their aim was achieved. Since then every grown-up woman has been able to vote .\nContemporary feminism developed from the postwar generation of the Sixties. From now on women occupy important positions in political, academic, cultural and economic business life. To exemplify this I only mention Margaret Thatcher, Simone de Beauvoir and Madonna .\nBut I do not want to give a rosy picture of how things really are. It is a fact that in everyday life men are still higher up on the social scale. For doing exactly the same job as their male colleagues, women often get paid less. The typical roles expected of women, such as staying home to take care of the children, are still taken for granted by many .\nI conclude that women are still not politically equal to men, in spite of the various movements fighting for this cause. But I fear equality for all people is utopian: there will always be some who think they are superior to others .\nI end with John Lennon's pun, being such an accurate rendering of reality: [Quotation] " + }, + { + "title": "093_DBAN3029.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nI must say that I never really agreed with Marx's pronouncement upon religion, but the new version is in my opinion undoubtedly true .\nParticularly commercial television companies are cramming us with the most ridiculous and irritating games, soaps and commercials. Ratings prevail over making good television, and companies that do want to make interesting programmes cannot cope with the competition and have to follow the line to survive .\nSome television companies broadcast 24 hours a day, so why would you go out and have a walk or some exercise if there's a good movie on TV, why would you go to a football match if you can follow it, live of course, on the little screen in front of you? Who cares if there isn't a live atmosphere in your living-room, if you have can have a better view on the game?\nAnd than there's this other little screen: the computer, which is maybe even worse. Children, from 6 years onwards, no longer play with Legosets or dolls, they prefer electric toys and of course a real computer with lots of games. Every toy manufacturer knows it is bad for the children's eyes and so, but all these little lights and sounds are so fascinating that children want it. Everything which requires a little imagination seems to be oppressed .\nIt's hard to find something that isn't done by computer nowadays, and it doesn't stop either. Some people already have the ' luxury ' of not having to go to their office to work. No, they can stay at home and do everything there on their own computer, which is connected with the main one in the office .\nSoon, even shopping will be possible by computer, you just order what you want to have by typing it on the screen, it is transmitted to the computer of the shop, and it's delivered within a few hours. To put it in other words: it seems to be that everything is done to keep everybody in his comfortable seat (all day, if possible), with the result that people become afraid of one another, they become apathetic zombies who adore their TVset in the way they used to adore a god (for which there isn't any time left anymore). Wouldn't all this be a perfect scenario for a sequel to George Orwell's \"1984\"? I really believe that this particular future image is what we're heading for if we continue in the way we're doing now. It wouldn't be that hard for an ' evil force', as it is called, to brainstorm people by means of what they see on television. I wonder what Marx would say if he would be alive ...\nA very little minority of people refuse to cooperate in all this by not buying a TV or a computer, simply on principle. I believe that one should have great respect for them. As a matter of fact they might be the only ones that are not (yet?) infected with one of the worst diseases of the 20th century .\n" + }, + { + "title": "094_DBAN3034.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nIt should be noted that one can be a feminist without feeling affinity for the wave of feminist ideas from the sixties upto now. In expressing their ideas through the years about equal rights for women, the feminists forgot the most important points: the basic principles and the basic differences between women and men. Feminists were so eager for result that they diregarded these basic points .\nThe basic principles of feminism, the things that are really important for women to achieve are equal wages for equal work, equal possibilities in education and upbringing and excellent crèches and nursery schools. As long as these principles have not been attained, time must not be wasted on other, less important things. But as this is hard, unpleasant and unrewarding work, women prefer to sit down and chat about how ' bad ' men are instead of working on these socio-economic injustices .\nWith many feminists one recognizes a certain intolerance for people not agreeing with their ideas. But, as said before, one can be a feminist without agreeing with the ideas of the mass of feminists. A lot of the present feminism is modern preaching of what is permitted and what is not. If some women stay home and look after the children rather than go out into the hard life of business, they should be able to. Isn't it the right of every man or woman to be what he or she wants to be? Feminism mustn't put pressure on women. The present tendency is that a woman should be ashamed of preferring to stay home. The pressure before feminism ( [Quotation] ) has now turned into a pressure the other way around .\nThis is not to say it was better before. The good thing about feminism is that it gives women the courage to have an own identity. They can have own lives now. A woman is no longer dependent on a man .\nThat women should be represented in parliament is in itself a good idea. But they shouldn't be forced into it. If there are few women in parliament now, it partly depends on the fact that they are not ready for it yet. They will get there eventually .\nIn a marriage the partners should give each other the freedom to have their own lives. For a man to give his wife this possibility, he does not need feminism. This freedom of choice should be the basic idea of marriage .\nIn this discussion the feminists forgot something else, the basic differences between women and men. In Dutch this is nicely expressed in the words [Quotation] and [Quotation] . [Quotation] relates to laws and wages etc. In that respect man and women are equal . [Quotation] has to do with the fact that men and women will never be the same. In this way men and women are not equal .\nThe conclusion is that women should be able to choose and decide what they like best. They shouldn't be obstructed in any way. And perhaps we should let men be able to choose too?\n" + }, + { + "title": "095_DBAN3037.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nOur society is said to be severely influenced by technology. Nowadays this influence is becoming so big that there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. This is mainly due to the fact that new technologies, such as virtual reality and interactive television, are being developped irresponsibly. With all this new technology, man does no longer have to think for himself, everything is done for him. You could say that these developments are all very good for mankind, but the problem is that man does no longer think, period .\nIn the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, people had to work so hard, just to keep themselves and their families alive, that there was no time left for dreaming or imagination. But then came technology, because of machines the work became much lighter, people could go on holiday once in a while and had plenty of time to fantasize and dream. In this respect technology has been a blessing for mankind. However this ' blessing ' has now taken on such proportions that for some people it becomes almost impossible to think and dream freely. Technology can be used to stimulate people, to make them form their own opinions, but all too often it is used to impose the opinions and convictions of the people who are in control, on people who are using the technology. From this viewpoint our world is beginning to resemble the worl that Orwell described in \"1984\", a society that is controlled by a few people who have all the means to manipulate other people in such a way that creativity and fantasy become impossible. If however our technology and media are used in a responsible, \"well thoughout\" manner, they will stimulate people to think, give them time to do something else than make money, so that free imagination and dreaming become possible .\nThere is a second danger connected with this technology. Nowadays it is becoming so strong that you can create your own personal reality with it (the so-called ' virtual reality ' technology). This means that people can create their private universe, in which they control everything, with a computer. This ' virtual reality ' gives so much power to fantasy and imagination that it can become very confusing. The user of this technology could take this fictive world for the real world and suffer a severe shock when he's brought back into the reality, and even worse, he could decide to live the most important part of his life in this ' fictive ' reality and live the life of a vegetable in our reality .\nIn short one could say that technology has certainly been a blessing for mankind. There should, however, be some control on it, too often man is abused by technology. It's high time to do something about the morbid growth of technology and to try and seek for a system that protects society and its members .\n" + }, + { + "title": "096_DBAN3042.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nIt has been said before that money is the root of all evil. Surely not all evil is due to money, but the far-reaching harm that is being done to individuals in our world has to be attributed to capitalism. The system has undoubtedly influenced human behaviour at the end of this millennium: capitalism has added greatly to the all encompassing paralysis of the world. This essay focuses not only on the influence of capitalism on the individual, but also on the artist and on art itself .\nIn the closing years of the 20th century the individual person finds himself surrounded by unnecessary misery and gross inequality. Our community does not take the individuals integrity into account. According to Ludien Goldman, a famous literary critic, it was the so-called new look capitalism that killed the intrinsic value of the individual. When at the beginning of this century the capital concentrated itself around a select number of entrepreneurs, the free trade turned into an economy of monopolies and trusts. In this new economic sustem, the individual had lost its central position. Unlike the 19th century liberalism, the new look capitalism did not allow individuals to take part in big business. As a result, passivity grew .\nConsumption is one of the key-words in the capitalists dictionary. People are urged in various ways to buy products that can improve their standard of living, so that after a while those redundant products become indispensable. Riches alone make no man happy, although we live in a world in which wealth seems to be the initial goal of life. Consequently, a lot of people are blinded by the considerations of career and personal profit .\nNow how does capitalism affect the artist? The artist, too, is an individual and for that reason has to be protected. He must be given full spatio-temporal freedom to exploit his creativity and genius in order to produce Art. The artist must keep his independency, although he is still part of a society - whether he likes it or not. This society however may not prevent him from expressing his thoughts freely and making hiw own choices .\nTheoretically, capitalism gives people this freedom to choose. I have to disagree with this definition. This is the kind of statement that implies that the homeless in e.g. New York City are somehow being homeless of their own volition. In the capitalist system, if you have no money, you have no choice, and capitalism defines freedom as choice .\nTo conclude this short essay, I'll briefly touch upon the capitalist view of the relationship between art and commerce. I will not discuss the contents of Art. The central simplicity of capitalism is that if something makes a profit then it must be good. This kind of reasoning may do when we talk about hamburgers, or refrigerators, but not when we discuss art. Hundreds of books have been written on the criterions for art, but it is sure that sales potential can never be the sole criterion for art. Therefore I say that capitalism is threatening Art .\n" + }, + { + "title": "097_DBAN3050.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nFeminism is the political belief that women should have the same rights, power and opportunities that men have. The women's movement wants to improve the situation of women in political, economic, social and cultural respects. In these fields women have always been discriminated against .\nBesides historical periods in which the position of women was relatively good, as in ancient Egypt and Rome, there were periods in which their situation was moderate or even bad, as in ancient Greece. During the Renaissance women led a comparitively good life and they were given a freer hand. From then on we see woman's position worsen .\nIn the eighteenth and nineteenth century the rich woman was forced to stay home doing really nothing, while the lower class woman had to work her fingers to the bone for little money. In this climate the first feminist protest was born .\nIf we compare the position of a woman in 1994 to that of her nineteenth century counterpart, we can conclude that feminists have already taken quite a step on the long way towards emancipation .\nToday the right to vote seems self-evident to us. If women were disfranchised (almost) everybody would scream blue murder. Nevertheless, suffrage for women is a relatively recent phenomenon. In Britain women were given the vote for the first time in 1928 and the Belgian women could enter their votes only after the Second World War. In America, which did not used to be renowned as particularly kind to blacks, black men could go to the polls before white women enjoyed that same right. And countries like Belgium and the United States claimed to be democracies ...\nIn spite of obtaining suffrage, women's contribution to the political life has stayed strikingly more modest than men's. Yet we can see an evolution in the good direction. More and more political parties try to have an equal number of male and female candidates on their lists. Also the number of elected women seems to be increasing .\nEmancipation of women needs more than changing laws. Feminists also react against behaviour patterns that continue the discrimination against women. They try to get rid of the steretoype of the woman as a mother, housewife and sex object .\nThe ideas of feminism are winning ground. Nowadays a lot of men take responsibility in the upbringing of the children and in the household .\nFeminists have done a lot of good to the cause of women. But when I see how women are ' abused ' in publicity for water, soap, aspirins, light products and cars for big fellows, I think there is still a long way to go .\n" + }, + { + "title": "098_DBAN3053.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nMany people have a very negative idea of the women's liberation movement and have a lot of prejudices against it. They imagine that feminists are egoistic, ugly, frustrated, lesbian women. And the thought that feminism has done more harm than good to the cause of women often comes to their minds. However, if it hadn't been for some strong women who enchained this emancipation movement, how would have been the women's situation today ? Would we have a right to vote? And what about going to university or having a job ? If we have a look at the feminist movement from its beginning until now, it becomes clear that many positive changes have taken place thanks to feminists. One should also keep in mind that the present feminist movement is not one coherent organisation. There are several groups, all having their own views, own theories and own goals. The media often focalises on the most striking groups, on those feminists who attract attention by their radical actions, actions that are not always approved of by everybody. In this way some people may have a one-sided and negative view on feminism .\nin the 19 th Century the first women's organisations arose. During this first period of feminism the women's liberation movement sought equal rights for women, regarding work, education and politics. The marriage articles ( a divorce was almost impossible at the time) and the laws concerning prostitution had to be altered. They also demanded information on contraception and of course a right to vote. In 1870 British wives got the right for property. In 1919 they were allowed to run for Parliament . Not until 1928 they got the right to vote, after a long strife of the suffragettes, Other countries followed this example .\nThis was just the beginning. In the 1960's a new sort of feminism showed up in the U.S.. A second period of feminism had dawned. From now on the women's liberation movement concentrated more on the women and less on political rights. The idea that women not only have to strife after the granting of equal rights ( women's emancipation but also after the abolition af the behaviour and thinking patterns that discriminated against women ( liberation ) gained more and more interest. These \"new\" feminists wanted to change the prevailing stereotypes of women as weak, passive and dependant individuals who are less rational and more emotional than men. Their goal was to obtain more freedom for women to work and an equal responsability for men and women in the houshold. They criticised the emphasis on women as objects of sexual desire in society. They wanted to broaden the selfawareness of women and the opportunities to the point of equality with men. Also the advancement of women's participation in political decision making and other areas of public life was important .\nThe U.S. declared 1975 as International Women's Year. Conscious-raising groups, women studies, pubs for women, houses for women, magazines for women ... originated. Things we consider now as self-evident. Still, the women's liberation movement meets a lot of resistance among men as well as women .\nThe diversity of the movement may cause some problems. All those different groups, all those disagreements and quarrels among feminists often make a bad impression on outsiders. It is difficult to put all these bits and pieces together. And of course not all parts are acceptable. On the other hand, because of the complexity of the women's situation today, it is perhaps not so bad that different groups try to handle tings in their own way. In general you could discern three groups (with fundamental differences): the middle-of-the-road feminists, the socialists and the radical feminists. The first group considers the structure of society as the oppressor of women. The social feminists mean that capitalism is the cause of the inequality. According to the third group, man is the oppressor, so women have to disengage themselves of the male society and they have to create a society of their own .\nWith this brief sketch of the development of the women's liberation movement and some of its achievements, I think that it is clear that some of the negative opinions on feminists are unfounded. Thanks to the feminist movement the women's place in society has approved. Many things (like the right to vote, magazines for women...) that we now find self-evident, didn't exist two centuries ago. The women's emancipation movement has done some great things but there is still a long way to go. We are unaware of the way in which some of our thoughts confirm the traditional patterns of men and women. The way in which we act and think has a lot to do with messages and examples we get from our birth on, unconscious. And it is difficult to change the unconscious things .\n" + }, + { + "title": "099_DBAN3065.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nSome people believe that university education is theoretical and therefore does not prepare students for the real world. In their view, the only knowledge universities give you is bookish knowledge, which you can hardly use in your future post. Hardly any attention is paid to the practical side of the education .\nTo a certain extent I agree with this-conviction. How many times do you find a company offering a job in an ad that doesn't ask for someone ' with experience's Not very often, I'm afraid. The reason why companies strongly insist on experienced people is probably that they have had bad experiences with newly graduated employees. I can easily imagine that companies prefer people with a lot of practical knowledge in their pockets. But where ever are students supposed to get those practical skills? In my opinion, university education is remiss in this respect .\nTo make these statements more concrete and to the point, I'll confine myself to philological trainings, like Germanic languages. Graduate teachers are not prepared for the hard world of education. They don't know how to quiet down a shouting and unruly class or which teaching method to use in order to get the best results. In short, they are not able to cope with certain practical problems. For no one has ever familiarized them with the practical side of the teaching job .\nToo many people think that a teacher's task is to walk into the classroom, give his lesson and leave the classroom again. But there is so much more to it than meets the eye! If there is no order in the classroom, it's really not easy to teach. In view of such a situation, I think that a course in pedagogics would be of use to any teacher-to-be, for teaching also involves ' upbringing'. A teacher helps a young person to grow into a balanced and independent adult .\nBut not only students of philology who want a future in education need practical skills. Those who go for journalism or economics could use these skills as well. Most graduates of philology have never studied any economics in their whole lives, whereas they really should have a notion of it if they want to work in a company .\nSeeing that students of philology go different ways after their education, I suggest the following adjustments of the university educational system. During the last year of any philological training, optional courses should be provided in education, journalism, economics, ... . Each student should decide for himself what his future plans are and select a course in accordance with those plans. Pedagogics, business economics, social skills, statistics and technical jargon should be some of the optional courses. In my view, it's extremely important that those courses should focus on practice. They should enable students to put their bookish theory into practice and to specialize in those things they will really need in their future jobs .\nThat way, university degrees will stand for high theoretical ànd practical knowledge .\nApparently universities are willing to do something about it. They want to introduce an extra teacher training year after philological trainings. But unfortunately the Minister of Education Luc Van den Bossche doesn't agree to this proposal. He is prepared to contribute his mite though, by offering the universities extra subsidy. It's a step in the right direction, but there is more to be done .\nComparing a university education with a secondary teacher training, lower level, you'll see a world of difference. Yet, students from university as well as from teachers' training college end up in the same boat when they choose for education! The difference: secondary teachers lower level are competent at writing on the blackboard, oral expression, preparing a lesson, ... . Moreover, they know everything about the educational system, which can't be said about university students .\nIn fine, universities could learn a lot from teachers' training colleges as far as the practical aspect is concerned. I think it would be a good thing to bring about a mixture of both types. As a consequence, some university studies might last a year longer, but that's the price we'll have to pay for a university degree with real value!\n" + }, + { + "title": "100_DBAN3073.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nIn our age we are used to it that everything is done for us, instead of by us. For everything we have some kind of machine, or we have someone else do it for us. It seems people have lost their imagination, their ingenuity. Is this really so ?\nArt, for instance, is a skill for which imagination is a central necessity. There are still lots of people going to art schools or performing some art or another. A lot of resourcefulness is definately required, because after 2000 years of civilisation it is very hard to be original, to become a bright star in the over-crowded sky. It's not only harder now than in former days , but also different, because the medium of art has changed ; not yet a century ago, people used to sit down and consume lots of poetry and prose, and now books are more or less replaced by television and movies, and in the near future we'll have interactive television and visual reality. A change of medium also requires a change in thinking. To make television programs, or to direct a movie involves a complete new kind of ingenuity. Because of new technologies, people are forced to invent new forms of art, they have to adapt. industrialisation gives new forms of imagination .\nIndustrialisation and resourcefulness also go together the other way around : without the dreams of some strange inventors, very handy discoveries would probably not have been made... Nowadays we can travel easily from one continent to another, but this wouldn't have been true if two brothers hadn't dreamed about flying like a bird in the sky. We wouldn't even have known America if in the 15th century someone didn't have a crazy idea to sail in another direction than usually! It is true that nowadays it seems that for every question there is a computer to answer it, and for every default a machine to fix it, but there are still far more unsolvable problems than ways to solve them. People will always search and search, and sometimes great discoveries will be made by pure scientific means only, but, there will always be dreaming inventors that from time to time find something very useful also .\nWe hear people complain that today's children don't know what imagination is anymore, because everything is ready-made . \" In former days children only got a box of building blocks, and they were able to make whole cities out of it, but then came Lego, which made it easier, and now you can buy complete prebuilt toy houses and cars\", older people say. Is this true ? Yes, it is. Does it mean that children's imagination is not stimulated anymore ? No, it doesn't. Children simply use their ingenuity in other fields. Instead of thinking about how to build a house, they will invent stories of people living in the houses. Give a six-year-old a game to play on the computer, and he will find out how to play it faster than any adult. Children's creativity and skill are not gone, they have simply shifted to another field .\nToday's world is ruled by technology, science and industry. Sometimes it seems these let no room for dreams and imagination, but if you look closer, these important parts of human life are still there, only in another form than before the age of television and computers .\n" + }, + { + "title": "101_FIAB1005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nThe feminist movement, the one we know today, began sometime in the 1960s, with women demanding their rights to jobs, political power, abortion and over all, the right to decide for themselves. They wanted to take women \"out of the kitchens and nurseries\", to the fields of life where they could make an impact. The feminists were regarded with suspicion by the general public, and disliked for their pushy way of doing things (demonstrations etc.) They were \"not feminine\", but still made themselves known as the feminists .\nThe feminists began a wave of sexual liberation and gave women a different status in society. What good there came out of it was that women lended their skills, talents, and intelligence to a world that much needed it, and the picture of women being stupid and uncapable of thinking was removed quite successfully. But on the way, lots of things were done wrongly. The view of the feminists as being slightly masculine, wearing trousers and heavy boots, changed radically in the eighties. Madonna and Cher came along as representatives for the \"new\" feminism - mini skirts and net stockings were the new power tools for these daring and outspoken women that no one stepped on who would not ruefully regret it later. The new prototype was that of an independent woman with her own career, with (or preferable without) children, with lots of affairs, (AIDS changed the trend in the mid-eighties) with lots of money and with lots of \"go\" in her. And of course she had to be stunningly beautiful and sexy, using all her wiles to get what she wanted, balancing successfully upon her black stiletto heels. This is largely the picture that has remained until this day .\nI really believe feminism has done more wrong than good to the women in our society. Equality is a good thing, as far as one can take it without intruding on the identity of the men. Women have had, and still have, a tremendous workload that can seem really unfair at times, and the men clearly need to realise that their help is needed in household chores, in raising the children etc. What I feel has gone wrong is that the \"new territory\" we have gained has left some of us worse off than before. Lots of unhappy children have left in the wake of working parents, lots of men have left their homes when they felt no longer needed, and many women have suffered stress and burn-outs without understanding why. Another thing I think is wrong is that the feminists have wanted to make feminists out of every woman. Those who chose not to work, chose to be home with the children, were regarded with contempt. Housewives are \"suppressed\", \"slaves to the men\", \"have no will of their own\". Though one of the aims of feminism seems to be \"liberation of the true self\" everyone had to be liberated the same way, otherwise it was not acceptable .\nFeminism has gone too far. The extremists use abortion as a contraceptive as acceptable as the Pill, and concepts of what is right and wrong is blurred by the vision of self-realisation at any cost. The new feminists are in many cases traitors of \"true\" feminism. The way to gain respect and equality is seldom to step on someone else, in this case the men and anyone else opposing the cause. That is, in my opinion, feminism today, and I am not exactly proud of it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "102_FIAB1007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \n [Quotation] . This is how a song by Abba starts. It was popular in the 70's and it is still somewhat played, but it could as well have been written in the 90's. For many rich people - and especially for them - money means everything .\nIt is really amazing how greedy rich people can become. Regarding how much money they already have, they have no qualified reason to want more. They have more money than they ever can spend. I quote Quintus Horatius Flaccus, because I think this quote fits perfectly in this connection: [Quotation] . At the same time homeless people try to find a shelter for the night and some leftover food from the garbage, so that they wouldn't starve to death. The contrast is so big that you can't even fully understand it. The life of the rich people is something that the poor and homeless only can dream of. However, the rich don't even know how many homeless there are and if they know, they don't care. They are only interested in themselves and their money and property. These are of course heavy generalisations, but unfortunately the truth about many wealthy people. Then there is this other group of rich people. In order to have a good image, they pretend that they really care. They donate great amounts of money to charity and suddenly they are great heroes. Of course their money is very welcome, but in fact they are nothing else but hypocrites. Frankly, I don't know which is worse. Not to care at all or to be a hypocrite .\nOf course it's natural that we need money in order to survive. Everything costs, nothing is free. But despite that money doesn't have to be the most important factor in one's life. I think the happiest people are those who have enough money, so they can live a normal life. In my opinion that's the way it also should be. And even if we self think that we have a little money, we always have more than the starving people in Bosnia or Africa. A couple marks from our wallet don't matter, but a couple marks for a starving child can mean everything .\nFinland has just gone through a heavy recession and we've slowly started to recover from it. You have to cut a little here and there and raise taxes and other payments. I don't think that the politicians really understand what it means to wonder how to pay the rent and get the money to the food and necessary clothes. Their salary is secured, so they don't have to worry about such things. For them money is self-evident. There are nearly half a million unemployed people in Finland at the moment. They have to manage somehow on the dole, which is nothing to cheer at. Last summer I worked at a bank. There you have to deal with big sums of money - other people's money, so your attitude towards the value of money changes. You kind of begin to respect the money in a different way than before .\nEven though money can be a powerful weapon, there are things which can't be bought and which shouldn't be bought. You can't measure love, health, family or friends in money. They are all above the value of money .\n" + }, + { + "title": "103_FIAB1009.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney is said to be the root of all evil. I agree, and I would like to add religion to that statement as well, but I will not. Money has become the centre of life to most people, perhaps it has always been that way. We have a tendency to make a distinction of rank, on the basis of how much money a person has. If a person is poor, he is considered to be a failure and lazy, but if he is rich, we admire that person because he has succeeded in life .\nHappiness is measured in money. Not at all, says the rich man, but who would listen to him. He has never had to cope without it. Instead of trying to think about what would really give us satisfaction in life, most people have their aim set at making as much money as they can .\nLet us have a look at what problems money has caused. First of all we have the developing countries that have been caught in a vicious cirkle. Many of the developing countries have been exploited by colonial powers. Instead of using the little arable land they have for growing food for their own people, they are growing coffeeplants, or the land is needed for cattle, those products are sold to industrial countries who are able to pay a very low price. For that little money the developing countries have to buy expensive food from the industrial countries, since they can not grow it themselves. Unless a developing country has a great natural resource, like oil or precious metals, it will be very difficult for it to get out of the cirkle .\nIf a developing country would, for instance find oil, it would not take long before it was dragged into war by its neighbour countries, and then of course the U.S.A would have to interfere, after all, we are talking about the black gold. People in developing countries are not able to get a good education, that would help them get away from the poverty .\nThe easiest and fastest way to make money is by becoming a criminal. Start dealing drugs, so what if it ruins peoples lives or kills them you will be rich. In order for the drugaddicts to get their money for drugs, they have to start committing crimes, and the cirkle is once again closing .\nDoes anybody know how much of our environment we have destroyed for a small profit? The development of car and heating fuels that are more harmless to the environment is slowed down by the big oilcompanies. Trees are made into paper, because we do not want to pay a bit more for recycled paper. How many people have been blackmailed, kidnapped or murdered this week, nobody knows. How many streetkids in Southamerica have been killed for their organs or had their eyes removed. These organs are sold on the blackmarket to the U.S.A. Makes one sick, does it not .\nThe russian mafia is crawling into Finland, are we able to stop it .\nIt is clear that money is the root of all evil, but there is nothing we can do about it. I have decided to become a teacher, because I enjoy working with people, and after the time as a poor student, ever a teacher's pay will be like a fortune .\n" + }, + { + "title": "104_FIAB1010.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nThe television is a rather new invention, but the fact is that it is rather difficult today to find a home that has no TV. Very quickly the television has won the hearts of the people, and many people are now so used to it that they could not even think about a life without it. The television has become an important part of out lives; both as an informant and as an entertainer, depending on which role we give it .\nIn some families the television has become the centre of the family. The only time when the members of the family are together is when they are watching TV. I think this is a very sad situation. People are afraid of discussing with each other because they are not used to discuss. It is sad when the children can't talk with their parents anymore. They could naturally talk with their friends, but when they are together with their friends they are also watching TV. Then they don't need to say so much; the television is talking for them .\nFor people who always are alone the television can become the only friend. It might be their only social connection to other people. They are not necessarily watching TV, but they keep the TV on to fill the room with voices. It is almost like someone was talking and they don't have to feel so lonely. The television can't replace another human being, but it can give a certain feeling of safety .\nSome people use the television as a babysitter. It is easy to place a child in front of the TV, where it mostly is sitting still since the moving pictures are fascinating it. This could be very dangerous. The TV is full of terrifying pictures that would frighten a child. I think a child may watch programmes for children, but it should always be together with a grown-up person, who is keeping an eye on the child and the TV.\nThe best quality of the television is that it is a great intermediary of information. I would not say that the TV gives objective information because somebody is always choosing the pictures that the TV shows. But the watcher gets at least a chance to see an event with his or her own eyes and can interpret it as he or she likes. The problem is that people tend to believe everything they see on television. They think everything that is said in the news, for example, is true. This means that the television gets a great power. Because of this naiveté of the people violent movies can have a devastating effect. People in the movies can take punches, no matter how hard they are, and people may think it reflects reality. I think a lot of the violence in real life comes from the fact that people believe too much in what they see on television .\nPeople are using the television in different ways; some are giving it a greater importance than others. I would say that people who assert that we are dependent on the television are not totally wrong. The television is very important for most of us. Nevertheless, I don't think it is so bad, as long as we remember that our relationships to other people are much more important than the television .\n" + }, + { + "title": "105_FIAB1054.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nIf Karl Marx were alive today, he probably would call television the opium of the masses. There are very good reasons for this, reasons that the average ' tube consumer ' would perhaps not think about. And the reason for not thinking lies in the medium: the television .\nThere is perhaps no other ethermedium today that is so effective a tool for manipulation of the human mind than is television. At least this is true in the Western world, where watching television is, most likely, the most popular form of leisure activity. The reasons for the popularity of television can in my opinion be sought in the simple fact that man is lazy above all other things. Man does not want to trouble his brain more than necessary. The television also satifies one of man's basic needs: his curiosity. Television is an excellent way of taking a peek at what other people are doing, and how. In the programmes that run on from night to night, the viewer can identify with the people and the lifestyles that he is offered, or, he can look down on what he sees and gain certain pleasure also from his negative feelings. It is no wonder that the tube is interesting. Because of this interest, somebody who wants to use television for propaganda purposes can be sure that he always has an audience, willing to take in whatever is on the menu .\nMarx would probably see the TV as the ultimate capitalist monster, at least when looking at the United States, where more money is spent on the medium than anywhere else. He would be very right, in the way that the capital really controls the medium and the messages that it relays to the masses. Air time costs a great deal of money, so it does not take much to come to the conclusion that the upper layers of society can control the airways. Television is also the tool of the market. An audiovisual advertisement is very effective, and the people working for the media industry know how to make one. It is of course true of all types of programmes that they have to be well made in order to get through with the desired impact, so certain demands are put on the machinery producing the programmes. If there is no extensive private media market, the broadcasting is usually a state enterprise. This is of course a danger in the way that it is very easy for the government to exercise censure .\nThere are also numerous positive aspects of television. It is a good medium of education, and a great carrier of important world events. The satellite era has brought almost unlimited possibilities with it. Unfortunately, it again a question of money. The television is an expensive medium, compared with for example the radio. The equipment that is needed is very costly for the broadcaster, not least because a huge transmitter network has to be built in order to reach out to the audience. The reason for this is the characteristics of the frequencies that are used. A TV receiver is also expensive compared with a radio, and because of this it is not suited for education projects et.c. in developing countries, where it really would fill an important function. On the other hand, it is quite evident that all the negative features of television would follow the positive .\nIf Marx would hold television as the opium of the 20th century, I would agree with him. The tube makes passive people who become more and more easy to manipulate as they carry on watching. But although I personally see television as something mainly negative, I would like to get the chance to remind mr. Marx that opium is used as a tranquilizer against pain. Maybe TV has a calming effect on its audience in these rough (?) times. At least we might be able to forget what kind of damage watching television does to us .\n" + }, + { + "title": "106_FIAB1056.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nTechnology and science are part of everyday life. As I wake up in the morning I am surrounded by strange things which have become self evident for me during the years. Only by pressing one button that colourful box on my desk pours out sounds and voices of people who I do not personally know. The same is happening with that one size bigger box standing on my table. There are persons staring at me from a screen, talking to me, telling me, in the same time, how brutal and sweet the world is that I am living in. In the next minute I'll get advice on how to make chocolate mousse or how to cook potatoes filled with mushroom cream. Suddenly I am surrounded by strangers. Is my imagination playing a trick on me? Am I dreaming or is this reality?\nDreaming and imagination in the modern world is a personal matter. No one can force you into dreaming or experiencing the wonderful or brutal world of imagination, or was it the world of reality? What you adapt from your surroundings is what you will experience. Reality, dreams and imagination are strongly connected with each other, they walk hand in hand in your mind. It will be your choice to pick out the one which you want to become a part of. Together with the world of dreams and imagination you will not be alone. Something or someone is always following you wherever you go. Memories are part of the world of dreaming. These memories have once been part of the world of reality. Your brains could be seen as a high technological computer which is able to select exactly the things which you want to bring up. But in order to find the right file in your brains you will need the right kind of stimuli. Personally, I'll only need the scent of a creamy cappuccino in order to open the \"file\" in my brains called \"The Summer of 1994\". Suddenly that \"file\" with its memories become real for me again. I have been given the opportunity to experience one summer that has already passed once more. And I know that I am lucky because I can open that special \"file\" whenever I want to for the rest of my life. Only the key needed for opening the file could change during the years - the key does not have to be that abstract one with the scent of a cappuccino but a concrete photo. However; what is important is the fact that I do not need help from science or high technological tools in order to dream and imagine in our modern world of today. But, on the other hand, I am able to receive help and some handy hints from the technological world of today as well...\nDo you still remember those screaming boxes which I was talking about earlier? They are actually called radio (the smaller one) and television (the one with the screen). They represent very concrete examples of tools which, in my opinion, are used in order to understand the technological and industrialized world of today. They can themselves be seen as examples of high tech, of development, of future and hope. Still, they give you an opportunity to dream and imagine. For instance, I only have to watch those beautiful Alpin landscapes which appear on the screen of my television in order to escape to another world - to a world of imagination. This technological tool gives me an opportunity, a choice - and only I can decide if I want to live in this, somewhat rough, modern technological world or in the world of dreams and imagination...\n" + }, + { + "title": "107_FIHE1001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nKarl Marx has said that religion was the opium of the masses. I assume that he meant the enormous effect religion has on people; they think that the one they believe in is the only right and are deaf to all other ones. For some people religion is the only thing that matters in this life and nothing else is worth thinking of. Through the ages people have fought and killed for their religion, a fact that again shows how mad and insensitive religion can make us. Not so long ago, I heard a suggestion that if Marx was alive today he would replace religion with television. In some respects this claim seems to be reasonable, but I do have to think twice before maintaining that television has replaced religion in the real life like in this sentence of Marx .\nIt is true that television has a great role in the life of an average human being; hurrying home after a workday to see The Bold And The Beautiful resembles quite shockingly the necessity of attending a church service regularly. And similarly to the way religion gives people hope of a better life television provides us with the means to escape from this sometimes too depressing world for a while. Formerly families used to read the Bible together, today it might be a wildlife TV-serial that gathers the family up. The Bible tells us what is right or wrong and television advertisements tell us what is the best detergent and how our hair becomes smooth and silky. Both religion and television dull and confuse our mind. Each religion explains things in a one and only possible way, there is no room for any own or other kind of thinking. Television, too, gives us very simple and one-sided views and ready and easy answers and doesn't encourage us to think independently. One more thing that is common to religion and television is the way they both twist our sense of reality. Some sects are appalling examples how religion can lead people to even such an extreme decision as a mass suicide, and I am sure that many youngsters don't realise that a kick in the head can be lethal although the heroes of TV-series never die of one or even get hurt .\nIndeed, there seems to be a lot in common between religion and television, and a phrase \"television is the opium of the masses\" sounds, at least to me, pretty accurate. And as it is a fact that nowadays religion is much less important than it used to be, could it, then, be that television has replaced it in the real life, too? No, I do not think so. Although both television and religion offer people a way to escape from the \"worldly\" pressures, resorting to religion is a much more conscious and acceptable choice than getting addicted to some stupid TV-series or drugs. I cannot think of anyone being proud of his/her devotion to the telly, but, as we all know, some religious fanatics are ready to kill or get killed for their faith. This is probably because of the notion most of us fortunately still have that there is always other human beings behind every television program, not some supernatural forces that could be compared to any religious, or ideological, power .\n" + }, + { + "title": "108_FIHE1008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nTo dream is human, and imagination is the one thing that has got us where we are today. To say that there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination in this brave modern world of ours is to say that we have reached the end of the line, that we have no place left to go. Human beings will always continue to momentarily gaze, eyes unfocused, into foggy nothingness or distant horizon, and dream. Actually, the advanced technology gives us a better change to this than anything ever before. TV, videos, computer games, to name just a few, are all tickets to imaginary worlds. Dreams for sale. And the book, the novel, is not dead either, quite the opposite in fact .\nDreaming and science are in symbiosis with each other. Without the former there could surely not be the latter. If the ancient Greeks had not dreamed about Icarus, would we have airplanes? If Columbus had not dreamed that there is land beyond the sunset, land to west of West, would anyone have found any reason to sail there? There will always be great soulful men with grand visions and dreams, and there will always be great men of science, who burn to prove that those visions and dreams are true or false. Men had visited the moon in their dreams thousands of times before it was actually done, and it has been dreamed thousands of times after that. Science fiction authors imagine unlikely futures, and to everybody's surprise the technology catches up, and afterwards those same writers, or the next generation, dream unlikely futures based upon the new discoveries. Of course, most of those dream futures stay just that, dreams, but few drive scientists into brilliant frenzies of creation, and the cycle goes on and on, to infinity. When William Gibson wrote his novel \"Neuromancer\" less than ten years ago, it was just another science fiction book. But today Virtual Reality, people being able to enter computer generated worlds via special helmets, is no longer just science fiction. Imagination is fuel to science, and vice versa .\nThough times change people continue to dream. Even the basic subject of dreams stays almost the same. Granted, we no longer entertain ourselves with imaginary stories about quarrelsome gods of Olympus, but even though faces and settings change the essence of the tales does not. Not that all those old heroes and divine beings are gone. They might have been through more than a few changes during the years but Thor and Morpheus, to name just two, still go on in their continuous monthly adventures in comic books, if no where else. And are monsterous terminator cyborgs and godlike artificial intelligences of today's science fiction, or Batman and the other caped crusaders of comic books, or the Bold and the Beautiful really all that different from wrathful gods, devious dragons, knights of the round table, or the creatures of Fairyland? Heaven and Hell might have changed into virtual reality but in the Theatre of Dreams of this modern era the tales of love, hate, lust, war, sacrifice, revenge and redemption are still going strong. In a way we are fortunate that we have such a rich mythological base, accumulated through ages, to draw upon. Dreams shift and change, merge and split, turn into something new, but they never really die or disappear without leaving at least faint echoes rippling through the waves of time. Vampires and werewolves might have changed their capes and canes into boots and leather jackets, and their hoods and jewellery into sunglasses and computer wiring, but they still haunt our imagination .\nImagination is what makes us human. We have lived without technology but never without dreams. It might even be that in distant, or not so distant, future science and technology reach the point where they have been taken beyond the understanding of the common man. We dreamed when we still thought that fire was magic, and we will dream when we think so again. Come what may, people will continue to dream. Imagination has taken as this far, and it will take us to wherever it is that we are going. As for that, my imagination tells me that to say that the sky is the limit is to be too modest .\n" + }, + { + "title": "109_FIHE1019.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \nOnce in a while I have heard people argue that the university degrees are theoretical and take too much distance from the real world with its practicies. The degrees are of very little value as a whole .\nAt first sight the argument does make some sense: it is the easiest and most conventional view to have as far as universities, degrees, values or education on the academic branch are conserned. So, there is an opinion to point out even though people would know nothing about the realities of the subject matter. There is no one thing that would suggest another type of attitude towards the argument: people can simply answer \"yes\" or \"no\" - whether they agree or not. The title includes only few words that should be strong enough to show the real nature of things on this special branch of the educational life - a life, which is used to theorizing and evaluating more than holding on opinions .\nOn the basis of the title argument it might be right to expect academic studies lead to an end where graduates more clearly find themselves professionals to be, at least, instead of being fed up with theories and values that would never do anywhere. There is no easy way to point out in solving problemacy of the academic education. What would be relevant or what would count as important are matters to solve for those more acquainted with the academic conventions .\nAs for the title, one important point for me might be trying to realize the meaning of the two sentences in the title and take different views on them .\nThe title argues that most degrees are theoretical . \"Most\" suggests that \"not all\" degrees are theoretical. If the title is changed so that not all university degrees are theoretical to the extreme, there would be a different way to handle the subject as a whole. The same method can be used for the other arguments in the title what is the real world to prepare for like and which are the values that would make the academic degrees less important .\nAs to the value argument, it would also be necessary to find out, what those unimportant university degrees with minor values would be .\nA university would not be a university without theories of a higher education and values of science: scientific thought and experimental practicies belong there. There are other institutions of the higher education with more practical forms of studying that prepare students for their working careers - if there will be any work to find in Finland or somewhere else .\nMany basic university degrees prepare students for educational work at the different levels of the Finnish school system. University degrees contain theoretical parts on subjects for the undergraduates to study and the graduates, then, to teach after qualification. Subjects to get acquainted with demand plenty of time and work in several years: there is no easy way out of the university for an academic student who will come back to the real world qualified with a degree .\nLeaving the university without a degree has been a real problem on branches of the higher education such as the Social Sciences and the Humanities .\nSomething is happening in the Finnish school - and educational system. Reforms are discussed throughout the educational system - also at the level of the higher education. Possibilities to study further are opened up for new groups of students and new, more practical, non-scientific forms of education preparing for professions and deepening knowledge on more practical branches have been started in recent years. Maybe this would make one real answer to the argument of the educational values as to the university degrees and the real world the students should live in .\n" + }, + { + "title": "110_FIHE1022.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \nThis is a claim that is often being made, especially by people who criticize the university system. I agree that university degrees are theoretical, but I think that it does not necessarily mean that they would be of little value in real life. Quite the contrary. I would like to argue that the concentration of theory is actually very useful and valuable, both for the individual and the society in general .\nThe way I see it, the less theoretical education, say, for example, vocational education, is no more successful in preparing students for \"the real life\" than the more theoretical university education is. The vocational training typically tells the student exactly what to do and how. It gives ready made solutions to problems, so the student who has completed vocational education has not usually learned how to deal with unexpected problems or situations. And as we know things seldom work out the way one expects, and we often find ourselves facing an unexpected problem. The university education, on the other hand, prepares students especially for these unexpected situations. University education encourages students to personal interpretation of situations and individual problem solving. It familiarizes students with different methods and theories, different perspectives and ways of solving problems. It demands the students to be more independent and requires more creativity from the students themselves, than the less theoretical education, and I see these abilities as very important in the real life .\nThe claim often goes that the vocational education is much better because it prepares students for their specific professions. Some things a university degree might not be able to give us. These might include such routine skills as correct telephone conduct, or how to repair a copy machine, that are needed in most jobs today. Instead of these mechanical skills the university education gives us something much more useful; it enhances our mental capacities and develops our creative problem solving abilities. And is thus, in my opinion, much more useful in the long run. When talking about employment we must also take into consideration the fact university degree is usually a requirement for the top posts, in which case university education is very useful indeed .\nIn addition to the benefits that university education has in securing high level employment, we must also look at its value to the individual in his private life. The university teaches us to understand various spectra of life more fully, whereas vocational education seldom has opportunities for this. The Finnish university degree in particular gives us both all-round education, and a deeper and more detailed understanding of one or two fields. When we study at university level we learn the know-how of collecting information, processing and analysing it. We learn how to theorize, and how to perceive larger structures behind the fractured information that is being poured to us. We are able to examine information critically, to question things and not accept them at face value. A person who has gone through the vocational education system does not have these tools at his use. Therefore he may sometimes feel that he the real life does not make any sense to him, and feelings of alienation might result from this .\nA further example of how university education prepares us for the real life, and how it is beneficial, is the fact that educated people tend to be more active in the society, by belonging to different organisations and voting actively. Due to their educational background these individuals realise their potential of making their voice heard, and that they really can influence decision making in the society. So university education is actually very valuable from the society's point of view as well, and not merely from the individual's .\n" + }, + { + "title": "111_FIHE1028.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \n\"How can gambling be wrong when you win this much?\" This was the embarrassed comment of a British clergyman to the press after he had won £214.000 on pools. In his charmingly honest confusion, this priest actually gave a down-to-earth expression to a problem which troubles many people throughout the civilized world: Is money the cause of all evil? Should one, at any cost, try to avoid possessing more money than is needed for one's daily bread and monthly rent?\nIndeed, it is often said that money is the root of all evil. In actual fact, however, this well-known phrase is a misquotation of the biblical verse in 1. Timothy 6:10 which calls the love of money the root of all evil. Regardless of what we think of the Christian Holy Scripture and its authority, most of us probably agree with the idea that money in itself is nothing but paper and metal; in other words, money as such is not a mysterious essence with a magic power of its own, but an instrument used and accepted in human beings' transactions for goods and services in most parts of the world. Money is merely a medium of exchange with the help of which we can purchase things in order to satisfy our needs and desires .\nHence, the crucial point is not money as such but our attitude towards it. This attitude, in turn, manifests itself, first, in the means which we are willing to use to get more money, and, secondly, in the ways in which we spend the money that we already have .\nTo simplify, one can say that there two kinds of ways to deal with money, namely, self-interested ways and disinterested ways. To make the matter a little more complicated, one might add that there are also different opinions as to which of these two courses is wiser to take. From the point of view of peace and balance in society, however, it seems readily apparent that it is reasonable, to say the least, to guarantee some kind of basic income for everyone. As the English writer Samuel Butler puts it: [Quotation] The question of self-interested and disinterested use of money is a tough one. In modern society, most us probably agree that everyone has the fundamental right to use their money to satisfy their basic needs. But even in the case of a statement as simple as this we run into difficulties. What are these \"basic needs\"? Food, clothes, accommodation and health care, certainly. But what kind of food? What kind of clothing? A flat or a house? A GP at a public health care centre or a specialized physician in a private hospital? And once we go beyond the word \"basic\", the difficulties become even greater. What can we buy for ourselves without going against our conscience, or against what should be our conscience? How much of our income are we supposed to give to charities - one percent, as the modern charity movement claims, or ten percent, as is commanded by the old Judaeo-Christian tradition?\nThere are no simple answers. We all must search for own solutions - and to be ready to modify them, when needed. In so doing, it is important to bear in mind that the responsibility for the decisions we make is ours alone. We cannot blame a faceless entity called \"money\" for the evil things which take place in our world. Money as such is neither good nor evil. It is us who use it for either good or evil ends .\n" + }, + { + "title": "112_FIJO1005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Is capital punishment different in kind from other sorts of judicial sanction? If it were shown to be effective in deterring crimes of certain sorts, would that justify its use? \n \nIn Fedor Dostoyevski's novel \"Crime and punishment\" the main character, Razkolnikov, gets his punishment for the crime he has done in two different ways: before he turns himself in and gets senteced to prison, he gets a mental punishment, his own conscience is so bad, that he gets mentally ill .\nOur culture, which is based on Christian religion, strongly believes in punishment. If the one, who has sinned, does not get his punishment in his earthly life, he will get it after his death. Justice will eventually be done. And justice is that the one, who is guilty, gets punished .\nThe society usually takes care of punishing criminals. The type and the degree of punishment depends on the crime that has been committed. What is considered as crime, and the degree of the crime depends on society. For example in China expressing an opinion might be so serious a crime, that it leads to a death sentence. In some states of the USA killing a person can lead to a death penalty: in Finland one can slaughter ten people, and get a \"life sentence\", which means twelve years of free accomodation on tax payers' expence .\nIn modern societies punishing criminals in various degrees is explained by society's obligation to protect its memebers. If one person threathens the life, peace, etc., and (especially) the capital of others, the society has an obligation to keep this person from harming the majority. Society either locks this person away for a while, to keep him from commiting more crimes, or puts him away permanently by executing him or sentencing him to prison for his life, or makes him pay in money for what he has done .\nPunishment is also meant to be an example for other possible criminals. An executed murderer will certainly not go on killing innocent people, exept in horror movies, but he will not learn anything either. The alternative to death sentence is a life sentence, an imprisonment for the whole life, not for twelve years like in our country, and it costs money - tax payers' money - and if the criminal will not get out of the prison alive, what is the use of keeping him alive: he will never be a useful member of the society, anyway. In case of a massmurderer I would not believe that he would learn, and become a useful member of society ever: if a person is a massmurderer, there is certainly something wrong in his mind. In my opinion, the society has no obligation to keep this kind of a nuisance alive .\nBy setting an example to the society by punishing the criminals, the state administers are doing the same what parents are doing, when they punish their children: teaching. Parents, in principal, punish their children in order to teach them so, that they will be able to manage in the society when they grow up. They are punished (in theory) when they do something that could harm them or the others. For a while ago I read in the newspaper, that a young boy had been heard to explain that if the alarmsticker is torn out from a toy in a shop, it is easier to carry the toy out of the shop, i.e. to steal it. The policeman who was interviewed here said that it sounded like the boy's parents had taught him that. This policeman suspected, and I am afraid that he might be right, that parents do not teach their children properly, what is right and wrong. Also they do not set a good examples for their children. But neither does the society to its members .\nUsing death penalty as an example to threaten possible criminals, the society is also sort of legalizing murder. If the society has the right to kill people, why would not an individual person have the same right?\nNo one can say, which punishment is justified. Which punishment is most suitable for a certain crime? What is a crime? Not one of the punishing systems that I know can guarantee an equal and fair punishment. Not one system can guarantee, that the person punished in some cases is actually the one who is guilty. There are many cases, which are not solved - and the criminal walks out. Also, it seems to me, the law is sometimes so complicated, that even if the person is proved guilty, he may get without a punishment .\nThe only really fair system of punishments seems to be the \"eye for an eye\"-system. At least the punishment, when given, is fair. Of course, findind the guilty remains to be a problem. Our society, as based on Christian religion, has taught its members to \"turn the other cheek\", and that is why we find this kind of punishing system cruel - it feels like a revenge .\n" + }, + { + "title": "113_FIJO1012.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Is capital punishment different in kind from other sorts of judicial sanction? If it were shown to be effective in deterring crimes of certain sorts, would that justify its use? \n \nFinnish law employes different punishments for people of various ages. I will focus on punishments for young criminals in my essay .\nAccording to Finnish law people under 21 years old of age are considered to be young offenders. They have always some sort of a special position when punishments are being ordered. They are divided further in three different groups: people under 15, 15-17 and 18-20 years old of age. The penal scale in these cases is very wide which is one reason for making it so unclear. It is not always perfectly clear which is the proper punishment in every case. There are three different alternativies that can be employed in young offender cases: do nothing, custidy measures or punishments .\nIn most cases the punishment is a conditional sentence. People under 18 years of age can not even be sentenced to unconditional imprisonment unless it is a matter of a very serious crime with heavy reasons. This has a purpose: conditional sentence is used to avoid the vicious circle of crimes and institutions, which often happens to a young person who has to go to prison .\nI think there are also many problems with conditional sentence. The young people who get it consider it often as a liberating sentence, because there is no need to go to prison. Another problem facing conditional sentence is the accumulation of sentences. If a young person gets many conditional sentences they lead to a very long imprisonment time once executed .\nChildren under 15 years old of age can not be delivered any kind of a sentence. Only measures regarding child welfare can be used. Older criminals take of course advantage of this. They have their crimes committed by younger ones who can not be thrown into jail. This is obviously one reason why crime among children under 15 years old has increased considerably recently. It might help if the age limit was lowered or the court could exercise discretion in each case .\nIf the court is given full free discretionary power it may cause unsecurity among people about their legal rights. People would no longer know what punishment they would get if they commit a crime. It would be also questionable whether punishment would be equally applied to all. If the court does not have clear regulations two persons committing the same crime could get two totally different punishments. The court might simply find the the other offender more pleasant or he/she could have the public's opinion on his side or he/she could be judges relative and so on .\nIt is easy to critisize regulations on punishments, but if there were not any, if the court had full free discretionary power, it would be even worse. Punishments could not be equally applied to all .\n" + }, + { + "title": "114_FIJO1024.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Is capital punishment different in kind from other sorts of judicial sanction? If it were shown to be effective in deterring crimes of certain sorts, would that justify its use? \n \nWhy have we invented punishments? What do we want to accomplish or prove by using them? These are rather simple questions to answer but they tend to become more complex when we think of fairness and equality in relation to punishments .\nThere are acts and violations of human rights that can not go unpunished. For instance, such an extreme crime as murder could not just be forgotten and the murderer left free. For the good of individual people criminals should be isolated from society if they can not behave according to common rules. But who is criminal? On what grounds do we judge that someone has broken the rules? According to dictionaries a criminal is someone who has committed an illegal action, that is broken the law society has legislated through government. The next question that comes up is how should we punish the criminals. And furthermore what would be the right punishment for each crime? Can we make generalisations or do we have to judge each case individually? Yes and no. Yes, we can say that certain crimes such as steeling or damaging someones property, where only material things are concerned, are minor crimes and the offenders can usually be punished according to the same pattern. No, in that sense that in more serious cases such as murder, where people are concerned, we need to think of the criminals as individuals with differences in behaviour, background, values and motives. We can not judge them all on grounds of one or two cases because that would be like saying we are all alike. In general the conclusion is that the punishment should be equivalent to the seriousness of the crime. So if a criminal has committed a murder he or she will have to get a more severe punishment than someone who has caused only material damage which can be compensated with money. At least according to Western values .\nThe next question we have to answer is what we want to show or prove by using punishments. The usual answer is that they have been invented to show that crime does not pay. Furthermore their purpose is to make us aware that certain things are not allowed in society and those who violate the rules will be punished. But they can also prevent crimes from happening because if we know enough of the circumstances under which a crime has been committed we learn to avoid those situations and more importantly solve them in a peaceful way. The function of punishment is also to show that crimes are not acceptable or that they can solve any problems. On the other hand the aim of punishments is to make the criminals obey the laws and show example to other's so that they will not follow the bad example and commit the same crime .\nBut what about the fairness question then? Let us consider a situation were a known athlete and an ordinary man both commit the same crime. Will they be punished in the same way and according to the same paragraph of law? Probably not. Since the jury consists of men and women, real people with opinions and prejudgements of things, they can not put their feelings aside and be objective knowing that the other accused is a celebrity of whom they have already formed an impression. On one hand our value system, background, upbringing all influence our decisions. On the other hand not even the legal system treats everyone the same. Those who have money are able to hire a high-paid lawyer who can perform better than those public defenders who have to struggle with overtime problems. This means that our equality in front of the law is dependent on our financial state. Furthermore there are also other factors that contribute to the inequality in the court of law. For instance if a particular case gets a lot of publicity the people concerned handling it, especially the judge, might be pressured into ruling according to public demands and in the same time neglecting individuals rights to fair trial. More importantly punishing someone should never cross the line of revenge because then it could never be applied fairly .\nThinking of the right punishment we should keep in mind that the criminals are also human beings and they should be given the chance to correct their errors and readjust into society if possible. Should not we be greatful even if one lost sheep could be reunited with the herd?\n" + }, + { + "title": "115_FIJO1037.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nSome people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. This is not the case; we can see results of people's imagination everywhere around us, and some of them, like the car or the telephone or the aphabet or the zipper are extremely important to us. The use of imagination is as necessary in scientific work as in creating art and it is also needed in everyday life .\nWithout imagination the world would stop since there would be no development or reforms. If people would not always have dreamt of a better world or an easier living there would not be all that highly developed science and technology today. Naturally dreams alone would not take us very far unless we are willing to take steps towards realizing them .\nHowever, imagination is important for us not only because we can use it to create new revolutionary theories or something more concrete but also because we can pass time and forget our worries for a while by daydreaming. Without that possibility for escape life could sometimes be unbearable .\nThe appreciation for imagination in our modern world can be seen most clearly in art. Every year representatives of different art forms are given well known awards like Oscars or the Nobel prize for literature. And the gigantic movie industry is a dream land in itself: it creates dreams for us. We do not need to dream ourselves if we do not want to and if we do, we are told what we should be dreaming of .\nMoney, love, sex, adventure - in the films we see the same elements that are present in most of our dreams. The heroes and heroines live in a world of many possibilities and happy coincidences. We can put ourselves in their position and there it is: a perfectly good dream in flashy colours without much effort. Millions of people share the same dreams of prehistoric adventures in Jurassic Park or of love that conquers all in some faraway country where they do not know words like poverty and depression .\nMovies and ads show us what to dream of today and tomorrow and what we could do (wear, eat, drink, listen to) to make those dreams come true. There are numbers of people who even make their living out of dreams; models, beauty queens, actors, writers and advertising artists, to mention some of them. And many people do not notice that they are living their lives in somebody else's dream .\nIn our dreams we reach for the stars and luckily there are people who are capable of making their, or other people's wildest dreams come true. Imagination is an inborn part of us and no matter how far science and technology will develop it will remain an important factor in our world until humans have been replaced by a more rational life form and there are different ways of making progress .\n" + }, + { + "title": "116_FIJY1005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nIt's really incredible if you think about the history of television. Fifty years ago it wasn't so common to have a television at home. Back then the radio was the only entertaining electronical apparatus you could find in a ordinary home. Since then the evolution has really made great progress. Nowadays you find at least one television in every house. There are coming more and more channels to choose between and some televisoncompanies broadcast twentyfour hours aday. There are different channels for news, sport and films. It would be interesting to know how many channels we have or what the televison looks like fifty years from now. The satellites have had a big part in the electronical evolution .\nWhen I was younger I used to wonder what people did in the evenings before the television was invented. Did they listen to the radio all night or what did they do ? I guess they spent much more time talking to eachother and doing things together. In a way I really envy them because nowadays the television takes up too much of our time. I totally agree with the statement that television has become the opium of the masses. But there are also many benefits with the television. You can for instance be transfered to other parts of the world just by stearing at the \"box\". Live broadcasts gives us direct information about all kinds of things. Besides giving us a continous flow of information the television also has many other functions in the modern society. It's for instance very relaxing after a long day at work or in school to turn on the TV and watch a film or some other program that interests you .\nThere has been a great deal of discussion about what you can or can't show in the television. Violence and sex are usually the main subjects in theese kinds of discussions. What worries us most is what effect theese kind of programs have on the children. I think we'll get the answers to the questions in the following decade, because more and more violence is shown on the television today. Children are also spending more and more of their time in front of the television. This is what worries me most. This could have serious effects on our childrens health. Much is really up to the parents, they must not let their children look at the TV all the time even if it's the easiest way to get \"rid\" of them .\nI think that the benefits of the television are many more than the drawbacks if it is used in a intelligent way. I couldn't even think about living without television. First thing in the morning I turn on the television to watch the news and every night I watch at least a couple of hours. Not so much here as at home though, because at home I have fourteen channels to choose between and here there are only three That's quite a difference but it's good because now I have the time to do my homework as well. The television is also good company if you live by yourself in a oneroom appartment. I have learned most of my english by watching Eurosport and MTV. If you don't forget to spend time with your friends and have other interests as well I don't think that television can have any bad effects on you. But in the future it could be like a drug because the directors and producers are getting more and more skilful and they know how to capture the audience. A good example of this is the bold and the beatiful. Especially in Finland there are lots of people who can't do anything else when the program is on. They can't speak with their friends on the phone and they can't plan anything else on that time. The bold and the beautiful has become a drug for a big part of the finish population. Immagine if there would be more than one program like this every evening. It makes me shiver just when I think about it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "117_FIJY1014.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \n\"Did you watch the Bold and the Beautiful yesterday?\" That is a very common question in today's Finland. You see, the Bold and the Beautiful is a very popular soap-opera - maybe even the most popular ever - in Finland. This is also a good example of how a conversation can be opened nowadays. Previously when people were strangers to each other or for some other reason did not know what to say, they started to talk about some very \"neutral\" things, for example the wheather. Now people more often talk about TV programmes, maybe because you actually cannot have an interesting conversation about the wheather and because everybody has at least some sort of opinionabout TV programmes. I personally have noticed that you can have serious discussions on a basis of a harmless TV show. Well, actually I have experienced one exception to this rule. It was when I met a person whose religion prohibits the watching of television. I did not know that and I asked him if he had seen some movie on TV the night before. Then he explained the situation to me and for some reason there was not an enthusiastic conversation but an awkward quietness which followed .\nIf we think about the effect which TV has on our lives more seriously, we have to admit that TV provides us with much more than just entertainment. Without TV we wouldn't know so much about other countries' affairs and the events of the world. Of course we would still have newspapers but to very many people TV is the most common way to get information. It's probably because it is much easier and quicker to watch the news from television than to read a newspaper. Of course it has to be admitted that - for various reasons - the news is not always compeletely objective or truthful. I'm not suggesting that news agencies are unreliable, but it is obvious that all events can't be fitted in the ten o'clock news and so it has to be chosen what to tell and what to leave out. And there are always several ways of telling things. By emphasizing some facts and ignoring others, people can get very different views about things. I don't consider it as dishonesty, but it is inevitable every time when information is being transferred .\nSo TV offers us \"light\" entertainment meaning soap-operas and things like that, information with the form of the news but in my opinion TV also gives us a lot of general knowledge about various things. I mean by that that it is assumed that you for instance know who Jack Nicholson is and that you know what kind of music Gun's'Roses plays, because you have seen them on MTV. Television and it's stars have rooted into our society and they have become so familiar to us that we may even say that we couldn't live without TV or wonder how people have been able to spend time without TV. To put it in a simple way: we just can't imagine our evenings without TV and it's loud noice. And I guess that most of us didn't even want to; we just are used to sitting in our sofas and watching some indifferent programmes we may not even like very much. But if somebody would try to break that habit, we would not know what else to do. We are a TV generation and we don't know other kind of life. Maybe we should start to learn or otherwise our children will depend on TV even more than we do .\n" + }, + { + "title": "118_FIJY1027.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \n [Quotation] ... and ABBA was right, they literally hit the nail on the head. Money is important, money is power. Of course there are some other things that are even more important, such as love or a true friendship, but I am sure everybody agrees that money definitely belongs to the most valuable things in peoples' lives. It is true, yes, money can cause also negative effects, for example greediness or jealousy but its' positive effects are much more powerful. Money talks, money is the key that fits in every door. When you have money you can do what ever you have dreamed about. You do not have to count every penny any longer, thinking whether you can or cannot afford your plans. Money gives you a possibility of a fuller and more secure life. In my opinion, money is not by any means the root of all evil - oh no, it is quite the opposite .\nWhen I still lived at home with my parents I never had any bigger problems with money. Food and living did not cost me anything, there were no bills for me to pay and I even got a little pocket money. It never ocurred to me how expensive it was to take care of only those most essential parts of living. I never realized that someday I am alone and counting every penny in order to survive. For four years now I have been on my own. At the age of 19 I left home and moved in together with my boyfriend. We are both students and the financial situation is not very good. But we will survive; thanks to our parents who are kind people and concerned about us. They give us some extra money every now and then when we have it tough. They are a great help to us and I wish that someday we could pay them back for what they have done to us. Even though we, my boyfriend and I, are already of age, they still want to help us. That is something one cannot forget .\nWe have tried everything so that we would not need to ask money from our parents - it is really embarrassing to beg for alms all the time. We have played Lotto and bought even some lottery tickets (how desperate!) but we have not ever, not even once, won anything... Perhaps we just were not born under a lucky star. We do not work because there are no jobs available, the taxes are too high and there is no time because of the studies. Sometimes I have caught myself dreaming about someday being rich, wondering what I could do if I had so much money I could do whatever I wanted. Well, I would buy beautiful clothes, a nice house with pane windows and three collie-dogs, one of each colour... I would travel in various countries and enjoy life. Is that too much asked? I would love a life without constant worries about money and especially the lack of it. When I finally wake up from my dreams I suddenly realize that that \"someday\" of my dreams is not here yet. Today is today and I am still a poor student .\nBut I will go on living and trusting in the future. I will study hard and finally somehow deserve my well-being. To be a student is not easy for anybody in today's Finland. Financial aid given for the students is not much and it is horrible to take a loan in these days. The future is unsecure and frightening because the unemployment rates have been raising all the way through under the past few years. But we cannot give up - I am definitely not going to give up. Instead I am going to get myself a proper profession and to get along... maybe even be rich! These years of counting pennies have given me strenght and willpower to fight for certain goals and to prove myself that hard work and strong will, if nothing else, can make my life better and bring well-being and riches - and of course a possibility to have my three beautiful collie-dogs...\n" + }, + { + "title": "119_FIJY1030.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nThousands of years ago there was an ancient man who needed something he could not get or gain alone. So he went searching, searching for another man who could possibly have that something. When he finally found him, it appeared that this particular man missed something, too, something that the first man had more than he needed. That was an evident bargain. They changed, they bartered, and both could now have all the things they needed to survive .\nThat is how bartering possibly may have begun. Somewhere, someone had got something; and somewhere else, a few miles away, someone else had got something else . \"You take a sackful of this if I can have a sackful of that.\" And the both agreed. The first problem those ancient men probably faced was: \"What about if what I have and the other fellow needs is scantier and more valuable, far rarer than the stuff the other fellow has and I need? I should definitely have more, maybe double the amount than the other fellow. I take two sackfuls of your thing, you will only get one sackful of mine.\"\nSometimes it was easy and fair. Both agreed and were happy. But sooner or later they faced difficulties. They must have disagreed on the bartering conditions at some point. And then they had to invent a tool, a means of trading. First the means might have been skins of animals, then valuable metals like gold, then special pieces of gold which later developed to round coins, then paper with different symbols indicating its value and, finally, data signals controlled by plastic cards and computer systems .\nDefinitely the development of trading means has made trading a great deal easier. But what else has the introduction of money brought with it? From the very beginning, when it was determined and commonly adopted that silver and gold would be of value and a measure of richness, there have been people who have gathered them and become devoted to gathering them. And then the ever-growing passion for wealth spread along with the growing civilization and began to touch every corner of the world. And no good can be expected when money becomes a drug, an obsession, where always more and more has to be gained. Life becomes easier, but only materially easier when one has got a lot of money. One does not have to care about his subsistence or survival. Who would not like to lead an easy life without serious material concern?\nAnd man, in his greed, was very cunning, too. He created a ruling and controlling system; he created a pecking order where the richest men control those who are not as rich while they together master \"average folk\" who, joining the richer ones, control together poor people who still have the opportunity to trample on even poorer people - the poorest of all. Those who are rich have got the power to master and make decisions and, after all, they get more wealth. More wealth brings more power, more power brings even more wealth, and so on. The continuing vicious circle (vicious to the poor and the idealists only) is ready. The table is set, the money meal is served for the rich. The oppression may begin .\nThis principle of the connection between money and power has been applied successfully many times during the history of mankind. A good example is the colonialism of European countries in the last centuries. Already more civilized, industrialized and technically developed Europeans who had moderately high standard of living, had got the power and could easily conquer land in Africa and South America. There people used to lead a simple life and could not resist. Soon were the whole two continents divided between conquerers. The result was that the rich got more and the poor were left with even less that they used to have .\nThis story can be told again and again and it happens all the time in different disguises. Greed for money has been the source of many bad acts and the reason for many sad things that have happened. But so have power, might, war, organized religion and many other kinds of addictions as well. And none of them shows itself alone : all are connected in a way. And every coin has the other side, too .\n" + }, + { + "title": "120_FIJY1043.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nWhen people think about feminism, they usually consider it as an ideology based on the thought about the cause of women. But what exactly does the term cause of women mean? Is it the principle of ordinary women striving for the equality of the sexes or that of ardent feminists who would like to dominate the whole world and men? It is definitely not easy to answer this question, because there are various opinious about what the cause of women really is. It seems that also the word feminism has many meanings in our society. The original meaning probably is the one that defines feminism as an activity aiming at equal rights and chances for men and women. However, the complexity of those two concepts often leads to misunderstandings .\nOn second thoughts, it is true that when you hear or see the word feminism, you immediately know that it has something to do with the female sex. This is a simple fact known to everybody, but has anyone ever wondered why this movement striving for equality has a name that totally excludes the opposite sex? A man can't be a feminist. The movement is not called the equality movement but the feminist movement, for women only. Thus, the name divides people into male and female. That is why it is often thought that the whole ideology is against men, which means that it can't be for equality. Feminists are regarded as women having a dislike of men, which on no account is a good thing for their reputation .\nIt must be admitted that there is a natural division into men and women that we just have to accept. This physiological and, above all, psychological difference is purely positive - without it the relationships between men and women would be pretty boring... Our bodies are different, we think in slightly different ways, etc. Unfortunately, the fact that this difference exists has always made one of the sexes think that it is entitled to oppress and dominate the opposite one. In the history of the world men have usually been the dominators, for the simple reason that they are stronger. Though there are some primitive cultures led by women, they are only exceptions to the rule. Nowadays, the situation is changing. The change started in the 1960's and it has been a fast one. At that time, there was a sexual revolution going on in the western society. People no longer appreciated the old, conservative values that were full of references to religion. All that made it easier for the feminist movement to find support especially among young women. In a way, the emphasis was on sexuality, which affected the so-called feminist issues. Abortion became the hot issue. This changed the reputation of feminists. Earlier there had been demands for the right to vote, which had been attained. Women became militant and war broke out between the sexes. Feminists called each other sisters and some groups of women even lived together. Such intimacy made people consider them all as lesbians. Furthermore, those women started acting like men - burning their bras was a symbol of this change in their lifestyle. These were not the most brilliant feminist ideas, but they still influence the way people think. The characteristics of a feminist date back to 1960's: she is considered as an angry old maid who looks like a man .\nToday, many women refuse to say they are feminists, because people have such negative attitudes towards them. Contrary to what might be thought, lots of women start to abandon this movement that should support women's rights. And yet they want equal pay, a right to education and work just like feminists. At the same time, the \"real\" feminists start to accuse those women of being stupid victims of men. There has to be something wrong with the whole movement. It has achieved lots of important goals that make women's situation better, but it also has had some harmful effects on the cause of women. The barrier between the sexes is still getting stronger even though people struggle for equality. Who is to blame? Men? Feminists? Non-feminists? Probably all of them. So why not try and solve our problems together without thinking so much about feminism, chauvinism or any other ideologies? It may be difficult, but it certainly is worth trying .\n" + }, + { + "title": "121_FIJY1047.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \n\"Money is the root of all evil\" is an old saying, as well as \"money does not make you happy\". To some extent both of these arguments are true. Most people have always wished to be rich or are longing to have more money. Nobody seems to be happy with what they have already got .\nEvery week millions of people all over the world spend enormous amounts of money on betting, gambling, lotteries, Lotto and other games of chanche wishing to win a lot of money. But in fact more people have lost money on gambling than anyone has ever won .\nThis is one way of getting some excitement to your life. Many people enjoy thinking of what they would do, if they won. There is always the possibility to win, someone will sooner or later. It is quite all right to spend some money on Lotto and other games as far as it is not away from other more important needs .\nThere are many sad stories about gamblers, who have lost all their properties, when they have not been able to stop gambling in time. They have been overwhelmed by the urge to win. Gambling can turn into a sickness, which is difficult to be cured of. There are old pensioners who spend all their money on pinball and slot machines. There machines are thougt to be quite harmless but people can also get hooked to these .\nTo some people money and property have become so important that they are the main purposes in their lives. To use money and to enjoy the possibilities money could give are of no importance to them. They are like Uncle Scrooge, they just worry about their fortune and spend their time trying to get richer and richer. Rich people can also be really stingy. It gives them satisfaction if they manage to buy something cheep. On the other hand it can make them almost sick if they have to give out money .\nGreed and jealousy have caused a lot of unhappiness. It is difficult to share your money or property with other people. Family members have turned to be enemies or have broken all contacts with each other because of quarrels about the inheritance .\nThere are also stories about Lotto winners whose lives have been distroyed because they have not been able to live a normal life after having got rich .\nIt is sure that richness or money alone do not bring happiness, but living in poverty does not make people better either. The fact that you have money makes your life easier. There will be many more opportunities in life if you have money. You are more free to make your own decissions. You will be able to educate your children, you can choose where to live and you have better possibilities to plan how to use your time .\nMoney does not have to be the root of all evil, it can give you your freedom and make your life easier. You just have to decide what you want to do and not let the money rule over you .\n" + }, + { + "title": "122_FIJY1050.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \n [Quotation] \n [Quotation] \nNewspaper advertisements like these one can read almost in every newspaper or magazine. Why people with university degrees seek for job through newsadvertisements? There can be, of course many kinds of answers ranging from the point of view that university degrees are out of date to a conclusion that degrees are too theoretical not preparing students for the real life. One believes or has own experiences that degree does not answer the vocational demands .\nWhen one thinks about the validity of the university degrees, one has to take into account many different needs: those of the society, science itself, post-graduate system, internationalization or to some extent student's own expectations. Today money plays the most important role in the field of (higher) education. It influences straight to the content of studies and the mode of courses. State funds had been greatly cut down in recent years and one sees no brighter future ahead. Cutting down the funds affect also on an ordinary student's daily studying life or style. The longitudity of studying has been limited to five years, the size of the groups is bigger, a lot of handouts to be read home(instead of workshops and interactive teaching - this does not mean that students are afraid of hard work). Savings jeopardize academic values and results .\nIt is clear that rapid changes in society, for example technological development, changes in working environment and greater need for international interaction demand a new way of thinking. One often hears many students to say: \"Where an earth do I need this in real life?\", \"I do not know what to do with this course - it is pure theory.\" or \"Oh, I am not going to enroll in this course. I think I do not understand a single word of it.\" Sometimes after a summer holiday one can hear students talking about their summer jobs . \"I worked in this trading company, there were no use for my studies.\" or \"Why do I study, becuse my studies did not help me at all in work!\" It might seem that student's, university's and society's needs never meet each other. As one knows students are different kinds of people with different kinds of demands and everybody's demands can not be directly satisfied, although education is more and more based on individual choices despite of the savings .\nOne often forgets that everyday life's phenomena are mostly based on theories which come to life only with the touch of reality. According to my own experiences I do not agreee with the title that university degrees are too theoretical. All right, I have to admit that sometimes during my early university years I thought what an earth do I need this course for? But first stroke came when I was studying and working abroad. In everyday situations I noticed that I needed also theoretical knowledge. The more I learned, the more I needed theories to explain problems and give a solid foundation to things. And the most important thing which I realized was that the more I knew the more I was expected to know. Anyway theory/ies helped me to understand many language problems in practice and vise verca , in practical situations theory came to life and more understandable. Theories help to predict future and better to understand rapid changes. And therefore in my opinion university degrees are not too theoretical. I think that today's university degrees give a background and a fundament. And with the help of the degree everybody somehow manages in different working situations. Everybody has a possibility to deepen one's knowledge by oneself or apply, for example for post-graduate studies. Holly Carter has said somehow like this: \"The two things parents have to give for their children are roots and wings.\" I think this holds true also for university studies .\n" + }, + { + "title": "123_FIJY1054.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nThe sound music of the american soap opera \"The Bold and the Beautiful\" starts and there is a quiet hour for otherwise so busy cashiers of the supermarkets. It's amazing how popular the series have become, not only in Finland but also in many other European countries .\nThe biggest part of the viewers of \"The Bold and the Beautiful\" consist of women: housewives, pensioners, \"carrier women\", teenagers, students, everybody watches it. Men as well, even though they don't easily admit it publicly. Some people even forbade their friends of calling them during their watching which has become a daily routine, others name their pets after the favourite characters .\n\"The Bold and the Beautiful\" has obviously been made cheaply and not all the actors and actresses are particularly talented, which doesn't seem to worry the faithful audience at all. There are without doubt hundreds of series like that in the world and the question is what makes us watch such rubbish?\nEverybody knows that the economical situation in Europe is bad. There are in Finland 500 000 unemployed people, the population being 5 million this is quite a figure. People feel uncertain and are worried about the future. Everybody needs dreams and TV provides a safe way to escape from reality .\nThere has been a lot of discussion and debates about television's effects on rising crime rates recently. It has been claimed that people adapt violent behaviour models from TV. I think this is not the whole truth; a normal person doesn't go out and start shooting passers-by after watching some action film unless he or she suffers from a serious mental disorder. TV alone can't be responsible for such behaviour .\nNo matter how controversial sosiologists', psychologists' and other experts' statements about televisions harmful influence on people and especially on children may be, there are only few among them who are not ready to admit that watching TV can also be extremely useful and educational. Language students for example, can greatly benefit from watching foreign films and programmes that international television channels broadcast. Television is the only one of the mass media that is able to transmit information in such a colourful and lively way. Not everybody can afford to travel around the world but through the agency of television we can dive in the oceans, take part in safaris in Africa, not to mention moon trips. During Olympic Games and other important sports events livingrooms often change into an auditorium, which may cause disagreement in many families...\nRecently a famous french singer Patricia Kaas gave a concert in Helsinki. Many disappointed admirers didn't get a ticket and to comfort those who left outside the star sang a couple of songs in television .\nWhat ever our opinion of television and the quality of programmes is, it is good to remember that the tiny button that enables us to choose what to watch and when to watch exists. The old truth that a machine is a good servant but a lousy master goes with a television too .\n" + }, + { + "title": "124_FIJY1055.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney is definitely the root of all evil. I believe that at least 96 % of all the people in the world are not satisfied with the amount of money that they possess. And because earning more money by honest work is too slow and the amount of money you get that way is too small, more and more people resort to dishonest action. But this is only one half of the story, for not only does the yearning for more money cause much physical harm, it also brings along great emotional pain .\nPerhaps the most harmful thing about money is the fact that you can never have it enough. No matter how rich you already are, you will always want more, always. You can never just relax and enjoy your money. How sad and torturing it is to live your whole life always trying to reach the state where you no more have to worry about money, but never reaching it .\nIf you happen to be rich, you probably have one worry more than the poor ones; in the matter of friendship. How can you tell, who is your real friend and who is just some greedy slimeball after your money. As those slimeballs are usually excellent \"actors\", the only way to reveal their true colours would be to loose all your money. But because that is out of the question, you are stuck with uncertainty. So there is no one around you, who you could, without any doubt, trust .\nThe lust for money may in some cases also lead to passion for gambling. Las Vegas is the well-known paradise for gamblers all over the world. Many people have lost fortunes there, by the roulette tables. Some people even become addicted to gambling. They simply cannot stop gambling, even though they are up to their ears in debt because of it .\nWhat about the drug business then. The drug lords have realized that you can get huge, gigantic profit in the drug business. And when the stakes are this high, all actions, including brutal murders, are \"justified\". The most horrible thing is that even some small kids are involved in this business. They are the best possible drug dealers, because no one usually suspects them, and because they cannot be arrested and imprisoned in case they get caught .\nToo much money is definitely a bad thing especially for the young. They will never learn to work hard for something they want, if they can always get everything they want with money. For you can even \"buy\" someone to do your homework and your tests with enough money. This in turn can lead the young one to assume that everything is for sale, even friendship and love .\nIn some countries, even some policemen and judges are corrupted. With a few, carefully selected bribes, you can buy yourself out of trouble. So, money can even get in the way of justice .\nThe power of money scares me. I do not want it to get a hold of me. That is why I have decided to aim for managing with as small amount of money as possible .\n" + }, + { + "title": "125_FIJY1061.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nDreams and imagination are powers that keep pushing us towards a new day. Dreams give us strenght and imagination makes our life more colourful and exciting. Some people say that in our technologized and industrialized world there is no room for dreams and imagination. imyself would like to think that these two things are such essential parts of human nature that they will stay as a prt of us whatever the world around us may be .\nFirst of all, isn't it true that mostly all the technology and science we have today is a product of somebody's imagination. The dreams of moving faster and flying like a bird drove someone to invent the aeroplane. not only knowledge, but also imagination is needed in most of the new inventions. One could say that imagination is much more daring than scientifical knowledge. It can cross boundaries of knowledge and it constantly pushes the limits of reality further back. the technology needs both dreams and imagination .\nIn the middle of our world one can feel very lonely and sense hostility and agression in the society around us. I am sure that many people share the dream of a peaceful and quiet place surrounded by protecting nature somewhere that's green. many people would like to turn back time back to the times of a more natural way of living. All those things and many more are within everybody's reach via dreams .\nEven though our world is much faster and somehow our life is more predictable than the one of our ancestors, we all stop to dream of something every now and then. Dreams are a thing no-one can take from us no matter how hard he tried. Of course some dreams get crushed along the way, but from the ashes of a dream rises another like the Phoenix. Dreams and imagination can be a way to escape from the wicked world or they can be used to make our life more exciting as it it here and now .\nIt is said that television and technological toys destroy a child's imagination, but when one watches children play one sees that the plot of the TV- serties is only the base stories and games are built on. The child only uses them as material. Quite often the ready made ideas and stories simply don't fit in the games at all. the mechanical toy has become a tool of the child's imagination .\nIt is true that some of our dreams strongly reflect our world as it is now. we dream of money, being slim and beautiful etc. the society we live in happens to be somewhat superficial and naturally so are many of our dreams. Money has a huge role in our life today. If one listens to people's dreams they are often of wealth. One wishes that one wouldn't have to worry about money all the time. During the financial depression many people have had to re-arrange their lives completely. With imagination and hope they have found new directions for their lives, lots of new things to do with their lives. The important values in life have been under a large change .\nDreams and imagination are an important oart of our lives. Without them we wouldn't have what we have now. With them we can head towards the future with great expectations of a better world .\n" + }, + { + "title": "126_FIJY1075.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nI am a feminist; I just don't want to brag about it. The word ' feminist ' has many negative connotations, and anyone who claims to be one is immediately labelled as being hostile towards men in general. A stereotype of a feminist is a woman who is ready to take extreme action just to be noticed. She cuts her hair off, dresses in baggy clothes and never wears any make-up because she does not want to look feminine. She takes life very seriously, and spends most of her time feeling hurt or planning revenge because some selfsatisfied person has made a chauvinist remark again .\nThat is not how I see myself. And I believe that many women would say the same for themselves. At the next moment it is easy to deny the need for feminism, too. It is human: nobody wants to belong to a group of such unpleasant, maybe even frightening, people. However, very few would deny their need for equality .\nThe world is full of male chauvinism. It is easy to percieve that both in big and in small things even in Finland - a country famous for equality between men and women. Those jobs which are usually considered to be on women's domain are more poorly paid and less appreciated than those that men usually have. Someone has claimed that even universities are losing their value because of all the women studying and working there. A woman who wants to have a career is considered a bad mother if she has children. If she doesn't, she is less respected as a woman. The fellow workers of a man do not necessarily even know if he has children; his top priority is work, and that is taken for granted by everybody. In everyday life women are more often objects of sexual harrasment and belittlement than men. How many times does a man hear such a remark as ' You're cute when you get mad'?\nSo, it is obvious that feminism is absolutely necessary. However, some women refuse to have anything to do with it. They say that they don't need it. It is nonsense to claim that a single person could protect her social rights and fight for more appreciation of women. No one is strong enough to do that alone. It is as if a hungry person in some third world country said that he is the architect of his own fortune. The situation he is in is not his fault, neither can he solve the big problem ultimately by himself .\nThe extreme signs of feminism in the beginning of the movement, burning the bra for example, caused such a shock in the world that they have never been forgotten. They were signs of frustration, naive attempts to change the world, and, yet, the stereotype of a feminist is still based on them. But something had to be done then. Nowadays we must be grateful to those who were brave enough to start questioning the old truths. Maybe they didn't always know how to express themselves, and sometimes it became more important to scandalize the society than to work for equality between sexes. However, the consequense of all that was positive rather than negative .\nFeminism does not have to be a feared phenomenon anymore. One does not have to be so privileged a person as before to be able to have and express opinions of social injustices. Even a shy person, like myself, or even a man can be a feminist. There is no contradiction in it if we all are fighting for a common cause: a more tolerant world .\n" + }, + { + "title": "127_FRUB1005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney is the root of all evil This assertion may be false on the one hand because human beings need money to live on for some of us at least to survive .\nLet us think to all the poor people in the world who desperately seek money to live at subsistence level, let us think to the third-world who asks the so-called industrialized and rich countries to help them in keeping alive their people. We must remember all the concerts organized to raise money and this to save people or countries from starvation .\nThere had been \"USA for Africa\", \"Band Aid\". So they stood up for starvation but also for many illness, notably AIDS or leukaemia or simply to save the world, let us remeber the concert to save the Amazonian forest .\nOn the other hand money perverts those who exaggerate, it is a kind of escalation iin the scale of possession, because for this kind of people possession rhymes with power and domination .\nLet us give good and convincing examples of people perverted by money. Two or three days ago, a bank director robbed his own bank, he then left the country with his private secretary. why some famous ministers falsify their accounts, if not for money. Why do they risk to loose their job, their notoriety, their self respect? The only possible reason is money attraction .\nThere are only two subjects on earth that have the power to pervert people and to make them do anything crazy, those two subjects are love and money .\nTherefore we can consider that love and money are the roots of all evil .\nSo money really perverts people, because if we look at the politics side we will see politicians playing with their money either to buy voters or trying to raise funds. Some organizations are known to use their money to commit crimes, murders, to buy or sell drugs, in one word, actually drug traffic .\nSome countries use their power to buy weapons and then to sell them to other countries in need, during wars for instance. Some countries use their power and their money to help researchers in the elaboration of nuclear weapons that are each time more sophisticated and this for the country to acquire each time more power, and may be to be the leader in one field .\nBut sometimes countries want and need researchers not only for bad discoveries but also for good ones .\nActually all the industrialized world pays for scientific discoveries, we must not forget all the progress made in the medical field for example. Discoveries are also made during space researches. All thisrequire money .\nIf we look at it, all in all, we need money to make science and to build up history, to give it to those who don't possess it, to survive and even to live comfortably .\nBut some of us use it in a bad way that is either they want to earn more even if they resort to illegal transactions or they spend the money they have, to acquire power .\nSo, to sum it up there are pros and cons in money, it al depends on what you do with it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "128_FRUB1008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nOn the contrary, according to me feminists have done more good than harm to the cause of women. Forty years ago the french philosopher Simone de Beauvoir declared that [Quotation] . It has been a difficult birth but today a woman's place is not only in the home. Women are more independent, more self-reliant, more confident and more powerful than ever before. Just look around: women are found in almost every profession. There are women doctors, professors, fire fighters and carpenter; we must not forget that Britain had a woman prime minister. Therefore and undoubtedly the women's liberation movement has made a remarkable progress, but there is still a long way to go. Many men argue that women are just not suitable for certain jobs, they say that they are weaker, more emotional and less practical than men. These arguments, however, are not convincing. Research has shown time and time again that the differences within each sex are greater taht the differences between them. There are just as many weak, emotional, unpractical men as there are strong and practical women. The major problem is one of prejudice, which is rooted in our upbringing and education. We say that women are adept with a needle and thread so why shouldn't they make first-class surgeons? We assume that women are better at listening and solving emotional problems than men, so why so few women priests? To some extent, I think that things will improve in the near future .\nIn the fifties Simone de Beauvoir's free woman was just being born, now in the nineties she is learning to walk. It is high time men ceased to regard women as second-class citizen. This is supposed to be an enlightened age, but you wouldn't think so if you could hear what the average man thinks of the average woman. Women, as I have already said, won their independence years ago. After a long struggle they now enjoy the same educational opportunities as men in most parts of the world. They have proved repeatedly that they are equal and often superior to men (yes, this is a man who is writing!!!) in almost every field. The battle for recognition has been won, but it is by no means over. It is men, not women who still carry on the sex war because their attitude remains hostile. Women continue to be regarded as second-class citizens. When you hear some men talk, you think that women belong to a different species. The same jokes about women drivers are repeated day after day. However we all know that women cause far fewer accidents than men. Moreover, women have succeeded in any job you care to name. As politicians, soldiers, doctors, university professors, company directors, scientists, presidents, etc... Yet men go on claiming that there are many jobs women cannot do. Top-level political negociation between countries, business and banking are almost entirely controlled by men, who jealously guard their so-called \"rights\". Even in enlightened places like Switzerland women haven't been given the vote. The arguments that men (except me!) put forward to exclude women from these fields are too familiar. Women, they say, are unreliable and irrational. They depend too little on cool reasoning and too much on intuition and instinct in order to arrive at decisions. They are not even capable of thinking clearly. Yet when women prove their abilities, men refuse to recognize them and give them their due. The truth is that men cling to their supremacy because of their inferiority complex. They know in their hearts that women are superior and they are afraid of being beaten at their own game. I think that one of the most important tasks in the world is to achieve peace between the nations and I claim that you can be sure that if women were allowed to sit round the conference table, they would succeed where men have failed for centuries. Some things are too important to be left to men...\n" + }, + { + "title": "129_FRUB1009.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nFeminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good When we think about the advances achieved by the feminists, we systematically call to mind the women's movement of the 60/70ies. We must not forget however that many of the goals that women have been trying to attain these last 30 years had already been fought for during the 19th century. Some preliminary signs of this fight can already be found in the late 18th century, when in 1792 Mary Wollstonecraft published [Reference] in which she rejects the image of the woman as a toy and pleads for the women's right to a decent education. And the fight is still going on. Rightly? Has not feminism served its time? Has it not eventually done more harm to the cause of women than good? In other words has feminism come to be beside the point?\nFeminism originates in the need for the equality of the sexes. Has this equality been arrived at? In theory, it has been achieved because this right for equality has been put into legal terms. There is a legal principle of public international order that states the equality of the sexes. This certainly would not have happened without the feminist revolution .\nWe really should not overlook the good done by feminists to the cause of women. These two last decades have not seen many changes concerning women but there have been some. For instance, the obligatory mention of both sexes in advertisements for situations vacant or more recently the legal provisions as far as sexual harassment is concerned (although these provisions are not restricted to women, I guess mal victims are fewer in number than female ones).\nAlthough there have been few changes which we can remember these last years, we really should take our hats off to feminists: they have been challenging a mentality established since the beginnings of the world and for a great part improving it. Is not one of the oldest traces of the representation of woman subordinated to man to be found in the Genesis? Is not woman said to have been born out of a man's rib? Was she not doomed to keep man company? Worse, is she not the one that sinned first?\nThe problem is that even if such an international principle for equality has been established, some countries still keep on violating it (mostly in countries where religion prevails over international rights). It is in these countries that improvements are needed. The fight is now reduced to a matter of controlling whether this principle is applied or not and is no longer the exclusive task of feminists .\nWhen feminism stops fighting for equality, it begins to assert the superiority of woman upon man and such discourse is always alarming. Feminists have done enough good for the cause of women, let us prevent them from doing too much .\n" + }, + { + "title": "130_FRUB1010.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nIn this essay I will deal with the intricate and tricky problem of the feminism. The question that arises here is: Is it so that feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good? I will attempt to show that their actions have brought not only advantages to women but inconveniences too .\nFirst of all, it is important to highlight the fact that the situation of women greatly improved this last century. They gained the right to vote, to give their opinion, and to involve themselves into the working life .\nMoreover, women were freed from men's authority, they began to go to school, and therefore to work, to earn their own living. In other words they obtained independence and freedom. But they had to battle fiercely to reach that stage of affair and sometimes they even had to resort to violence in order to obtain satisfaction. Here, let me remind you of the fact that most men were totally opposed to this emancipation, they regarded women as stupid and inferior human beings whose duty was to stay at home, to keep house, to cook the meal, and above all to take care of the children .\nWhat is more, although a lot of progress has been made on that ground, women have not reached equality yet and it is highly possible that they will never be considered to be the equals to men. There are nevertheless some obvious reasons for this. First, women are not entitled to do heavy labour as men are. Second, a lot of men still believe that women are inferior, they consider that the members of the weaker sex have to obey them and to submit to their wishes .\nFinally, women are still put at a disadvantage when they apply for a job. Sexism has always been present in that case and some people seem to be of the opinion that it will never disappear. As a matter of fact, some employers take on members of the stronger sex more willingly than those of the weaker sex. Others still refuse to collaborate with female beings or to have them as manager. Others have a tendency to underpay women, that is to say that they offer them lower wages than those they would give to men in the same position..\nThen, now that most women are working it has been noticed that the number of divorces is constantly increasing. Nowadays, women are free to leave the marital home if there are problems and that happens because they are now financially independent. Needless to say that such a thing would never have happened in the past when they were dependent on men. At the time they had no other alternative than to accept lfie as it was, to submit to their husband and to put up a good show .\nAn other problem women have to face is the overload of work: they have indeed to cope with their job, with their households, and with their children. No wonder that so much work wears them out and that they collapse either mentally or physically. Afterall, you cannot bite off more than you can chew .\nAs a conclusion, women have gained freedom and independence thanks to the feminist movement, their situation has greatly improved, they are no longer a slave two their husband, they are no longer mere objects the duty of which is to keep house. But, as the proverb says, [Quotation] and women have to accept the other side of the coin, that is to say inconveniences, problems, sexism, heavy labour, rivalry, and competition .\n" + }, + { + "title": "131_FRUB1022.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nMost university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. This claim witnesses not only a certain uneasiness on the part of the students but also a more general feeling of emptiness. Oddly enough, it is simultaneously a rather contemporary idea and a universal doubt. I have chosen to regard this reality from the student's point of view, for he is the most concerned .\nIn the first instance, it is of importance to analyse properly the signification of \"real world\". Does it refer to the working life, or to the practical knowledge of one's activity in life? Should we read in this assertion an implied contrast between two successive stages in one's life: the first, theoretical knowledge found in books, preparing the following step, the actual use of this cognizance? Clearly it states that academic knowledge has divorced from real world, that university is no school of life .\nHow could one agree with such a biased view. I propose in this essay to enlight the subject from a more nuanced angle. Before I set up my arguments, I would like to underline the fact that one has to distinguish between different sorts of intelligences, which should ideally complement each other. This consideration brings me to the core of the problem, the central flaw of the education system .\nAdmittely, one fails to bridge the gap between formal learning, that has been piled up since early times, the synthesis of which you get acquainted with at university; and the accurate understanding of it followed by an adequate actualisation .\nAt this point we may wonder if the task of professors goes as far as to lead us step by step, prudently spoonfeeding us; in order to help us pass successfully from the stage of understanding, integrating knowledge to the judicious release of it with regard to the existential situation. Opinions are divided on this question, but as far as I am concerned, I truly believe that this task can only be performed by each student individually. However, one is bound to take into account the fact that obviously students are still expecting an external guide to conduct them on the road of life .\nLooking at the problem from a positive point of view, there is nevertheless no denying that university opens our intellectual horizons. But it does not account for an inward maturing process, built on discursive emotions, experiences pleasant, impressive, instructive, as well as disruptive, shocking or sterile; recondite sensations, feelings that teach us about human beings in their imperfections, and struggles to betterment .\nThe point I am making holds ground only if one considers the term \"real world\" in the sense, school of life, practical intelligence necessary to understand the complexity of human beings and adapt oneself in the world. Contrary to what might be thought, to my mind, this knowledge cannot be extracted from books. It is an experimental and personal learning. For example, others' mistakes rarely serve as warnings. In literature, as well hundreds of lives, problems, issues unfold before the reader's very eyes without having him take benefit of this precious experience .\nI probably only touched upon the problem, and there remains a great deal more to say on this subject, but unfortunately the lenght restriction allowed me only to scrutinize the tip of the iceberg .\nTo return to the preliminary remark that a general feeling of emptiness prompted some students to doubt about the value of their university degrees; I am not alone in thinking that our modern society experiences a turning point. The advancing progress of technology and science in every field is not accompanied by a similar move in the field of ethics. The philosophical and ethical emptiness lies in this growing delay. In that case, doubts arise as to what extent universty still fulfills a role that society fails to provide .\nAs a conclusion, I am of the opinion that this respectable house of knowledge teaches us to learn rather than to comprehend the obscure mechanisms of human soul. I feel that the gist of knowledge manifests itself in our ability to expatiate it in the real world. This can be visualised as a delicious fruit that is not eatable unless one knows how to make it ripen. Therefore, in absolute terms, theoretical knowledge taught at university is not of no value. The responsability rests on the desire each of us invests in combining books' knowledge with his life's experience. And as Rabelais said each one is free to \"extract the substantial marrow\" or to ignore it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "132_FRUB2005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nAll over the world, money is used for measuring value, for storing wealth and for buying or selling goods. This explains why money is so important and so necessary in our modern society .\nUnfortunately money also corrupts society and its members, for people view it as an aim rather than as a means. And the words of the old saying \"money is the root of all evil\" may turn out to be true .\nOur modern society is regulated by a capitalist economy. In such a society people's duty is to increase their wealth. Everyone tries to protect his own interest, and at the same time neglects the interests of others. Moreover money is linked with the notion of power, rich people often occupy important positions in society. The poorest people moan about the successes and rewards of others. They make envious remarks and become jealous. So money provokes covetousness, bitterness and resentment. It may even cause hatred and violence. This makes it obvious that greed is one of the most important problem, which we have to deal with in our society. The strong desire for money can indeed destroy happy families, it is quite common to see children quarrelling over money after their parent's death. Money can provoke war between countries. Everyone should remember Sadam Hussein's attack on Kuweit. Sadam's invasion can hardly be justified, when it is explained that Kuweit is one of the richest countries in the world. He saw in this country the perfect means to increase his wealth and power. Sadam's plan shows that some people resort to illegal and dishonest means to gain money. They steal from others what they dream of, or swindle their contemporaries without any remorse. What is quite alarming is that most people forget that money is a means, not an aim. Consequently they reject real human values, which are : honesty, love of one's neighbour, respect, solidarity and charity toward others. Even the most honest people can be tempted to satisfy their craving for money. However money in itself is not bad. It simply depends on what people do with it. It can not be denied that money is one of the basis of our modern society, it enables people to live in a decent and comfortable way, by supplying all their needs. Without money it would be impossible to buy the most essential goods .\nOf course the richer people are, the easier it becomes for them to acquire these goods .\nMoney gives other satisfactions as well. How would it be possible without any money to help people who are in trouble? How could society fight against poverty, starvation, sickness and all the other social ills? Money also contributes to the development in science, art and technology. And finally it appears as a means of collective utility by assuring people's well-being through the creation of a good administration, through the maintenance of an army and the development of cultural structures. So money is an important factor contributing to the progress and stability of our society .\nTo conclude money is useful, as long as it helps people to respect true human values and to put them into practice. But if it used for another purpose, it has to be condemned and rejected - like any evil force .\n" + }, + { + "title": "133_FRUB2013.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney, the root of ALL evil? Certainly not, many other factors contribute to the degeneration of our civilization. Nevertheless I think money can claim being number one in that matter! Let us think of the influence money has at the level of the individual, and then at the more general level of the country .\nIn our merely materialistic world, money has gained such a high status that nearly reaches the level of moral value such as trust, good morality. Indeed it has become one of the criterias on which people set up judgments about the moral qualities of others. Money can even be considered as a kind of synonym for honesty, courage, intelligence, ... Moreover it is also considered as a key to success, and, therefore, as people believe, a key to happiness, which is the quest of most of us. From the moment someone finds it, envy and jealousy arise. And as bad thinking is not far from bad action, we can easily explain a high rate of thefts, hold-ups, attacks,... That has also its effect on the atmosphere and relationship between people : discomfort, fear, distrust, ... From another point of view, money causes problems in the way it is not fairly shared out among people. In other words we have rich and poor people. That raises the question of equality among men, injustice and ostracism also find expression in frustration, and once again in violence. So in this section I have shown very quickly and superficially, some of the consequences and problems caused by money .\nOn a larger scale, money can also affect the lives of millions of people. Indeed all nations in the world aim at gaining power, and that is mainly achieved through money. This dream, or rather obsession of power of some leaders can give way to disasters. Indeed Saddam Hussein invaded Koweit for its strategic situation and gas resources. But that need also meant thousands of victims, and could have set off a new world war. And we all know that any war allows all atrocities we can imagine. Isn't this the ultimate expression, the mirror of evil?\nIn those two preceeding sections, I have dealt with some of the problems caused by \"money inequality\". But the biggest problem lies in the lack of money, in those people who don't have any money at all. In our society, we need money for anything: food, clothes, home, ... Without the basic necessities, people can get ill and even die. In the same way, a country without money cannot help feeding its population, which starves and dies as we witness in some African countries. Here again we find in misery and death the incarnation of evil .\nSo I think money is responsible for many of our problems, notably social ones. But we could hardly make it without money. Unfortunately it has lost much of its primary function as a trade exchange value and has gained too much social value .\n" + }, + { + "title": "134_FRUB2016.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nNowadays, television invades our daily life. Most families spend the whole evening in front of their television set. The first thing that some people do in the morning is to switch their television on, which clearly reveals how much they value the screen. Sometimes two or three apparels belong to one household. Young children are probably still more influenced by television programmes than adults: they play at soldiers, at killing each others; they see the world in a two-valued orientation, just like television do: those are the bad ones, these are the good ones. Lots of people identify with actors and would do anything to resemble them. Moreover, television characters encroach on our everyday life not only through television, but also by means of clothes, dolls, ... On the whole, the impact of television in our society is clear enough. But what is the real purpose of television?\nTelevision broadcasts display informative and entertaining programmes. However, one should wonder whether the primary function of television is to inform or to entertain .\nSome people argue that the basic purpose of television is to divert us from the cruel reality of the world. The screen would help them to take their minds off their worries, problems and, perhaps, responsibilities. But aren't the films sometimes more violent than the reality? It is not rare for broadcasts to show men behaving in the worst possible manner .\nOn the other hand, news broadcasts are not always pleasing to see. We are usually confronted with frightening pictures of war, hate, disease, hunger, etc. to mention only a few. And we can't really say that such terrible happenings are relaxing. Nevertheless, even if the truth is sometimes difficult to cope with, it is necessary to know the world in which we are living .\nTelevision is probably the best way of receiving quick information. We not only hear, but also see what is happening. We therefore get a better understanding of what is going on. In addition, television sometimes provides very good broadcasts about the beauty of nature or about the different cultures of the world. And we can also watch various programmes which are both entertaining and informative. These broadcasts help us not only to relax, but also to broaden our mind .\nIn a nutshell, television has two different purposes: to entertain and inform its public. Indeed the screen presents us with a range of frivolous programmes. These are either inoffensive and really diverting broadcasts or violent ones which could have negative effects on people. Other programmes can both inform and entertain. These are considered to be more serious and more constructive divertissments. They are certainly not a waste of time. In short, it should always be remembered that television is one of the most important media nowadays. Lots of different people of differing ages and with various tastes spend hours in front of their television. As television aims at pleasing its viewers, the best compromise is probably the showing of both entertaining and informative programmes .\nBut what should we think of the film on the Waco tragedy? Filming started one month after the siege had begun. Of course, this film may have some positive aspects: it concentrates on Koresh's evolution from his religious upbringing to the charismatic man that he became, and this may help us to understand his personality better. And maybe will we be able to comprehend why so many people have followed him. But, on the other hand, is not this filming of a tragedy which at the time was not yet unfolded a kind of voyeurism?\nTo sum up, television has similar effects to those of opium. Opium is a drug which reduces people's pain and causes them to sleep. Similarly, television turns out to be a drug when people can't do without it, when they absolutely need to watch their favourite programmes. Television also induces passivity, a kind of intellectual sleep. So if television is probably the most effective way of being informed, it may also reveal itself as being a powerful device to manipulate people .\n" + }, + { + "title": "135_FRUC3029.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nIf you ask a child what his plans are for the coming holidays, he will no doubt select activities such as watching the television or playing with the computer. This is very convenient for parents. On one hand, if they are not at home, these \"games\" can easily take place at Granny's home or at the baby-sitter's. On the other hand, if they are present, little time has to be devoted to organize these so-called leisure!\nMoreover, the television programmes children choose are not always the best ones. The most striking examples are cartoons .\nHow can you expect a child to have or to develop imagination from a pseudo science-fictional background? T-V. programmes also become as uninteresting as repetitions .\nAs opposed to that, nature and literature are an unexhaustible source of dreams and imagination. Few children however are still interested in long walks through woods and fewer are in the reading of novels or poems. This lack of interest is certainly one of the fundamental reason of this \"imaginational breakdown\".\nAnother collapsing pillar of the imagination and dreaming is adventure. The increasing package tours clearly shows that people do not seek adventure anymore. Some parents consider their holidays as a big baby-sitting party. Subscribing to such trips, they know that activities will be organized for their children as well as for themselves. They are advised not to worry, enjoy themselves and spend as much money as they can. Can such organization, uniformity and idleness really lead to the imagination's development?\nFurthermore, the golden motto is \"enjoy yourself EFFORTLESSLY\". Why then would one face a difficulty when it is so convenient to turn one's back to it? Children only think in terms of effort if there is a reward, and not any reward, a material one if possible. They are not taught to open their eyes, ears and nose. They do not not enjoy looking at nature because they do not see, hear or smell it. That problem has to be dealt with by educational means. The best method is to teach ourselves first .\nEvery adult is a teacher who has to set an example to children. Being models, grown-ups are constantly imitated by children. If the latter lack imagination, so do the former .\nSome people think that reality is built up on science, technology, and industrialisation. On the contrary, if our society is not decadent yet, it is due to people gifted with dreaming and imagination powers: They are not only concerned by production, uniformity and organization; humour, fantasy, literature and adventure are certainly as important for them .\nThey can still be struck with amazement. Is that true for children? I doubt it. They think every technological achievement is obvious, and financial consequences seem to be the companies' main concerns .\nThis estonishment being rare, I wonder where people still find pleasure, certainly not in bringing up children! If the next generations do not tackle these problems seriously, some more steps will have been taken towards a real Brave New World .\n" + }, + { + "title": "136_FRUC3061.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nWhat Marx meant by religion as the opium of the masses can be understood as followed. Let us begin with the word \"opium\". This word reminds us of the important part that religion played in the 19th century. Religion was present at the social as well as the political and intellectual level and nobody would challenge its foundation. This may explain why people were \"religion addicted\" and could do nothing without a religious approval of their behaviour. People needed religion!\nMoreover, religion was an easy means for the authorities to make people accept their bad situation on earth by promising a better life after death .\nIf Marx was alive at the end of the 20th century, he would replace religion with television. Let us therefore take a closer look at television as the opium of the masses .\nFirst, it is generally agreed today that people are slaves of television. Consider the case of children. They have only just come back from school when they switch on television and watch cartoons. When their mother asks them about their homework, they answer that they will do it later. In my view, watching television should be a reward for their work .\nAdded to that, the breakfast television on Saturday and Sunday prevents them from sleeping, playing outside with other children, or going for a walk in the countryside. Our children do not move anymore. They are sitting all the time and do not have any physical training so that the adults of tomorrow will easier be heart patients. It is not only harmful to their health but it gives them a bad picture of society. These cartoons are full of violence, war, death and blood, which strongly influence their games and their vision of the world .\nThey even go as far as to believe that such a life is normal .\nSecondly, television, just like religion in the 19th century, is used by the authorities to keep people in a dream .\nThey decide what can be broadcast or not, and they make a strong selection. Adults, like children, are slaves of television. They watch soap operas, full of love, money and beauty. Television gives them an idealistic view of life and people make more attempts to live like this than to fight against real problems. People are not interested in pollution, equality of blood, equality of sex, religion, politics or terrorism. They put off all problems. But we must make it absolutely clear that television is a way to alter the truth .\nAnd it cannot be denied that television influences our life at a political, social and economical level. One of the most striking examples is advertising. The housewife will easier buy a product she saw on television than another, even if the latter is less expensive or of better quality. Television is far from holding the monopoly of truth. Please, think about it before switching it on!\n" + }, + { + "title": "137_FRUC3066.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nA new regulation is being enforced concerning advertisement on cigarettes. Police are more and more hard towards alcohol abuse, especially while driving. Customs officers and the anti-drug brigade are constantly developping new techniques to detect drug traffic, and dealers are punished with life imprisonment. However the authorities seem to ignore completely another important factor people are slaves to: television. Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the end of the 20th century, he would replace it with television .\nWe would like to demonstrate that television lost its didactive role a long time ago. It has now become a sure means for the great men of our society to force people into doing exactly what they are expected to do. What is very disturbing is that the influence of television seems to make itself felt in all generations: children, adolescents as well as adults .\nLet's first consider the children. Just back from school, they rush into the armchair in front of the tvset. They would not miss that famous animated cartoon where the hero can kill anyone who upsets him! The time of the sweet and beautiful princesses is over. They have been replaced by strong warriors with the most modern weapons. For his birthday, the child absolutely wants his own \"Ninja Turtle\", the one you see on television. He will grow up with the preestablished ideas that society wants him to have. Children are being manipulated by images which make them long for monster-toys. They are the innocent victims of our materialistic world which has left no place for individual freedom .\nNo wonder that a child like that can not get rid of these ideas when he reaches the adolescence. More than ever, the teenager wants to assert himself in life. But, being confronted with all kinds of new events such as love, responsabilities or just physical changes, he does not know how to do it. Therefore he will conform to the stereotypes proposed by television. He will listen to the latest hits, drink Coca-Cola, wear those new clothes and so obey the rules of the great men of society .\nWe will finally deal with the generation of adults. The housewife only buys the washing-powder shown on television .\nHer husband looks at the news. He only sees one side of the picture but he does not realize it. The journalists ' speech is convincing enough for him to believe this is the only truth. All this forces us into thinking that people are becoming addicted to television .\nWe have proved that television has become one of the major factors which influence our everyday life on all levels .\nIt has destruted our own personality and our family life. It has replaced our own opinions and indicted us with stereotypes ideas. The world has become a slave to the tvset: we do and think exactly what it wants. Some people may find it exaggerated. They may not agree on this association between television and opium. Those people should try to turn off their television for just one week. They would then have time for walking or telling their children about the old fairy tales... but they will surely not stand it very long: she will want to see the following of her favourite serial, he will not miss the live football match. They will soon implore: Give us please our TV back!\n" + }, + { + "title": "138_FRUC3088.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nTo the reader: This is not a formal essay: It is a dreamy essay .\nIt is true that naïvety, dreaming and imagination are irremediably losing ground in our modern and highly civilized societies .\nTo begin with, all kinds of \"irrational religions\" which include more than one god or worship non-human divinities have been abolished. The civilizations which went on following their traditions were called \"primitives\", and there was a strong urge on the part of the western missionaries to teach them our modern principles and exploit them. So a mercantile interest overshadowed genuine and peaceful communities .\nBut now, it is religion itself which is somewhat losing importance in the life of the modern man. Some basic values and religious virtues are outdated, and finally no more reguarded as crucial. The modern man can peacefully enjoy life with the new prospects now offered to him by science, high technology and industry. He has got his personal comfort, his hous, his car, his television, his work, his funny gadgets, and he can have fun with the next-door girl. Why should he refuse?\nThrough history, religion was basically felt as a need, a help for the poor hungry masses that were busy trying to survive .\nThey could only appease their fears and misfortunes; find their hopes in religion. Religion was useful to keep them living and working .\nJust as religion is more or less losing this \"utility\" in our modern world, dreaming and imagination are following the same way .\nIf you want to succeed in this society you only have to study, work hard, be intelligent, be beautiful, have money, and forget about the rest. No matter if people are unhappy around you! Instead of taking their human feelings into account, what you have to do in business is to try to solve a problem by means of figures, dollars, subsidies, profits... by counting, calculating and making abstraction of data of any other kind .\nThe most promising jobs in the future are those that involve finance, trade, business, diplomacy thus excluding dreaming and imagination we would find in the arts, for instance .\nAs a concrete example, I can mention what a young american student in economics told me during my holidays Singapore .\nHe is only twenty, comes from a rich family, he is beautiful, he has travelled a lot all over the world, he goes to one of the best universities in the States - I mean Yale - he has everything we could dream of. We had a talk about studies, and when I told him I was about to begin my last year in germanic philology, he replied that it must be all very well and funny to listen to some literature, history and philosophy, but that all this was really useless and that it wouldn't lead me very far if I wanted to have some kind of career worthy of this name .\nAnyway, how sad would the world be if everybody was busy with economics!\nWe had some kind of \"privilege relationship\", and I was interested in the guy. But as I was not staying for a long time - I had to take the plane two weeks after - he tried to make me understand that it was impossible, that he was sad too but that I was really too irrational, that I was an idealist .\nHe, on the other hand, thought he had a good point at being an extremely realistic, materialistic man. He carefully warned me: Pay attention and take care of yourself. If you are too idealistic, you are going to fall back on the ground one day and suffer a great deal .\nThis is the kind of world we are living in right now. But without any dream we are just machines; perhaps we suffer but we do not feel any true joy either. And maybe in this world of machinery, pollution and high technology, the man will again feel the need to go back to his roots, live more simply and give some more place to sincere relationships and dreams .\n" + }, + { + "title": "139_FRUC3092.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nTo understand how universities have been created in Occident, we have to go back to the Middle Ages. Only a few monks or future monks were concerned with school at that time. Cut off the real world they were gathering in monasteries or schools where they were learning through old books, most of the time about antiquity. They were said to have a vocation for this kind of life. Universities have developped in this way since the 12th century .\nBut what about these prestigious institutions today? To caricature them rapidly one could say that universities consist of courses given by professors (competent in their fields) in front of a silent audience who is conscientiously taking notes. So one can wonder if a university degree really prepare students for real world and what his value is nowadays .\nI think it is true that lectures in themselves are theoretical. Firstly because students spend most of their time sitting in big classrooms which do not allow practical exercises but only ex cathedra lectures. Secondly because the subjects of the lectures are theoretical. For example: during a general methodology course (which, we think, could be more practical) different theories as Krashen's, Lado's or ?\nstudied in detail but practical points are hardly ever considered .\nHowever is it true that this formation does not prepare students for real world? I am of the opinion that the answer is no. First I think that university degrees are theoretical on purpose (as opposed to high schools which are more practical.) The reason is that, thanks to the theoretical background they have learned, university students are able to build up their own way to achieve their aim. Moreover they are also able to adapt or to modify their method according to the situation. To take the example of a teacher again, I could say that a teacher in front of a classroom do not think about particular methodological theories again but that he has created his own methodology. Secondly, I think that academic studies develop a critical mind. The students are indeed trained to analyse pieces of information coming from different horizons from a critical point of view, which means that they have to dissect them, to confront them and then to be able to pass judgment on them. That is the way they should create a personal opinion for themselves .\nNevertheless, I do not want to go too far. I really think that theory is essential but I am convinced that practice should also be present. Let's take the example of a student in economics who has his certificate in his pocket and proudly goes working in a big firm for the first time. I would compare this business man to a gentleman who perfectly knows the highway code and who knows how to start and how to run through the gears but who finds himself in the center of Paris at the peak hours the first time he really drives! By this example, I want to show that theory must always be accompagnied by practical applications, which is not often the case at university. I think that this is a fully justified criticism against this institution .\nSo what about the value of university degrees? I really think that they are of great value because they can turn out intellectuals of high level. But they would be more effective and closer to everyday life if they were more practical (university students can still sometimes be compared to the monks of the 12th century!) These changes have been considered and some reform projects have already been carried out: there was a seminar about this subject and \"méta courses\" (\"méta\" stands for \"métamorphose\") were organised last year. I hope we will go further in this direction .\n" + }, + { + "title": "140_FRUC3093.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nExperience is a major asset for any job applicant, and this very common requirement in job offers seems to corroborate the statement according to which \"most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world, (and that) they are therefore of very little value.\"\nThis opinion however can be criticized on several grounds .\nAlthough it is true that most university degrees are theoretical, it does not mean that they do not prepare students for the \"real world\", or professional world where they will have to put what they have learned into practice. A\nchemist who has just recently graduated from college will probably take more time to make a pharmaceutical preparation than a practically trained lab technician, but after a time, when he has gained experience, he will be as good as him, and what is more, he will be able to understand what he is doing, being able to detect possible mistakes made by the general practitioner. Furthermore, he will always have a kind of overview on whatever he will do, which the technician, trapped in his mechanical routine, will never have. We here find an illustration of one of the university graduate's major assets: his critical sense. His theoretical studies must have given him the tools to think for himself and not to accept everything he is told without further analysis .\nUniversity studies also form students to be methodical and organized. they must be able to see at once what is important in each of the different subjects their curriculum includes, and to assimilate it in such a way that they will be able to render it at the exam, showing they have understood it. This will provide them with an analytical spirit, another great asset in their future life, when they will be confronted with entirely new situations for which they will have to find straightforward solutions .\nNext to those qualities, university also gives students the opportunity to meet people from various backgrounds: geographical, social, intellectual, ... and they should make the most of it, talking and exchanging ideas, trying to understand other mentalities, learning to respect people who are different from them. Various programs even give students the chance to go abroad, and this probably is the best preparation for the \"real\" world. Their degree will indeed give them the skills necessary for their future profession, even if they first need some time to adapt to its practice, but they will have gained something more essential from their contacts with other people: an open mindedness which will make them aware that their professional or familial world is but a small part of a much larger one, which might rightly be called \"the real world.\"\n" + }, + { + "title": "141_FRUL1002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nWhen I am dreaming about past times I see little villages surrounded by dark woods and many children who gather around the fireplace. A very old grandmother is sitting in the rocking chair and is telling fairy tales. In summer, while people are working together in the fields, their children are playing with horses, dogs and sheep. They call their favourite baby chicken Peep .\nThis image would probably fit for the background of some pastoral but it is of course far from reality. Even before mankind was dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there may have been little space for dreaming and imagination although the reasons must have been quite different. But let us now shift to our modern world in which dreams first seem to have no place left .\nAt a very young age children have to attend school where they spend many hours of the day. When they return home they have to prepare lessons for the next day, they have to learn lists of vocabulary or they have to write an essay. There is not much free time left and besides the pupils' brains are so overflown with new knowledge that there cannot be much space left for dreaming. When they become adults they will have to function in another kind of dull routine: they will have to work more or less hard to earn their living. And after having spent some fourty hours per week in an often anonymous grey box, they are happy to sit before the telly or the video while their children are fighting with a game boy .\nThese mass medias and computer games do not only prevent the mind from dreaming but they do also build up a wall of isolation between people. Moreover in the big towns there are hardly green spaces where people could meet and sit and imagine \"what would be if...?\". Thus they have to stay inside the grey buildings .\nAnd when by accident they watch an emission about for instance gene technology they will get completely desillusioned: today science is able to mutilate existing forms of life or even to create new varieties of some species; thus nature is virtually cut into pieces and every single aspect of the being is to be explained. In the scientific world the stress is laid on reason not on feelings!\nBut technology has had some positive effects as well: much work has become easier through new inventions and much time can be spared. Instead of doing some boring housework, the housekeeper can sit down and read an intereting book .\nFurthermore when the social security system of a nation is well elaborated, people need not fear any longer too much about money and they might find some more time for day-dreaming .\nMaybe they are even able to realize such a dream as a holiday in India. But at least they can make real more decent wishes as going to a museum, as assisting to a concert of Irish folk music or as going to a new theatre in town. People thus may spend some creative hours thanks to medias and shrinking distances between places. In other words culture is diffused and open to a larger public .\nIf you still hesitate whether even today people may dream and be imaginative or not, you ignore the existence of art. The work of an artist often expresses some revolt against existing habits, rigid point of views and unsatisfactory situations .\nThere are many creative artists nowadays who continually give us proofs of their imagination .\nIt would be the wrong way to hope that dreaming and imagination could transform our modern society into a newly coloured and eventually more desirable world. But each person should try to leave some little space in their minds to be prepared for a creative event to take place .\nEven in our world it is still possible to find a calm place near a river where in summer you can lie on your back .\nYou watch the white clouds in the sky - they are sheep and among them runs a big raindog. Or you take a small pebble in your hand, feel how it warms up and you imagine the little creature living inside of it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "142_FRUL1004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nMarx, who was one of the great social economists and society theorists of the last century, would never have guessed, what the evolution would be in the twentieth century .\nBut he saw already clearly that the masses were exploited by the leading class, anyway what kind of leading class it was. So his idea was that the substrcture should liberate itself from the superstructure. If there were no more leaders, all men would be equal. But this could only happen, if the people were conscious that they were exploited and if they knew that they could change their position. Marx's idea was that the religion was the tranquilliser that calmed down the people and that prevented them from revolting against the ruling class, the factory owners and the clerics. So, he created the sentence that religion was the opium for the masses .\nIf we analyse this sentence, we first have to analyse the nouns \"opium\" and \"religion\". Opium is a drug and drugs can be used in different ways. They are bad if you consume them in bigger, non-pure doses and this has different consequences. You don't see the world anymore clearly as it is, you find to another kind of perception of the world, and they ease the psychological pain you suffer in this world. But drugs can be good as well. If you take the right doses, they ease your physical pain and they calm you down. Religion, and Marx meant especially Christianity, can also be used in different ways. If the believer concentrates too much on it, it might be bad, because you loose connection with the real world. You only look for your own salvation, you are no more interested in world affairs, and you might follow your leaders and think no more for yourself. But if you have the right view to Christianity, which was indeed very difficult at the time of Marx, it leads you to be critical towards society and its rulers, it makes you open-minded and friendly, and you try to treat everybody equally .\nCould Marx, if he was alive at the end of the twentieth century, replace religion with television? Before answering this question, we have to analyse TV in the same way as we did with religion and opium. Things that were important for religion and opium are also relevant for television. It has its good and its bad sides. If you are not critical and don't choose but just consume, than you are overloaded with useless information, you don't distinguish anymore between reality and fiction, and you learn the wrong things because others create your opinion through TV. But if you don't watch too much and if you select carefully, you are well informed about what is going on in the world, you may learn a lot of interesting things without travelling around, and you can learn something in a short time and whenever you want with the video recorder .\nIf we compare the points we analysed in religion and in TV, we discover two points in common. when you have the wrong attitude to religion and to TV, you are guided by others and you are not open for changes. On the other side, you are more critical and open-minded, more open for changes when you have the right attitude towards both. But Marx would probably not have replaced religion by television because the nineteenth century is much too different from the twentieth and things have changed rapidly. Today people are much more free than people were at the time of Marx to do and not to do whatever they want. At that time, people couldn't choose to be in the church or not because there was too much pressure from society .\nBut today you are totally free to turn the television on or off and which channel you choose. Marx would probably have been so intelligent to take this into account .\n" + }, + { + "title": "143_FRUL1033.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nIn our society, science, technology and industrialisation have become three inseparable words. They are inevitably linked together. The sciences represent the acquired knowledge thanks to the discovery of laws and phenomena. People do not generally succeed in perceiving such a knowledge which seems out of reach. Although science and technology are part of our everyday life they remain at a level which goes beyond the human sensibility. Three conditions are needed in order to keep up with industrialisation: an important capital, available labour force and technological progress. A technological revolution took place in Europe two centuries ago and, nearer to us, we all remember the technological revolution of the seventies .\nNow that people live with technology, distrust is the general attitude we adopt when we think about progress. The old, omnipotent faith in progress has disappeared. But I do not think that we will draw back. When Man makes a step he wants to go further and he will therefore make a second one .\nIf you tell me that because of the fact that we are living in such a society, we are no more able to dream, my opinion goes the opposite way. It is not possible to live without dreaming and imagination. Life would become so dull that we would attend an upsurge of nervous breakdowns, the most of them leading to suicide. I may sound a bit pessimistic but that is not the case .\nFrom a medical point of view, Freud has already explained that people cannot live without dreaming otherwise their mental balance would be disturbed. Do not trust people who tell you that they do not dream: they do even if they are not aware of it .\nWe do not have less time for dreaming than before because in big firms man has been replaced by the machine. This is the principle of mechanization. What finished goods prices concerns: the lowest, the best because competition lays down the law. The employees have no choice: they have to get used to technology, they have to learn how to use new techniques. Their training must be almost complete before they enter the firm otherwise they will soon lag behind. There lies the problem: in trying to adapt. When you reach a certain age, it is not always easy to change your habits and to take new things in rapidly .\nThe life of someone who cannot get used to those techniques becomes a hell. If you have been worried the whole day, it is not easy to forget about your work when you come back home. In order to avoid the nervous breakdown, you have to overcome your problems. We all need dreaming and imagination as a kind of escape from a sometimes very dull reality. So many things can help us to dream: listening to music, reading a book, practising a sport...\nThose moments are not expensive and yet, how they are precious!\nNowadays people are always in a hurry; you hear them say: \"Well, I have no time, you know...\" I think that they adopt the wrong attitude. The problem is not that they have no time but that they do not even take the time. Have you ever realized that the simple fact of thinking enables us to forget reality .\nDo not tell me that a thought takes so much time .\nWhat can we say about people during the war who kept on hoping and believing in the future? Where did they find the will to carry on when the present had nothing but gloomy prospects to offer? Although the world around them was collapsing, they must have been thinking about better days. When you are confident of something, this gives you an incredible power. We all have a purpose in life, something we want to reach, the aim for which we keep hoping. It is a way for us to give a sense to our life .\nAnd we all know that hope implies dreaming because we only hope for things that have not yet happened .\nNothing can prevent human beings from dreaming and it is precisely when things go wrong that we tend to dream and hope for a better life. A machine does not dream; human beings do .\nAs a conclusion, I would like to tell people who find it difficult to escape in a world of their own that singing a song is not as stupid as people think it is. After all, does not singing always give a matter for dreaming?\n" + }, + { + "title": "144_FRUL1034.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nNowadays few women think of themselves as feminists. The Women's Lib is out of fashion and seems to belong to a remote past. A reason for this may be that women no longer feel the need of a dramatic change, since their social, political and professional situation considerably improved over the last decades. But what have feminists actually achieved? Are there no battles left to fight? Could feminism harm the cause of women?\nUp until the twentieth century most women had very few rights and opportunities. Men considered them as physically and intellectually inferior. For example in the nineteenth century a married woman was, according to the law, her husband's property and she had to give him all that she owned. Women could hardly get a divorce, although a lot of them were mistreated. They were allowed to study at Oxford and Cambridge but could not receive a degree. In factories and workhouses women worked themselves to death .\nFeminism's first aim was to demonstrate that women are equal to men in all respects, which led to practical changes. The suffragettes won British women the full franchise in 1928.\nWomen also got the right to ask for a divorce. More and more women graduated from universities. Salaries were raised and work conditions were improved. Thanks to their higher education level women became more independent and were better equipped to fight for their rights .\nHowever it should be thought that all women are treated as they should be. In many non-western countries women are still exploited and oppressed. Despite the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in Great-Britain on the one hand and affirmative action in the United-States on the other hand, the principle of equal pay for equal work is not always applied and women find it hard to be appointed to positions of responsibility. Housewives get little social recognition, except in Scandinavia where they are paid for their work .\nFeminism undoubtedly helped to improve the condition of women .\nStill it cannot be denied that at times Women's Libbers go a bit too far. Some extremists would like to change the spelling of women to womyn in order to avoid the ending in - men which reminds them of the plural form of the word man. Others coin the term herstory to refer to the study of women's affairs .\nThey seem to ignore that the first syllable of history has etymologically nothing to do with a masculine prefix. In Germany some suggest modifying the indefinite pronoun man (one) because it sounds like Mann (man).\nFeminists not only are good at making fools of themselves, but also turn out to have a gift for discrediting themselves (and women in general) in the eyes of men. Everybody knows that if one wants to be respected by someone, one has to respect that person first. Everybody except some feminists who behave so aggressively towards men that these come to consider women as frustrated pests .\nHave feminists done more harm to the cause of women than good?\nNo, because changes were needed. But they should make sure that they keep the golden mean .\n" + }, + { + "title": "145_FRUL2001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nWhat strikes me about Marx's original sentence is its provocative aspect. To compare religion and its medium, the church, to a drug is a clear statement. Opium at that time was mainly used as a tranquillizer for sick people in hospitals and was still a legal drug. It is true that some people became opium addicted, in most cases as a consequence of the unknown effects that opium can have on a man's body, if the doses are not controlled by a specialized doctor. Marx saw that religion was used in the same way as the drug. It was meant to satisfy all the people's needs and as an answer to all questions. As a philosopher, Marx clearly recognized the manipulation done by the church, their priests and their interpretation of the Bible. Therefore he claimed the liberation and emancipation from religion .\nBut nowadays the situation has changed. Most churches, especially the traditional ones, share the same problem which is that of becoming more and more unpopular. Religion and faith do not have the same importance they had a century ago. Already the Roman [Illegible word/phrase] knew the basic needs of the masses: \"panem et circenses\". But the question of bread is not one of life or death nowadays, and most people only turn to religion on such occasions as a funeral or christmas Day, another institution became to play the centre part in every's life and that is television .\nThis phenomenon became clearly visible in the last two decades and has not reached its climax yet. The main reason for this is that TV satisfies the basic desire to be entertained. So it is not surprising to find at least one TV set in every household. It is the number one mass media. TV not only transmits news and information, game shows and the latest sport results, but also commercials, and this turns out to be its only purpose. The effects of television on our culture have already been described by such authors as Neil Postman, who shows the influence that commercials have. Since TV producers depend on the money paid by the advertisers not only the structure of the TV programme has changed but also our capability of telling reality from fiction. It is well known that films and even the news are splitted into fragments to allow the industries to praise their products, but rather unknown what effect this has on the quality of the programme. The lower its level of comprehension, the better, as if its aim was to be bad that the break for the commercials might function as the climax of the programme. It seems that even the seriousness of the news can not be rescued. We all have learned not to believe everything we read in a newspaper but on the other hand we trust everything that passes as news on TV; who would mistrust his own eyes? The average viewer does not ask himself, how the camera team always manages to be at the right place, at the right time. In our consumption-oriented society only one thing counts: how to realise an increase in sales and to get more consumers? Higher viewing figures guarantee more money. And we play the game and turn the TV on every day because we get what we want, and that is entertainment. We don't recognize that television does not satisfy our needs but only supplies superficialities and so we swallow it all .\nWhat the drugs in our streets and the television have in common is their orientation towards consumption only. Marx would have been among the first to point this out, perhaps in a sentence similar to that in the title, but than he would have also replaced opium with crack .\n" + }, + { + "title": "146_FRUL2002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nIt is of course always difficult to agree with assertions as categoric as this one. But we should perhaps first examine the aim of university studies before we discuss the statement in itself .\nIn my opinion, it would be a mistake to consider that university studies should prepare students for the \"real world\". One goes to university -I hope - because he is interested in a particular subject and wants to know more about it. He will of course learn things that he will never need in his professional career, but you expect from a mathematician that he knows how to calculate, even if he will rely on computers in his profession. Moreover, it is sometimes very difficult to know what your degree will lead you to do in life. Someone with a degree in general medicine might become a general practitioner or a researcher; or even change several times of job in the course of his life. Therefore, if one wants university to prepare him for the \"real world\", it should only learn him to be ambivalent. The problem is now to know if it is something one can learn .\nAs I suggested earlier, one shouldn't expect, when going to university, to learn how to behave in life the same way as a technician can learn how to deal with a machine. In fact the most significant thing I will have learned at my university is to do things by myself. But I will deal with this point later .\nAn important thing to mention here is that the average length of university studies in Belgium is of four years (even three in England). In such a short period of time, it is of course impossible to get all the knowledge one will need for the rest of his life. People who have already graduated have now to retrain. If a university cannot give to someone all the knowledge he needs, how on earth could it prepare him to deal with the complexity of the \"real world\"?\nIn fact I understand the word \"university\" as a place where one has to prove something. Of course, there are still teachers, but they are not as interested in pedagogy as secondary school teachers are. They give their lessons and it is for the students to show their ability to deal with the (most of of the time broad) subject. They have to show how they can assimilate the subject, but also how they can reorganize it, and think about it, and adapt themselves to every situation; in one word, how they can work by themselves. If they can do that, they are capable of holding a leading place in the society .\nIt is therefore that a university degree has a very good value and that they are praised everywhere. It is not only because you have learned something, but also because you can still learn something, because you can judge any situation rightly .\nFor all these reasons - and for one more - I strongly disagree with the statement I have just been discussing. My last reason is the following one: one may not consider a university degree only as a means to make money. A university is, above all, a place where you learn to think and to respect every opinion and every thing. This makes its value and the value of its degree .\n" + }, + { + "title": "147_FRUL2005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nIn the 19th century, the time when Karl Marx lived, religion played an important role in our western world. Most people were brought up Christianely and their life was dominated by the church, which was at that time a very powerful organism. People accepted its rules without contradiction and believed all the priests said. Nobody dared to criticize them because they were respectable persons who knew how to deal with the people and how to keep them obedient .\nNowadays, the situation is completely different. Fundamental changes have taken place in the last hundred years, which had a negative effect on the power of the church. Although many people still believe in God, they are often opposed to the church as religious institution. They think that it is not at all adapted to our modern society and therefore, it becomes more criticized than ever before. It is regarded as old-fashioned because people can no longer identify with its opinions and its regulations. They do not need it any longer as leader through their life who tells them what is right and what is wrong, because they feel much more free, self-confident and independent than in the 19th century. If the church does not change its direction, it will loose all its credibility and most of its adherents. Today, there is unfortunately another power that slowly takes over the former role of the church: the television. Most people do not realize that it has a strong influence on them and that it determines their life .\nSince the invention of television in the 1950ies, many technical improvements have been carried out. We enjoy colours and a number of programmes our ancestors never dreamed of. Several systems, like the cable TV and the Satellite TV, have been developed and make it possible to receive programmes from all over the world. There are different kinds of programmes: some only broadcast news, music, films or game-shows, others do a mixture of it. Many TV stations broadcast night and day so that people can watch television whenever they want. If they do not know what to do or if they are bored, they press the button and immediately have entertainment .\nOn first sight, the television seems to be a good and interesting invention. I think that it is, but only when people know to handle it correctly. At the beginning, it was something totally new and fascinating, people were happy when they could enjoy this luxury from time to time. Today, it has become something common. A television set is to be found in nearly all households, even the poorest, who often live in bad conditions, have one. Many people spend every day three to four before it. The problem is that they do not make in advance a selection of what they will watch. They simply switch on and watch everything without being critical about it. They become indifferent and begin to believe all they see, they take is as reality .\nThe television is in my eyes one of the greatest dangers that threatens our society. It is an invisible foe who creeps unconsciously into our life. It represents above all a danger for the children because they do not know how to judge what they have seen. If the parents do not control which TV-programme their children watch and if they do not speak with them about the broadcastings, it can have negative consequences. The children try for instance to imitate the film-heroes who, although brutal and violent, get glorified in the films. So, they do not understand or realize that they do something wrong when they copy the heroes' behaviour. There are also parents for whom the television is an easy way to keep their children quiet and to occupy them. I think that this is irresponsible, the children do not learn to play or to communicate with others. Later on, it will be difficult for them to lead a social and considerate life .\nIf the adults do not change their own TV-habits and those of their children, the world will still become more agressive, cold and indifferent .\n" + }, + { + "title": "148_FRUL2007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nJournalists have got the privilege to select and bring something to the public eye. For reasons of time or space already, only a few out of all the incoming news can be chosen for publication. A reporter on television has thus to ask himself/herself which passage in a debate for example he/she will show the spectator and with which length. The credibility of television seems to be unshakeable, especially when the pictures are touching us emotionally. But in fact, they are always only a world looked at through the camera of a journalist. That means that nothing is more subjective than the objective of a camera. It is uncontestable that television has the nature of a model of living. Take the tragic incident that happened a few weeks ago, when the two [Illegible word/phrase] .\nI once read that an American child, when having left school, has had about 11.000 hours of lessons but 22.000 hours of television with +/- 20.000 murders. I'm persuaded that television exerts an enormous pedagogical influence, unfortunatly no good one in general. But not only children are concerned. Adults also take television as an example for daily life. Take for instance the simple crime series like \"Derrick\" or \"Tatort\" on German television: the inspector is divorced, the families are ruined, the father has a mistress, the mother is drinking, the children are going their own ways. Religion, traditions, conventions only serve the caricature of bourgeois compulsions .\nI'm sure that the \"television-family\" really exerts an influence on the domestic everyday life. We simply identify with it. No wonder that divorce and a bit on the side have become trivial offences. Often, I've got the impression that more and more people are living in a manipulated world of dreams and I fear that this is leading to a dulling in the face of reality, to a lack of creativity and that it may ruin the personality. Sure, the media and especially television open us best possibilities for both education and entertainment. Essential is just who decides what we can watch and why. We have to be careful, we have to consume critically so that we can uncover the attempted manipulation. The problem to my view is to cope with the whole host of information we get day in, day out. The danger is that we are virtually thankful that the media are thinking for us. In fact, they propagate what one thinks, feels, does. Here is birth given to the word \"one\" (\"man\" in German, \"on\" in French) which replaces individuality by generalization. Curiously enough, those media-makers, who consider themselves as critical, want a new enlightenment. They want us to emancipate from civil constraints, they want us to free ourselves from state, church or traditions. We shall come of age. But today, media and in particular television are becoming a means of remote control of the brain and prevent it from using itself independently. For me, one feature of maturity is actually the ability of independent thinking. So, don't we let television become the opium of the 20th century masses so that we can preserve a critical common sense .\n" + }, + { + "title": "149_FRUL2008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nIn a century in which many traditional values and ideals are doubted or even turned over it is no wonder that also the male supremacy which for a long time dominated the relationship between men and women isn't spared questionning .\nSurely, it cannot be denied that some feminists seem to push their demands too far but one shouldn't forget the original ideas behind this movement. Women want to point at the male predominance stretching itself over many fields of society starting from women's treatment at their working place and going on to the language obviously based on male supremacy if one comes to think about it. In the first place feminists just wanted to draw attention to the fact that women no longer agree with the traditional role they have to play in society and that it's high time to review all our old-fashioned preconceived ideas about women. In this respect one cannot deny them a certain success. They obviously managed to bring about a revolution in the perception of the relation between men and women be it at home, in the streets or at work. But things are not that easy .\nOne problem is that feminists should pay attention not to switch over to another extreme of female supremacy and to substitute one absolute value for another. Their sometimes too strict claims may be the reason why some people simply turn their back on feminism and content themselves ridiculing it. Still, to reject women's claims of more rights and greater independance as complete nonsense because they are radical is a far too easy way out. Thereby one avoids questionning one's old-established world-view and completely misses the point of feminism .\nMoreover it is perhaps worth noticing that by their strictness fierce feminists are not just attracting opponents among men but also among women themselves. Not all women wish for a complete equality with men and reject their traditional role of \"housewives\" as out-dated. Through feminism women, too, are forced to reconsider their function in society and some may have realized that they don't really object to the traditional part they play and don't wish for a change at all .\nAnother problem is that feminists or reactionnary movements in general don't always take into account that some time has to pass before the change in the people's mind has taken place. They want a change here and now. They forget that their claims involve a reconsideration of the basic structure of society. They should show themselves more patient about the results of their claims, action cannot be taken without delay in all fields. If they would give society some more time to think about their ideas and to change progressively their cause would stand in a better light .\nTo sum up I think that although some feminists may push the idea of women's liberation too far, their initiative brought the perception of women in nowadays society into the center of discussion and made a deeper understanding of women's situation possible. Even though one may not agree with their claims they managed to force society to reconsider its values and especially the role women play. Therefore I'd like to conclude that feminists have done more good than harm to the cause of women .\n" + }, + { + "title": "150_FRUL2012.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today? \n \nIn his novel Animal Farm, Orwell satirizes communism. And the nowadays famous sentence \"All men are equal: but some are more equal than others.\" actually criticizes the communists' claim to be able to guarantee equal treatment of all people. Whereas even in communism, leaders are necessary, that is some superiors who due to their function have more power than others and some privileges .\nIf one looks more carefully at the different domains of everyday life, such as politics, religion, family or work, one will discover that whenever several people form a unit, some kind of organization is necessary and in most cases a hierarchical system will be chosen. Hierarchy involves different ranks or positions, that is a difference in importance and in power, those at the top being the most important and the most powerful people. The hierarchical organization is often compared to a pyramid, which indicates taht there are only few at the top but many at the bottom of such a group .\nA lot of political and religious systems as well as other forms of organizations such as the army or the school system illustrate Orwell's observation. It reflects the widely held opinion that all people are born equal, that is with the same rights but that in the course of their life, as everybody is free to become what they want to, the fittest being those who combine strength and fighting spirit will reach superior positions. Communism aimed at overcoming Darwinism and tried to equal out the difference between the strong and the weak by treating everybody equally. But the well-meant concept didn't work. The communists finally had to acknowledge that the interaction of strong and weak, of superior and inferior is necessary for the survival of the whole group. That is that people need variation and some stimulant so that they can be productive and creative. Nowadays the formerly communist Easteuropean countries tend to adopt the capitalistic and democratic system of Western nations. Both market economy and elections enable those who want to move up the scale to do so. The link between politics and economy is underlined by the fact that the state provides for the socially weak by giving them part of the affluent's welfare, thus also aiming at equal opportunities for everybody, which obviously aren't provided by nature. In economics, the difference between the strong and the weak is defined in terms of the rich and the poor or in terms of the managing director and the simple worker, standing at the opposite ends of the same scale. In politics, the difference between those at the top and those at the bottom is expressed in terms of the leaders in power making the decisions and the masses, the so-called subjects or underlings .\nMoreover, the hierarchical distinction between the superior and the inferior can also be applied to the sexes. Most societies are patriarchies. In those communities, men have all or most of the power and importance. Men are the masters and women the servants. Feminism tried to put an end to this and has so far achieved some success. Nowadays, at least in most Western countries, men and women are paid the same salary for the same job, young women may study and work in typically man's professions and trades as well as vote and wear trousers, etc. Things that weren't yet taken for granted by our great-grand-mothers. However, the emancipation of women hasn't been by any means completed .\nAnother crucial distinction between privileged and disadvantaged people concerns the relationship between the races. In some, especially Asian and African countries, slavery being the total denial of equality still exists. Favouring the white race, in South Africa apartheid and in the United States until very recently segregation separates/separated races. In other nations, a more subtle form of racism, of disapproval for others is used. People are treated as inferior because they belong to a particular race. Especially in the Western world, racism has become a big problem because these regions are overcrowded and governments have difficulty in providing equal opportunities for everybody. In search for a scapegoat, people often turn to foreigners in their country .\nTo sum up, one can say that Orwell's statement \"All men are equal: but some are more equal than others.\" is still true, since living together in large groups seems to require a hierarchical system. Even in a very democratic community, there will be some chief, no matter whether he/she is at the top due to his/her strength and ability, sex or race .\n" + }, + { + "title": "151_FRUL2013.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the 19th century, Victor Hugo said: 'How sad it is to think that nature is calling out but humanity refuses to pay heed.' Do you think it is still true nowadays?\n \nVictor Hugo's sentence [Quotation] shows that he must have been an early ecologist. In fact, the 19th century was the century of industrialization and was marked by the pursuit of maximal profit. In this pursuit man and nature had no place at all. Probably Victor Hugo clearly perceived this situation .\nWhat Victor Hugo said in the 19th century is still true for the 20th century and even more so. Yet if we had to paraphrase his sentence, we would probably say that [Quotation] . The awareness that man is part of nature goes back to the 1960's, at the time of man's first journeys in space. At that moment astronauts from different missions clearly perceived the earth as being a closed system, like a deserted island lost in the middle of an ocean, and therefore they saw it as a fragile system that needs a strict managment in order to avoid an ecological desaster, in order to save it .\nBit by bit this idea has gained ground. Thus in the 1970's we see the birth of many ecological movements. Little by little the \"calling out of nature\" has reached some ears and man is trying to find an appropriate solution. The more man interferes with nature in a careless way, the more he seeks assurance that somewhere it is beyond his responsibility. Now man's longing expresses itself in catalogues full of \"back-to-nature\" remarks and in the popularity of films like \"Dances with the Wolves\" or \"Le Grand Bleu\". There is a longing to return to a healthier life. Now people dream of what life was like before industrialization .\nBut now we may wonder whether it is not already too late: the oceans die, rivers and sees are polluted by runoff from industrial plans and by spills from tankers and ships, the atmosphere is getting warmer with the greenhouse effect, certain species of animals are endangered, non-recyclable material waste increase every day and our forests are attacked by acid rain. In short, nature is in danger, we are in danger and the situation requires a quick reaction. Our leaders should come to an agreement in order to set up a special program that would be really efficient. But unfortunatly economical interests come first, they come before mankind's general interest .\nIt is possible that it is already too late, even if nature absorbs many of our attacks. It is probable that we have gone too far. Except for the ecologists, none of the decision-making people (politicians, industrialists, ...) seem to be willing to do something that goes against this auto-destructive tendenc . We can think that if Victor Hugo's sentence had affected his contemporaries, we would probably not have this situation today. But now we have no choice, we have to fight in order to leave our children on environment fit to live in .\n" + }, + { + "title": "152_FRUL2016.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nAs the knight in Chaucer's [Reference] has to discover what women most desire, we could ask ourselves: what does Man most covet? In the light of many episodes in history we could say that greed, the need of possession, gives to many people great impetus in life .\nOne of the underlying principles in our society, like in many others, is the exchange between individuals. From the beginning human beings have exchanged things they had against what they did not have. In this way the more currency you have, the more likely you are to get all you want, to be in power and have the others under your dependence. Who would not want to have much money, who would not want to make profit? This is in fact the basis of trade. Tradesmen are mainly concerned in increasing their takings, that is why they raise their prices and pay their personnel as cheap as possible. What is the use of traffic in drugs and hold-ups if not to get this means of exchange called money? Money, the magic word .\nAny world where all would be free and anybody would be disinterested is pure utopia. Life would yet be so easy if each of us could content oneself with the necessary and was not eager on getting the superfluous. Few people are satisfied with what they have. This justifies naturally the success of all these games where you can win money and, on another level, this is also why we witness so many aggressions, burglaries, traffics, corruptions,... Excess is what harms our society but does the society itself not prompt its citizens to spend much money and even more than they have? All over in the streets advertisements encourage the consumer to buy a beautiful new car, to fly to the tropical islands for the holidays or to have absolutely the latest CD or video player. All seems so easy, if you do not have the money now you may well ask for a bank loan. The average man wonders then why he could not enjoy all these goods too .\nMoney or any kind of currency is thus a necessary instrument in trade but can it be a valuable argument to wage war on a country or on someone and destroy so many innocent lives? Why did the Americans intervene so quickly in the Gulf War if not because they had interests to protect? This is not of course the main reason but the losses of oil could have been disastrous for the US economy. Why do so many families quarrel when they have to share a legacy if not because one member of the family gets or wants more than the others?\nActually very few people like money for money's sake, most of them are desirous of the luxuriousness it may bring. As long as this does not lead to an obsession, anyone may dream of getting more, but once you are ready to make sacrifices in order to get all you want, there must be something wrong. Is money worth destroying friendship, love or even life? It is often asserted that \"money is the root of all evil\" but I think it would be more accurate to say that eagerness is the root of all evil and money only one aspect of it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "153_FRUL2017.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nMarx claimed that religion was \"the opium of the masses\". Did he mean by this that the church provided people with some drugs? Not exactly, what he did mean is that religion has always been a good way of keeping people under some control. Until the Modern Ages most of the people were illiterate, and they didn't have the opportunity to study, so that only the clergy had some knowledge which made it possible for them to spread the Truth among the masses. So people never developed any critical mind which would have enabled them to question the authority. It was all the easier for the Church to manipulate those people who were so accustomed to following the rules that they wouldn't have even thought of debating them .\nThey were under the influence of a drug which annihilated the functions of the human brain .\nIn our society religion doesn't play such a role any more, but we may wonder to what extent television does play a similar function today...\nTo begin with, it seems clear to me that from time immemorial people have needed some diversions. The legal authorities of a country have always seen in those distractions a good way of keeping the masses away from interfering too much in state matters. So did the Romans emperors for instance provide people with all that they most wanted -\"panem et cicenses\", bread and circus games - in order to keep them away from questioning policy .\nNowadays television turns out to play the same role as those ancient games: this is why we may now speak of the stupefying effect of television on the masses. In other words, television is a kind of drug which keeps peole in lethargy, and it prevents them from developing a sharp critical taste .\nThis is mainly due to the bad quality of the programmes that are broadcast by the different TV-channels, which don't aim at enhancing the intellectual level of the audience, but rather at attracting the largest possible audience. Therefore, most TV programmes at peak hours will consist of game shows, soap operas, American series, or other sensational \"reality shows\"...\nIn this respect, it is obvious that governments have some control over the making of those programmes. Governments grant money to the national TV channels and they exert censorship. They see to it that television is used as a sleeping drug or as a means of influencing the TV-watcher .\nRecent historical events such as the Gulf-war or the Rumanian \"revolution\" have clearly illustrated the importance of television as a means of propaganda .\nAt the beginning of the \"Gulf-crisis\" most Americans were unlike their government against any armed intervention of their country in Kuwait. The Bush Administration, in order to have those recalcitrants on its side, didn't hesitate to make up terrifying stories about what was supposed to have taken place in Iraq. American TV-channels also broadcast a series of programmes about the way Iraqi soldiers took newborn children off the hands of their mothers in order to build up their army .\nAll this information, which soon turned out to have been invented, had such an horrifying effect on the American audience that nothing could prevent the USA from sending troops to the Gulf...\nA few months before, the Rumanian dissenters had roused the indignation of Western countries by broadcasting very moving programmes about the atrocities which were supposed to have taken place in Timisoara, these later proved to be false .\nAnother negative aspect of television is the effect it can have on people, especially on children .\nIndeed, television creates an illusionary world in which children believe because it is all the more difficult for them to make a clear distinction between fiction and reality .\nThe recent tragedy in Liverpool has once more drawn our attention to the delicate issue of the influence of television on a child's behaviour. Is television responsible for the rising violence among children?\nThere is no absolute certainty about this. Some sociologists argue that television has a cathartic effect on people. In that case, it would be an outlet for some emotions rather than the cause of a rising violence .\nI don't agree with those sociologists, because I keep thinking that television causes violence rather than discouraging it. Furthermore, I am deeply convinced that parents should be more careful as regards the education of their children. They should try to put an end to the hegemony of television, by finding a substitute for it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "154_FRUL2018.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nNot only Great Britain but the whole Western world was shocked by the events that took place in a little town in England: two ten-year-old boys kidnapped a two-year-old child, beat it to death, and threw it on the rails near their home. Everybody asked the same question: Why did they do this? What causes a ten-year-old boy to act in such a cruel way?\nBut the second question people asked was: What happens next? How are the boys going to be judged?\nIt is fixed in the British law that every person who has reached the age of ten is responsible for his acts. This would mean that the boys will be judged and punished like murderers, they will be sentenced to prison for life. But is this punishment really the right thing to do?\nSociologists and psychologists are more and more questioning our prison system that they call outdated and uneffective. For many young people the way of becoming a criminal is a very short one. Our society is not as stable as it has been a generation ago. After the two wars there was an upward movement throughout Europe. Industries were flourishing, technology was developing, and people were optimistically looking towards a good future. But nowadays optimism is a mentality completely strange to the biggest part of the younger generation. What frightens them are problems like unemployment, ecocide, AIDS, and the future itself. Normal consequences of these fears are drug-abuse, rejection of the values or advices of the elder generation, and the strong desire to find a community of like-minded people. Mainly in bigger cities the streets often become home for many young persons. But the law of the street is not an easy one. You have to fight for your life. If you are given no chance of earning your living in an honest way you steal the money you need or prostitute yourself to survive. And there he is the criminal of our days. When the law court judges these criminals and when they are put into prison things are getting worse: the law of the street is a hard one but the laws in prison are still harder and only the strongest survives. The problem in prison is that the prisoners are forced to live together on a very small space. This creates aggressions they cannot get rid of. The life in prison engraves on the convict's mind so that he is not able to live a normal life again after his release. He realizes that he will not get the help from society to reaccustom to a normal life: the vicious circle is closed .\nThere are services of rehabilitation for prisoners but why not rehabilitate them before they are completely spoiled in prison. Detension is not the right solution to the problem. We are dealing with a social problem and not with many different individual ones. Criminality is a product of our society and we should give criminals a chance to see that there are other ways of mastering their lives. A so-called civilised society should live with its weak members and not against them. Because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link .\n" + }, + { + "title": "155_FRUL2028.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nIf I were to respond spontaneously to this essay's title, I would say that this statement is certainly a male one. But on reflection, I consider that we should be cautious about making over-simplified assertions and try to consider the emancipation issue from a more prismatic point of view, which is not an easy undertaking .\nAccording to [Reference] emancipation is [Quotation] . The notion of emancipation implies that of equality and, considered under that angle, we are far away from the emancipated human being the Western world claims as one of its great achievements. In my opinion, it would be wrong to denigrate the enormous task accomplished by feminists such as, for example, the British suffragettes. Who could forget that in the 19th century many male citizens were legally allowed to beat their wife, that women were not admitted to universities or that they were denied the right to vote?\nBut in the following lines, I will try to give a quick outline of what I consider as being important aspects of the emancipation issue .\nAs I see it, the question of emancipation is at its very essence an economic one. Women now have the opportunity to work outside their home which means that they can earn their own living and no longer depend economically on their husband .\nSome may argue that women now have a lot more to do than in earlier days, that they must try to combine the work outside with that inside their home. But if a woman's partner does not help her with the \"homework\", she now has the choice either to die in harness or to revolt and possibly leave him. But many so-called \"liberated\" women abuse of their power and it is a shame that they seem to think that now it is their turn to oppress others .\nIn many areas of life, our social and financial situation determinates the way in which we will be treated. Let us only take the example of medecine and law: the most competent medical specialists and lawyers are often reserved to the rich. But not only the financial situation may be an obstacle in a person's life: in our bureaucratic society, where law is supposed to be accessible to all, you need a certain educational background in order to manage to obtain what is considered to be your rights .\nWhat are the most important rights a society should offer to its population? In my view, the right to work is one of them. A job gives you financial independence and the sense to contribute towards a function of our society which could be satisfactory for all its members .\nIt is a pity that more and more people fear for their job or find themselves shunted to one side. In order to safe money many jobs are sacrified, which in the long run will only amplify our problematic situation .\nThese reflections lead me to consider our political world. Are we equal politically?\nNo, we are not. The best proof of this affirmation is the fact that we are ruled by people who benefit from the regime of parliamentary privilege and enjoy many other extra advantages. Our politicians seldom remain loyal and honest once they are in power, and their politics are very often far away from the real needs of the community .\nThe gap between the most and the least favoured classes is widening, and it is tragic that those who rule us belong most often to the favoured classes or have to deny their original ideas if they want to survive in the political world. Those people, even if they are elected by our democratic system (which is far from being perfect) are simply out of touch with the problems faced by less fortunate members of our society .\nMoving towards an increasingly egocentric society with growing unemployment, racism, juvenile criminality and drug-abuses the crucial issue is that of the achievement of a real emancipation for every human being, whatever his or her gender, age or social and cultural background .\n" + }, + { + "title": "156_GEAU3089.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "NA", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: A defence of capital punishment\n\nIn what are known as the bad and cruel old days of the dark and dismal Middle Ages, we are led to believe that a bloodthirsty hangman with a black hood on his head and a huge axe in his hand was doing his job in almost every country of the known world. Not only did he execute, however, criminals or murderers. The victims slaughtered at the stake or on the scaffold came from all walks of life: from beggar to best man, from lawyer to lecturer, from queen to dairymaid, from king to knight, from witch to whore. It would have been very easy to sentence somebody to death without a real reason. It were mostly churchmen and feudal lords who abused capital punishment as an instrument of political power in order to reach their ambitious aims .\nNowadays, however, we are far from the despotism of the Middle Ages. The system of arbitrarily sentencing somebody to death has long since been abandoned in favour of fair and legal proceedings. Instead of beheading the prisoner after having blackmailed his confession it takes the prosecution a long time, many proofs and bodies of evidence to convince the jury of somebody's guilt. This system, which is still in use in the U.S., Asia and some European countries, has the great merit of being fairer and juster. The court of justice has to take over an enormous responsibility when they charge a criminal with death. The question is: Is capital punishment still a justified and suitable punishment for convicted criminals?\nThe answer depends on the crime itself. Of course it is not necessary to finish somebody off because of shop-lifting, kidnapping or extortion. If, however, the accused is a convicted murderer, terrorist or a women's nightmare, which means a sexual offender, we shouldn't keep and feed and breed him in prison at the expense of the tax-payer. It is unfortunately inevitable to sentence these criminals to death .\nSome people disagree with this. A few considering themselves as modern, fair and human and in violent reaction against capital punishment, maintain that this kind of punishing is cruel and antiquated and has to be abandoned. They fight for humanity and regard capital punishment as a violation of human rights. But, why should we defend or even spare culprits of bestial and beastly crimes? They wouldn't respect human rights at all! They murder and kill and rape and are a menace to all people. Killing innocend people doesn't deserve anything better than capital punishment! An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth!\nOther people have what appears to be a better reason against capital punishment. They say that this punishment doesn't act as a measure of deterrent. If you have a look at the U.S., they say you will have to notice that although capital punishment has been imposed for convicted criminals the number of committed crimes is still rising. The argument against this point is that the danger of being sentenced to death will prevent first offenders from committing a crime. Persistent offenders like mass murderers, however, are at least done in. They can't go on killing and raping people after a couple of years in prison. It is life and limb of former and potential victims which has to be respected and protected as careful as possible .\n" + }, + { + "title": "157_GEAU4002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Argue the case for or against capital punishment \n\n\"Therefore I sentence you to be hanged by the neck until you are dead!\" This sentence was the end of the trial, but for him it was the beginning - the beginning of the last few days of his life. He was twenty-six years old, in the prime of his life, but all that remained were four days, four days of waiting, dreading what lay before him. Then finally at 8 o'clock in the morning that solitary walk to the gallow. A young body, an active mind, a life to be cut down before its time. The hood over his head, the noose around his neck - still a human being, shivering with fright, panting heavily. At last a click and the trapdoor swings open. The man has fallen three feet when the noose grips, crushing his neck and strangling his windpipe. The muscular spasm of the rectum and the bladder robs the corpse of its last human trait - dignity .\nThis scene, which is not uncommon in some parts of the world, might well happen again in our country. The call for the reintroduction of capital punishment has increased immensely during the last few years. It seems to be the ultimate weapon against the rise of crime, the nuclear deterrent of punishment. Most people who argue pro capital punishment, however, overlook the fact that the threat of losing their life does not deter people from committing crimes, quite the opposite in fact. Those states of the US which re-introduced the death sentence did not succeed in decreasing the crime rate, which is at least en par with states without capital punishment, if not even higher. Japan has, amid much protest from Amnesty International, recently executed several prisoners after suspending the execution for several years. Again there is no evidence that links crime statistics with the threat of capital punishment. There is of course an argument for the death sentence, which cannot easily be disputed. One could say that if a member of the human race commits an atrocious crime, say the wilful murder of another human, he or she has forfeited the right to live. In this case the taking of that life would not be a deterrent for others or revenge, but simply a penalty, the ultimate exclusion from the community of humans. This is a view a lot of early cultures took .\nThere is, however, one flaw in that argument. This flaw lead to the abolition of the death-penalty in Great Britain (+) in the fifties. It is not always possible to establish whether the accused is actually guilty of the crime he is supposed to have committed. The last person hanged in England was found guilty by the jury on the basis of evidence, although he always maintained his innocence. A few months after his death it was indeed proven that the wrong person was killed. The ensuing public outcry and debate finally lead to the abolition of capital punishment. It did not however bring the unfortunate victim back to life .\nIn my view there is no justification in capital punishment, if there is the slightest chance of wrongful sentence. If only one in a million were hanged although innocent, the death-penalty as a whole would be wrong. It is not in our power to judge correctly all the time, but we cannot correct a death-sentence once executed .\n(+) FN: To say that Britain has abolished capital punishment is not entirely correct. There is still a law that decrees that anyone who murders a member of the royal family can be sentenced to death .\n" + }, + { + "title": "158_GEAU4006.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Argue the case for or against capital punishment \n\n\"From a hopeful to a has been to a front runner to a superstar.\" This is a favourable portrayal of the new U.S. President Bill Clinton that could be found in this week's TIME magazine [Feb . 1]. This man, the most powerful and most influential politician on earth, is momentarily worshipped by the whole American nation. However, he governs a country where abortion and capital punishment (that means guilty people sentenced to death by hanging, electric chair or gas-chamber where the human being experiences gruesome pain by slow asphyxiation) are legal means of shortening human existences .\nDue to statistics there are more than 650 innocent women and children raped or tortured in Germany per year. These poor, frail creatures will be physically and psychically marked for the rest of their lives. A considerable percentage of those despaired victims even tries to commit suicide. But how are the tormentors prosecuted?\nCan you still remember media reports in 1977 when two children of the wealthy Oetker family were kidnapped? They were brutally arrested in a small box hidden in a wooded area. After a short time they died because of a lack of air for breath. But what was the childrens' guilt? They had to suffocate horribly just for monetary reasons!\nTwo years ago the chairman of the Deutsche Bank, Mr. Herrhausen was assassinated when his car was blown up by a bomb. An important position had been his death sentence. But what will happen to the RAF terrorists who signed responsible for that tremendous crime? Have we got to go back again to murder prosecution with the help of capital punishment? Isn't there a true biblical quotation that goes like \"an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth\"? Or the common vendetta slogan \"a life for a life\". That means that murder must be revenged by the execution of the killer?\nBut it can't be a fitting measure to end people's life by a decision of a law court. For, originally, there is the good in every creature. It only depends how and where children are brought up. And this is a reason for the fact that many human beings develop differently and sometimes commit crimes. Society has to help those helpless creatures and cure them if possible .\nLife was given by God. The human existence is a miraculously divine gift. And every person has its individual destiny with which it has to cope as far as possible. God gives life and takes it. That means that only our creator can end our existence. So, nobody can murder another person whether it be a beggar or a judge .\nFor me, abortion, euthanasia (when you help a person to die) and even capital punishment are illegal ways of killing. And not to speak of suicide because we're not allowed to leave our destiny if God doesn't finish it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "159_GEAU4011.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Why should anyone study foreign languages?\n\nYou can hear it everywhere and from everybody that, today, studying foreign languages is almost compulsory. It can be of direct use to the learner when he or she goes abroad. And reasons for going abroad are numerous nowadays. It is not only a matter of having fun and going on holiday. If we take into account the situation of the European Community there is no denying the fact that the use of foreign languages can become important in your job situation. It might even be just the extra qualification you need to get a job at all .\nImagine yourself being sent to an international congress in the U.S. on behalf of your company. You are expected to return with detailed information on the latest development on the international market. You may still feel quite comfortable with the American congress. Usually one can gather the gist of the lectures with what you remember of your English learnt in school. Yet being sent to France could already be more of a risk, since they will most probably stick to French there, as the French are known for showing little inclination to giving up their mother tongue .\nOf course, studying foreign languages is not all about jobs and career. Being on holiday travelling through a remote, sleepy village in the Tatra mountains in Slovakia or passing through an old, rustic wine-growing estate at the foot of wavy hills patched with green and ochre, sun-burnt vines in the south of France, you will feel so much closer to the natives and the country when you are able to ask your way around or even have a chat with them. Communication in a foreign country enhances the intercultural aspect of your holidays considerably .\nI know what I am talking about. I had been doing English for eight years at school and for three more years at university when I decided to spend a couple of weeks travelling round Britain and Ireland, spending a sort of educational holiday there to brush up my geographic and cultural knowledge of it. I started the tour in a small, yet picturesque and lively little seaside resort right at the coast of Northern Ireland. It was the first evening of my holidays and I was keen on getting to know people, talking to native speakers. I was out for the authentic kind of information these people were supposed to be able to deliver as recommended over and over again by teachers and lecturers at home .\nIn eager anticipation I went to the local pub. As I had hoped I met people very quickly. They were very friendly. At least I could tell that from their behaviour. I could not tell it from what they were saying though, because I did not understand a word. The first man I talked to was the pub owner behind the bar. He was an old man lacking some teeth and mumbling terribly. I thought, \"well, too bad, but I would probably have difficulties understanding him in my own language...\". Yet I had but little less problems understanding \"average\" speakers .\nThis only started to improve after three or four weeks when I had got used to the peculiarities of different accents and dialects. Only then could I start to talk to people without asking them three times to repeat what they had just said, which really makes natural and relaxed conversation impossible. So I would still recommend that studying foreign languages is a nice and noble thing to do; but do not expect it to be of too much direct use when you go abroad!\n" + }, + { + "title": "160_GESA4003.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should the death penalty be abolished? \n \nAt the beginning I want to make clear that in my opinion there does not exist an appropriate sentence for a crime because the circumstances and the psychological state of mind of the perpetrator are always different. Therefore the death penalty should also be abolished in those countries where it is still practised .\nIn my opinion nobody has the right to kill a person in order to take revenge or because of any other reason. It goes without saying that every person who commits a crime has to be punished, because otherwise the legal system of a state would be questioned and the public security would no longer be guaranteed .\nTo my mind not even the members of the Supreme Court have the right to impose the death penalty on a criminal, because also they cannot pass an absolutely unfailing judgement whether the perpetrator is guilty or not. No matter how many pieces of evidence prove the guilt of a criminal, I think there always remain doubts and a feeling of uncertainty .\nAlready in the Bible it is written that you should not give tit for tat because that does not lead to a solution. The supporters of the death penalty should point out to themselves that it is no solution to kill a criminal because he killed somebody. It is far more important to help the criminal and to search for the reason why such atrocities are carried out in our modern society .\nMy point of view is that everybody should get a second chance no matter what he had done. Also criminals should have the possibility to integrate themselves again in the society povided that they have realized the incorrectness of their actions and are willing to mend their ways .\nThere are several kinds of crimes but in my opinion the most important distinction is to be made between terrorist killings and other crimes. Terrorist killings are generally committed by several people who get their instructions by a kind of leader who plans the action. The nature of terrorism is that a certain number of people fight for a certain idea or for their beliefs. IF some people of their group are imprisoned they, for example, hijack an aeroplane to get them free again. Terrorists know how to attract people's attention and which actions they must set to be successful, because if innocent human beings are involved the government of a state must react very quickly, because the lives of human beings cannot be risked. I think that not all politically-motivated violence is terrorism because many political assassinations are committed by perpetrators who are no terrorists .\nAdditionally it is necessary to distinguish between violence carried out by the state and violence carried out by individuals. Both kinds of violence have to be judged differently because violence carried out by the state often causes full-scale ruptures in the fabric of society and violence carried out by individuals do mostly not attack the system of society in that violent way. The distinction I have made is a rather rough one but I wanted to point out how many different kinds of crimes do exist and how variable their reasons and consequences are. Therefore I cannot imagine that anyone presumes to pass the judgement of death penalty on a criminal. I am sure that already also a few innocent people had been killed although the judges had several pieces of evidence to prove their guilt .\nI hope that soon the supporters of the death penalty realize that it is no solution to kill criminals but to improve the structure of our modern society which is the reason for all atrocities which are committed. In most cases a crime is comitted because the perpetrators want to attract attention because they are at loss what to do. Therefore they should not be killed but helped out of their difficulties .\n" + }, + { + "title": "161_GESA4004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should the death penalty be abolished? \n \n [Quotation] [Reference] . This definition does clarify the meaning of the phrase \"capital punishment\" but it does not provide any justification for the use of the death penalty. It seems to me that asking \"what\" capital punishment is is not as important as the question \"why\" it is still in use. In many countries all over the world hell is still being raised over the controversial question whether death penalty should be abolished or not .\nSome religious faiths are based on the bible or at least on parts of it. Many people consider themselves to be true believers, so why should they not live by the laws of the book of books? Why should they not [Quotation] [Reference] ? And why should they not abide by the biblical law, [Quotation] ? [Reference] Many western European societies seem to have realized that the texts of the bible are outdated. Since the age of the Enlightenment the death sentence has been highly critizised. Although this kind of punishment was controversial since the 18th century, many countries abolished the death sentence only a few years ago. The Federal Republic of Germany for example abolished capital punishment in 1949 whereas former East Germany used this kind of punishment up to the reunion of east and west in 1989. The Austrian government, which used to carry out the death sentences by hanging, decided in 1919 not to use death penalty anymore. So did Switzerland in 1937. France, which had many spectacular beheadings, only abolished the death penalty in 1981. The United States government also decided to abolish death penalty in 1972, but unfortunately, some states of the Union reestablished capital punishment in 1976 and still use it today (cf. Brockhuas) 1961 the British lawyer Peter Benenson founded Amnesty International (ai). The organization aims to help prisoners who were arrested for religious, racial or ethical reasons, provided they did not approve of or use violence. Every year ai members plead for the release of about 5000 prisoners. The organization holds conferences and initiates actions against the violation of human rights. There is a high demand for organizations like ai as the high number of executions in 1984 sadly documents . 1125 verifiable executions in 44 countries worldwide seem to be a cry for help. ai was awarded the Nobel peach price in 1977. (cf. Fischer Weltalmanach 1988).\nThe Afro-American Edward Earl Johnson was sentenced to death by a jury in Louisiana for murdering a white women. The verdict was based only on the statement which Johnson had given under the pressure of policemen forcing him to repeat their words at pistol point. Although his family and his lawyer appealed to the Supreme Court several times, Edward E. Johnson was executed in the early eighties after spending only a comparatively short period of time on death row. According to Amnesty International, Mr Johnson is the 24th innocent individual since 1961 who was executed .\nIn the United States there is a steady increase in the number of criminal actions. Therefore the need for solutions is crucial. The President of the country, Bill Clinton, and his staff developed a bill which is currently discussed in congress. Besides employing an additional number of policemen Bill Clinton proposes that the death penalty should be reestablished for another 47 crimes. Apparently Bill Clinton concludes that a greater number of executions will act as a deterent for other criminals. Of course, the intensification of the death penalty will not be the only novelty. The new bill on gun purchase seems to have far more potential of being effective. The authors of this bill suggest that there should be a five day interval between the application for a weapon and the actual receipt of the gun. In those five days police could inquire about the potential purchaser. But it will not be easy to make this bill a law because the gun lobby is very powerful in the United States .\nIn the United States crime is beyond the point where it can be controlled by police. State penitentiaries are overcrowded and there are no social programms which help to keep the youngsters of the streets. Statistics say that the number of 14-17 year old murderers has increased by 124% from 1986-1991. Teenagers experience so much violence on the streets that the thought of dying does not really frighten them anymore. The death sentence therefore loses its purpose, if it ever had one .\n" + }, + { + "title": "162_GESA4005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should the death penalty be abolished? \n \nIn some states of the USA the death penalty is still executed .\nSome people think that it is not right to punish someone by putting him to death. Another part of the population thinks that a person who kills humans deliberately, has lost the right to live. They are sure that it is bad enough to put him to jail for the rest of his life. They think that the danger is over as soon as the prison doors close behind him. What they do not know is that these people earn a certain kind of respect in jail. Hence, some of them have a better life in jail than outside. Of course they are still locked, but they are certainly not punished the way the judge intended it. I think it is no secret that mighty drug dealers are able to make business in jail. Locking up is a punishment for small criminals only. Powerful criminals still make money in jail, and they life on the costs of the small ones. Hence, the jail can not be a really effective punishment .\nKilling murderers is a very fair punishment I guess. What should be changed or more specified is the law. If someone is really guilty like for example members of street gangs, who use automatic weapons, there is no reason for not punishing them as hard as possible. If there are doubts left, it is not reasonable to put him to death. Not those who kill unwillingly or by accident are enemies of the society. They are victims of coincidences or provocation and beyond certain levels, a human is no longer responsible for his actions. Only those who kill deliberate, for money or for fun should feel the cold breath of death. Even in this cases it is not the death that punishes. It is the way how it is done and even more than that, the waiting for the hour to come. Sitting in the cell and waiting, unable to do anything about it, that is the real punishment. Being just as helpless as the victim was .\nAccording to police, violence is increasing. Crime develops every day and it is hard to stop or even fight it. Only if the laws are developing as fast as the crime does, there is a chance for us to obtain justice. In my opinion there should be a death penalty for real bad cases. If there are still doubts left it is better to send the defendant to jail .\nIf the case is clear there is only one way of punishment. According to the old Celtic proverb: \"vengeance is a dish that is better eaten cold\".\n" + }, + { + "title": "163_GESA4007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Do you think that the death penalty should be abolished? \n \nIn my opinion, the death penalty should be abolished - the sooner, the better. I cannot believe that this kind of punishment is still tolerated in our - like everybody thinks - modern society. Especially in the USA convicted men and woman are killed by death injections, on the electric chair or in gas chambres, even today. The most illogical thing for me is, that a murderer is condemned to death in one American state and in another he is not .\nNow, the question is, why only so few people protest against this punishment, on the contrairy, some citizens even switch on their TV to see, how a convicted person is killed! SO, these people seem to be for the death penalty, but what are their reasons?\nI think very important for their opinion is the propaganda by politicians. They often tell us that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. In my opinion this is totally wrong. Every criminal just thinks that he will never be caught and so most of them do not even think of a sentencing in the moment of the criminal act. Anyway, in the Soviet Union, the death penalty has already been abolished, but the crime rate is lower than in the US neverthenless. So, this punishment has nothing to do with deterrent .\nEven the worth thing is that the convicted people mostly have to wait for years until they are killed and have no idea when. They cannot \"survive psychically\" if every day could be their last. However, what about the miscarriages of justice? It already happened that innocents have been killed in the name of right and justice. Our guilty conscience can't bring them back to life again!\nJust generally spoken: I think that noone has the right to kill anybody, no matter, if the convicted person is a murderer or not. We are living in the twentiest century and the death penalty really reminds me of the time of Hammurabi .\nOf course, it is always dangerous that a captive flees, but also that an innocent is killed. And who wants to be responsible for that?\nAnother reason for the absolition of the death penalty is of course the brutallity of the murderer. If we just think of the electric chair. Sometimes it even lasts ten! minutes until the condemned person is dead. Isn't this a real torture?\nThe best thing would be that everybody who is affected by the death penalty, can decide for himself, if he wants to be life imprisonment or if he prefers to die soon and fast. But therefore, new possibilities for the chosen liquidation must be found, which the victims are murdered painlessly .\n" + }, + { + "title": "164_GESA4009.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Do you think that the death penalty should be abolished? \n \nIn many countries of the world, even in some states of the U.S.A., death penalty is a common method to punish murderers or other criminals who have done a really bad crime. But it is also known that such methods of punishment are like those people used already thousands of years ago. Is it allright then, that in such highly civilized countries, as the United States, death penalty is still used?\nOne can understand that the relatives of a person who has been brutally murdered want revenge. The majority of people feel that to the person who has committed such a crime, as a murder, should happen the same. Especially when there has been a mass murder many people have the feeling that the person having done this should be killed too. I think that one can understand such feelings very well .\nAnother reason why many people are not against the death penalty is that they think that the death of a delinquent is going to frighten other criminals. It is a common opinion that if criminals are punished very hard there will be less crimes. Therefore the death penalty is also considered to be a deterrent for other criminals .\nBesides society feels much better when it is known that a criminal cannot do harm anymore. When a murderer is punished to death people are sure that he cannot commit murder again. Therefore society feels safer when criminals, especially murderers, are also killed .\nOn the other hand there are other possibilities to protect the society from criminals. In many countries, for instance, murderers are imprisoned for the rest of their lives. There is just a very slight chance that a deliquent is able to break out of a prison and commit crimes again. Therefore prisons can very well keep criminals away from the rest of the society. Besides it is had enough for a person to spend the rest of his life in prison .\nThere would be also possibilities to have something like revenge, when people are imprisoned. Criminals, especially murderers should have to work hard for the rest of their lives. With their work they should help those who had suffered most from their crimes. Or the money which is raised by this work should be given to family members of a killed person. One can say that such means do not bring the dead to life again, but killing the one who committed the crime does not do it either. By having to work a criminal at least has to try to repare the harm he has done to someone and it is probably the only way to better the situation. And as I said killing a person for having murdered someone does not change anything .\nMy personal opinion is that no person has the right to judge wether a person should live or not. Not even when he has done a very bad crime. Besides one has to give everyone a chance to change and to better. There have been interviews with persons short before they were going to be executed. Some of these interviews are deeply mooving, because it seems that some of the deliqents regret their deeds and seem to have changed. Therefore I think, that people do not have the right to judge wether a person should be punished with death or not .\nI feel very sorry that highly civilized countries still do not have other means than death penalty in order to deal with criminals, especially with murderes. This is indeed the easiest way to handle crimes. But I do not think that this is the only and best way .\nI am convinced that there are other methods of punishment which are as effective as death penalty .\n" + }, + { + "title": "165_GESA4010.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Do you think that the death penalty should be abolished? \n \nNowadays we should be civilized enough to be able to find other forms of penalty regardless of the severeness of a crime. There are nations where death penalty is still legalized and applied. But we must ask ourselves whether it really affects the crime rate! Does it reduce criminality? Experience has shown that the crime rate in countries where death penalty is rejected as a legal form of punishment is not higher compared with those of countries where it is legally accepted .\nThat fact proves that criminals are not prevented from criminal actions because of the existence of death penalty. That is why we must ask ourselves whether there exist other mesures of punishment which are more effective, mesures which have a deterrent effect, acting as exemplary punishments. We know that death penalty has not been able to meet this requirement. When I write this I do not think about physical mesures of even about torture. But in my opinion being arrested for a long period of time or for the rest of the life can be the severest form of punishment for human beings. Being forced to work hard in jail without seeing any results or receiving any feedback for the work seems to me to be much more effective. Many criminals would prefer death to jail. I believe that it is worst for a human being not to have the freedom to go where one wants to and what one wishes to do. For criminals it might be easier to die than to be forced to live in imprisonment. Some even decide to commit suicide instead of being put in prison .\nTo decide about the life of a criminal, who still remains a human being, seems to e a little like playing god. The lifes of judges in nations where death penalty is still legalized and of those people who have to carry out the \"killing\" of criminals are also destroyed in some way. I can not imagine that this can be seen as a normal job. One can not go home in the evening and forget about the \"work\" during the day. It must be an enormous burden for everybody however hardened one is .\nI have never been in the situation of a victim in such a severe case and I have not been concerned either. Although I am against all forms of violence I try to understand the feelings of affected people. I can imagine they wish to do harm to the culprit who has hurtened them, their relatives or their friends. It is just human and I am sure that I would react in a similar way. To supress the hate must be nearly impossible But we would not be better in any account, would we? From the view of affected persons death penalty might be seen as justified, for example, for murder, for abusing children or for doing harm to any other innocent person. But it does not really help the victims, does it? Maybe for a short moment there is a feeling of retaliation. But in order to cope with the situation it will take a long time and help in other forms than revenge will be required .\nOf course it is much easier to insist on the abolishment of death penalty for a person who is not directly concerned. But I really believe that there are more effective forms of punishment than reacting to crimes with killing the culprits .\n" + }, + { + "title": "166_GESA4011.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Do you think that the death penalty should be abolished? \n \nIn the middle of the 18th century there was no doubt about the expediency of the death penalty. The Carolina (1536) provided a death penalty in most cases of crime. The execution was extremly cruel. During the 18th century the death penalty had slowly been pushed aside by imprisonment. The fight against the death penalty has started in the Enlightment and has not ended yet. The Pro and Contra deals mainly wit two questions: 1.\tThe ethic question wheter the government has the right to demand the life of an individual for the sake of the community .\n2.\tThe question wheter or not the death penalty is necessary and suits for the protection of the society .\nIn the German Reich the death penalty was taken into the Penal Statute again but with the restriction to murder. The execution was set through decapitation with no allowance to the public. The military Penal Statute executed through shooting .\nNowadays the death penalty is abolished in most european coutries and in some states in Northamerica. So far about the history .\nI am of the opinion that the death penalty is abolished because nobody has the right to decide about the life of another person. Of course a murderer has not the right either. Anyway I think that our overcrowded prisons are a result of the fact that children have had their childhood stolen from them. Sometimes their childhood had been stolen through their parents because they abused their children. But a child need not be abused. It is enough if does not feel the love of a mother or a father. If we take a look at the case of James Bulgar whose tormentors are both just 13 years old. And it is known by now, that they did never have a harmonic familylife .\nBut there are also people imprisoned and wait for their execution who are innocent. They never had a fair lawsuit and a real chance to get out of it. These people do often not have enough money to have their own attorney. In most cases these people who are treated unfairly are black people. Most famous example is the case of Gary Graham. It has been proven, that he had been treated unfairly, but the American Justice does not want to get into the case once again .\nIn addition, I think the inequality between black and white will stay forever in the minds of most of the Americans. As well as we have it in Europe with Turks, for instance .\nAs I mentioned before I think, that no-one has the right to decide if someone may live or not. But I must confess that I do not think the same way if somebody abuses and kills innocent children. These people should be executed as fast as possible. I believe that the children are our future and without them mankind would become extinct. What we need to learn is not childish. Being with them connects us to the deep wisdom of life, which is everpresent and only asks to believed. So, if anyone kills that source where all the love and divine comes from, he is not worth living .\nAnother sad and cruel thing is the way how the convict is treated. Some people received their date of execution, were lead to the execution room and were finally taken back to their cell again. But this does not happen just once. It is likely that things like that happen more than five times. It is like psychological war with the convicts .\nIf a state eagerly wants to kill people in a legal way, the government should create a law to do that in an instant and not after 25 years. It is not relevant that I guess .\n" + }, + { + "title": "167_GRAR1032.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n\n\tMany years ago, people led their lives according to what religion dictated they should do, many times without thinking if those doctrines where the ones that they really believed in or because they were just used to do so, taking their ancestors as an example. However, this attitude towards life has changed the last years, and people seem to have replaced religion with television .\n\tReligion is one of the most important sectors in the life of all people from all the world. It keeps people together along with their country and their family, and maybe this was the main reason why people, several years ago, were so attached to it. Probably they thought that through religion their life was in an order, and that they could lead a pious life, without bad thoughts that could make them become sinners. They even thought that their life wouldn't end with death and that they would go somewhere away from sinners, in paradise, that they would be saved. So, people followed the ideas of church and they also tried to pass them to their children in the same way that these were passed to them by their parents .\n\tAll the above may seem quite logical, as there is nothing wrong in following ideas that keep our souls \"Clean\", let alone that keep families, and people in general, together, as their relationship and their intentions are good and of sincere motives. However, all these hide a lot of dangers behind. There were people who not only just believed in religion but they did so in a way that they couldn't feel like they were free. Of course, there were people who followed religion because they left so, but there were also those who did so because they were brought up with particular beliefs. The latter group, which was also the majority of people, were just used to that kind of life while deep inside them they felt the need to do things that they were against what they were taught. And it is well known how many people, who could not react, became hypocrites, giving a certain impression to others and doing secretely what they wanted, even proceeding to bad acts .\n\tNowadays, reaction and beliefs like the above have almost disappeared. The way and the rythm of people's life has led them to a new way of living, in which there is no more place for religion, which has been replaced by television. Not that people are not religious any more but they are not so obsessed like they used to be. However, what seems they pay more attention to is television, which they have found it as they only way they can relax with. It's the easiest solution after a tiring day, and people get used to it in a way that they don't watch it just to inform themselves or to be entertained but even to learn about the lattest gossips, about famous people, for example, something which obviously has nothing to offer them .\n\tMoreover, they are daily bombarded with scenes like accidents which make them have a bad psychology as well as with other inappropriate scenes, like sexual ones, which make people, even young children, to start having \"saucy\" thoughts. Although, all these are against religion, as they disturb, in a way, \t\n\tTo sum up, the television nowadays has such an impact on people that has become a kind of religion. What people should pay attention to is not to watch it and let it consume them in the way religion years ago used to do .\n" + }, + { + "title": "168_GRAR1077.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n\n\tIt is widely accepted that, once, religion could fanaticize and totally brainwash the masses. It had become the principal social value and people considered it to be almost a necessity in their lives. According to Charles Marx, religion was the opium of the masses and this was undoubtedly correct, given that people regarded religion as a drug indispensable to life . \n\tNowadays, values have changed. Religion doesn't play such an important role anymore, but its place has been taken by the television since the early 21st century. In our days, it is a general truth that television is a primary necessity and people feel that they even can't survive without it. For this reason, we could claim that they are addicted to it, as if television were their drug .\n\tFirstly, people through television and, especially, through T.V. advertisements, are subject to a constant brainwash. The worst thing is that the majority of people doesn't even understand the effects of television on them. It is a general opinion that television makes use of various ways to convey its messages and affect people. The philosophy of television is based on images, which prevail and so, we become attached to it without question. Images change so quickly that we cannot react or think twice. We are exposed to a constant shift of pictures that we don't have the time to respond or to understand the brainwash that we go through .\n\tFurthermore, people are expected to remain passive viewers, since in this way, they are influenced more easily by television. In a similar way, the masses had become brainwashed by religion many decades earlier and they had remained passive towards this propaganda. It is apparent that, in both cases, people felt unable to react and struggle against the establishment of religion or of television. What is more, in both cases, people received messages conveyed in such a way, that they wouldn't have the chance to think twice and reject them, but they were forced to accept them without question .\n\tTo draw a conclusion, people should understand the influence they receive from television and the brainwash they go through as passive viewers. They should awaken their minds and escape from the lethargy of television viewing. It would be very useful for them to start reading books in order to broaden their mental horizons and, finally, fight the propaganda of television. It's time that people should put an end to this underestimation of their own mind .\n" + }, + { + "title": "169_GRAR1086.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n\n\tIt is true that nowadays television has become a kind of religion. It is \"cherished\" by so many people around the world and it is given so much attention that it could be compared with any religion.\n\tTo begin with, television has millions of fans in the world. Every household has one or more than one television devices. They are almost everywhere, like the ever-present God of a religion. This proves that just like as it happens with the religion, where people turn to find consolation from their every day problems, the same happens with television. It offers them a way to get away from their own reality. People forget their own problems simply by gazing or watching the other people's lives and problems. And this gives them great consolation because there always be someone in the world who is facing greater difficulties than you. This is certainly a comfort.\n\tHowever, this comforting situation is not so innocent. We have to consider the fanatic followers of some religions who are ready to do anything for it and do not accept any brand new or innovating ideas that could make the world better. These people are \"brainwashed\" with ideas of fanaticism and cannot see further in an open-minded way. The same happens with television. Specific ideas, attitudes and misleading information can cause great damage in a society. People are \"bound\" on their couches receiving and accepting without thought every message. This turns them to inactive television addicts who believe that television can offer them the true and do not search any further or at least test this information.\n\tFurthermore, the power that television has upon the people is almost divine. It imposes its will on people and they follow it as if they are blind or deaf. It has the power to create idols and leaders overnight and convince everybody about them. But sometimes these people do not deserve such treatment or even worst they can prove to be dangerous. Many talent shows will bring about to be famous people who lack talent or skills. A political compaign advertisement can make us change our minds and a rather convincing advertisement spot will tell us how to live our lives.\n\tMoreover, television has something to add to the consumerism of our society. The materialism is promoted through television with countless advertisements of products. As technology evolves, more attractive ways of convincing us to buy something appear. In a way we are happy and complete as human beings only if we possess the latest technological product advertised, or if we wear that clothes, or eat and drink these foods. The burden of all these products does not allow us to search further far more intellectual and spiritual completeness. So we are kept hall-asleep thinking nothing more than how we can acquire more products and show our wealth to the others. We are easily mislead and carried away without being able to react . \n\tPeople's attitude change through television. They either imitate or follow other behaviours. In that way all people become the same and no individual can be different. This uniformity of attitude can only be catastrophic for those who want to stay different.\n\tTelevision can be the opium of masses as religion was once thought. But is up to us to understand that we have the power to control television with our critical mind and thought and make the best choises for us. We need to be awaken for everything we receive, we should not be passive and easily manipulated but open-minded and ready to react.\n" + }, + { + "title": "170_GRAR1091.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n\n\tConsidering the multi-dimensional role of religion through the years and how much has it affected certain forms of behaviour of humans anyone could agree that what we call \"religion\" is regarded as the strongest, firm, unchangeable belief a person can hold. Religion doesn't always refer to spiritual ideas conserning God or other supernatural force. As a matter of fact by the term \"religion\" one can think of his favourite football team, the relationship with a friend, family, a political belief, generally whatever has to do with a stable dedication to an idea. Sometimes close to fanatism. And only as such, Marx once characterized \"religion\" as the opium of the masses, and in that sense \"religion\" can be fairly replaced by \"television\".\n\tAlthough, under no circumstances could I contrast religion with television - as for me, television hardly exists - I can recognize how harmful effects can it have on humans regardless of their socio-economic backround, their culture, their age or their political beliefs. One needs no more than ten minutes to realize what kind of models are presented on television. Take first women who desperately go on strict diets, do everything to be likeable to others because of the certain models of women shown on TV every day: Women more or less of the same weight, usually taller than average, with certain way of dressing codes, certain way of maquillage, definite way of speaking, even with standardized posture. For God's Sake can all these women who look alike be actually the same; can they have the same needs; can they behave the same way in all situations? Therefore Marx talked about \"masses\". What actually happens with women has to do with the psychology of mass. Automatically the unique existence and personality of each human is completely banned . \n\tHave you ever thought the vast amount of money a family should need to be supported nowadays? What about the kids' needs? What about the real needs of adults? How has it become necessary that a kid of eight years of age have a mobile phone in his/her possession? The worst is to follow. No parent can resist because he/she can provide no arguments against his/her kids' illogical demands. Undoubtedly, television is to blame for this superficial so-called every day needs. Even if we seem to be alert and \"run\" all the time to catch up with time, the truth is that we are in a lethargic situation every day and unable to react to this monstrous invention called T.V.\n\tConcerning unemployment, instead of being informed about the real situation of job vacancies, we are shown publicities of graduate students who automatically become managers of a company and of course \"rich\" with two cars, four mobiles and two maids to bring up the kids. So, we shouldn't wonder why people looking for a job, really look for a manager's position which is practically impossible. Disappointed by a rejection such a person will be definitely a psychologist's client, some time in his/her life . \n\tOne could argue that television can educate, inform, amuse people. It is true but only in a very tiny percentage. This is certainly not accidental. The actual purpose of T.V. is what opium does. It runs into your body gradually and in certain dosage until you become an addict. What actually does is the fact that it prevents you from thinking, deciding or expressing yourself. When you become a member of the man you have no right to change path, so consequently you've lost the right of uniqueness.\n\tAll previous examples mentioned may have seemed exaggerating but in fact they are not. Let us not forget how people of former generations used to spent their leisure time and could manage to be happier than we are. Meeting friends regularly, joining a gym, going out for a walk, reading books, playing with the kinds and all kinds of activities one can think of, can actually fill us with energy and most important of all can make us face the real aspect of life, what our family needs, how better and fruitful our relationships can become through communication and not seated silent in front of a T.V. set.\n" + }, + { + "title": "171_GRAR1130.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n\n\tTelevision has been burdened from its very birth with accusations that attack it both as a device and as a concept: it's bad for your eyes and for your mind. More than anything, however, it seems to be a controller of the masses, a monarch that rules implicitly and, thus, is even more threatening .\nBeing the queen of mass media, television is inevitably to blame for the dominance of popular culture. And popular culture is as great a curse as television, it seems. Together, they manipulate public taste, form opinions, shape the masses into complete uniformity. Adorno and Horckheimer have discussed this extensively, in an attempt to save the public from mental death, evidently. Very gentlemanly of them . \n\tBut it is not just the philosophic elite that has condemned television as being the opium of the people. Those of communist beliefs have also attributed to television and popular culture the role of controller and manipulator .\n\tHowever, it should strike one as odd that all those who condemn television seem to consider the public a mass that is willing to shallow whatever is given them. And, while it is not surprising that such an attitude would be adopted by great thinkers like Adorno, it is almost paradoxical for communists, who claim that power should be in the hands of the people, to consider that same group of people unable to decide for themselves what to watch on television .\nFortunately, Stuart Hall and others came to set things right. This new opinion took in consideration the public itself, and its ability to analyze and digest or reject the data it receives. According to Hall, a viewer is totally able to decipher the input s/he receives and decide what attitude to adopt towards that input .\n\tNo one can claim that television is all good. However, it is good to know when to stop with conspiracy theories. It might be true, for example, that TV advertisements can have highly elaborate embedded messages in their images, but how is this any different from any other trick one might employ to sell a product? Small frauds like this are as old as buying and selling, and, in the end, why is it television's fault and not the businessman's? The medium may be different, but the fraud is old news .\n\tTo be honest, I have been playing devil's advocate to an extent, since I'm tired of listening to all that is wrong with television. But I have watched great documentaries on television, discovered great films, relaxed with witty sit-coms. And when I'm tired of it I can press the-very underestimated - off button and get on with my life. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, perhaps I'm not convinced by the image of the hunching ape that evolved into a standing human being only to be reduced again into a hunching man in front of a TV. But it seems to me that the problem with the world is not television .\n" + }, + { + "title": "172_GRAR2007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n\n\tThe University is supposed to be among the highest institutions in all countries that has the power to make people capaple for better opportunities in life, in terms of education and a professional carreer as well. Universities are the means that \"discriminate\" and categorize people in society and mainly in the professional field .\n\tThere are Institutions that are concidered to be even higher from the average Universities (for example the French Grand Ecoles), but undoubtedly whoever succeeds in entering a University is considered to have a better chance in life, than for example a person who has not been educated further more, after high school .\n\tThe reason this situation exists is mainly the recognition a person can achieve after obtaining a University degree. Recognition in terms of knowledge and achievement. Universities are considered to be the highest of all other educational institutions and this fact makes a person's admission to them quite difficult . (Especially in cases like the Greek Universities that are public).\n\tOn the other hand, even though the admission to a University happens to be difficult, the degree it offers after some years of study happens to be mostly theoretical. This results to the fact that a student, holder of his bachelor, enters the real world without having any kind of experience (practical) regarding his studies. Sometimes bachelor degree holders end up having jobs completely irrelevant to the subject that they had been studying, for maybe 6 or 7 years .\n\tOn the other hand there are other institutions concerning people who have not succeeded in entering a University. Technological institutions and many kinds of private schools or \"University - like\" institutions offer a variety of studies including practice on certain study fields (such as finance, or tourism studies). This might be considered a more organized and responsible choice to make, in order to succeed in a future working environment, especially the one that requires working experience right after the obtaining of a degree .\n\tAre these institutions more well informed or well organized from a University? They might be. However the University has been the one and only \"top\" acceptable institution that has the power to \"form\" the personalities and promote the majority of the future scientists and the future leaders as well .\nConcerning working experience and practice, it is a fact that many University departments apply some semestrial obligatory (sometimes) interships for their students (such as agronomy departments, medicine, civil engineering etc). So, the bachelor degree holder mostly do not come out of the University not having a clue about what they are going to do in their lifes .\n\tIn addition, as far as I am concerned, regarding the University departments that do not apply such procedures concerning working practice during studying, if a student wants to work it is up to him/her to do so, either by looking for an intership within the University gates or even in the real world .\nThere are job opportunities everywhere. What the University is meant to do, is to prepare us for the real world, by giving us the opportunity of free choice and independence. For I believe that a University department that does not apply immediate working practice, has its own power and way to make its students independent and responsible about what they should choose .\n\tMaybe this is the best. The role of the University is to give us some basic ideas (theoretical) about what obtions we have. The final choices are up to us. This freedom of will and choice maybe is not applied to the other institutions. That makes the University studies unique and desirable." + }, + { + "title": "173_GRAR2013.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n\n\n\tEven from the time, we are young children, we listen to our parents telling us how important it is to pass the exams and be accepted in the university. They believe that the university degree will help their children to find a better job, a better salary and generally that if they have the university degree they can fullfil their goals .\n\tHowever, most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. During the studies, most students are bombardized by knowledge that is not necessary for their job success. They do not learn things that will help them to overcome the obstacles in their job career. They become cultivated and they can analyze many opinions and show that they have studied a lot. But when there is time to show and use their knowledge in a real situation, they feel lost . \n\tThe university degrees should be more practical. Students should spend more time in practical courses that would provide them with all the necessary knowledge and tips for becoming successful in their domain. Students must feel already professionals when they finish their university studies .\nUniversity should give the chance to the students to watch or even work during their studies next to professionals of their department. Through this experience students will understand what their profession really is, if they like it and what they have to do if they want to succeed in. Students should have the option to visit many European countries under the guidance of their university department and watch how other universities work and maybe they could also participate in common projects .\n\tMoreover, university degrees could be more valuable, if it would be obligatory for students to work for a while in big institutions and be tested if they can manage difficult situations. After this working experience, students would feel more confident and their university degree would have great value . \nTo conclude, university degrees should be more practical and they should give to the students the chance to come across real life situations during their university studies. Students must not feel unprotected as soon as they start their professional career; university should and can make them feel confident to gain their lives. The value of the university degrees must be great so as to reassure the students that they have studied hard and their goal to be successful in their profession will soon come true. If the students will have these university degrees, it will be easier for them to find a job and they will be paid very well for their servings. Finally, the extra studies, master degrees will not be as necessary as now because the students will have all the standards for being productive and successful .\n\tThe University degrees must gain their value and the universities as institutions must give the best opportunities to their students for a better life; social and professional. The value of the university degrees is the students' identity. The university degrees must be flexible and change each time that the needs of our life and era are different. Education must be as alive as we are .\n" + }, + { + "title": "174_GRAR2032.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n\n\tIt is true that most university degrees are theoretical and do not provide any kind of practice, but I certainly do not believe that they do not prepare students for the real world and that they are of very little value. However, I believe that not all university degrees are theoretical, there are some university degrees that prepare students adequately for their professional life .\n\tTo begin with, I do believe that most university degrees are theoretical, but that does not necessarily mean that they are useless. In order for someone to become a good professional, that is to be able to do his job correctly, he should have the theoretical background that is needed. In other words, he should have a deep knowledge of all the theories and research that have been developed or carried out in his field of study and then, after he has acquired all this knowledge he will be able to apply them in the future at his job. For example, a teacher does not only have to have knowledge of the subject he is teaching but also he should be aware of all the methodologies and approaches to language teaching and learning so that, when the time comes, he should be able to judge which methodology is the appropriate one for his students and how he should adapt it to fit the needs and wants of the students. All this knowledge of the different kinds of methodologies and research about ways of teaching and ways of learning can be found only in books that are used by theoretical courses in universities and this kind of knowledge is not something that someone can learn by practice .\n\tThe fact that theoretical knowledge is necessary, it certainly does does not mean that practice is not important and that universities should not provide practice to their students so that they can be better prepared for the real world and for what problems they will have to face in the future, when they will working. I truly believe that practice of the students should something obligatory for all students in all universities no matter what the field of study of the student is. It is vital that students have the opportunity to apply all the theoretical knowledge they have acquired during their university studies. The knowledge the students have acquired is meant to be used by them in their everyday working situation in the future and not to stay in their mind forever. For that reason, it is very important that universities give to their students the chance to apply the knowledge they have and the universities should also show them how they can achieve put into practice what they know from their theoretical courses. For example, a graduate of the English Department may be aware of all the methodologies and of all the theories, in general, about language teaching and learning but he may not know how to use all this knowledge in an effective way. This means that students, whatever their field of study, needs guidance by his teachers that are more experienced. Another reason why universities should offer this opportunity to their students is that students need experience. When someone graduates and he is looking for a job, all the employers are looking for someone who has experience that a person who has just completed his studies and has not had any practice during his university studies, he cannot find and thus he cannot find easily a job .\n\tTo sum up, it is vital that students have both theoretical and practical courses. They should have theoretical courses that will provide them all the knowledge that they need and practical course that will help them apply the knowledge that they have acquired in their theoretical courses .\n" + }, + { + "title": "175_GRAR2055.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n\n\tNowadays, a degree is not anymore just a title of education, knowledge or a certification but the first step in the world of employment and experience. It is a base on which will be built a career. The ideal condition would be that by the time that a students finishes university would be able to put into practice if not all, at least the major part of the knowledge that he has acquired during his academic life. But this is not always the case .\nIt is a matter of fact that some particular subjects are by nature more theoretical than others but even in these cases there is room for practice. For example it sounds very reasonable that a student of chemistry will have more practice hours than of student of philosophy. The problems, though, are spoted in cases where a particular school or department even though it has to spend a seasonable amount of time in practicing it chooses not to do so. It can be so due to a shortage of money, staff or laboratories, due to unwillingness or even unawareness. But this is certainly a problem. Students should be able to come in contact with their subject of study not only in a theoretical base but in a practical as well otherwise they will certainly face difficulties in being accepted for a post. Unemployment is one of the most important social problems of our time and one of the reasons for which we do face unemployment is improper training and competition. In a competitive society the more qualified you are the more possibilities you will have to find a job. Training and practice are essential because through them you gain experience and you actually realize whether you have acquired the knowledge, skills requested or not .\nI would not agree with the statement that a theoretical degree is of very little value since theory is a prerequisite for practice - if there is no theoretical background then practice cannot be achieved. But I cannot accept that a degree is enough in order to get a job. What universities or other educational institutions can do for this is to provide training seminars or case-studies, workshops and appropriate programs for the preparation of future candidates .\n\tOf course students are also responsible for theirselves in this area of training. If there is no will then there won't be any results. Students should take initiatives and ask for practical courses or educational visits that will help them to get acquainted with their future working environment and if possible with their future emphyers. A possible solution would be a part-time practice or the student's participation as volunteers in places appropriate and relevant to their field of studies .\n\tApart from finding a job a degree should be seen as an opportunity to enter a world of knowledge and information different from the kind of knowledge that we were presented in secondary education. Universities promote critical thinking and allow personal opinions or research. In university classrooms the student is just being motivated to discuss, think of something and the rest is up to him - the teacher will provide the \"food for thought\", the student chooses whether to accept the challenge or not. He is challenged to decide whether to agree with what is being taught or to ignore it completely etc .\n\tTherefore even the skill of judging and the opportunities to use critical thinking are valuable. It is a value that will follow the student in all his life and in my opinion it is more precious and more important than practical experience which is something that can be realised anytime later. Critical thinking therefore is a valuable qualification that accompanies an academic degree and even if there is absence of practice it certainly values a lot .\n" + }, + { + "title": "176_GRAR2059.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n\n\tMost university degrees are indeed so much based on theory and huge analyses that they do not prepare students for the real world. It is my belief that these degrees for sure, they have their own value but if and when the practical aspects of these degrees will be called for then they will be confronted with hardships. First of all it depends on the degree that students study for if theory is needed or if it is needed provided that it is less. Thus there are certain degrees which require mostly theory in the years that are taught in the university. Even in the real world a professor of theology has to speak in theory and to give extended analyses. The university degree will have him/her equiped with all the required knowledge which will cover the biggest part of his future needs in work as a professor. The theory factor will also help a student of philosophy to perceive the abstract notions which he/she will later analyse to her/his students. However these theoretical degrees do not prepare students to become just analysers and theoreticians since these teachers are going to teach to students and to occupy with students for all of their work career. As a result they will have to be able to explain theory in perceivable way and not in a way which will possibly have confusing results students attempt to understand. Still an educational theory is argued that is enough to cover this space. In my view a theory about how languages are taught to students of all levels, of how students can be tested or how a reliable scoring and evaluation can be given is not possible. All these aspects of teaching cannot be learnt by theory but practice is called for and it should be obligatory to all students who are going to teach.\n\tSurely the reason that some other degrees are theoretical, whereas practice is their main subject and practice is what will be required in the real world, can be justified. However in my view some theory is still needed there just because of the fact that practice is based on theoretical rules. First comes the theory and the practice follows. Therefore the degree for a physician or a mathematician is not valuable when it is deeply theoretical and when students haven't learn to apply all these theories on natural and real world uses. Theory will be forgotten and basic notions which were taught in practice in combination with theory will allow the future worker or teacher to have a general idea of the subject. In real world these basic ideas will contain mostly practice. Therefore that is what they must acquire in most of all while they study in university . \n\tTo sum up, university degrees even if in their essence are theoretical they should also include some practice because that is after all where the successful teaching of theory will be based. Notwithstanding the purely theoretical degrees by their nature, all the other degrees should sacrifice some theory so as for practice to benefit . \n\n" + }, + { + "title": "177_GRAR3002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n\n\tDuring the last decades tremendous changes have occur in a woman's life and roles in a society. The feminist movement has contributed largely to that and as every big and important current as this, it has brought many diversities of opinions and argues and debates. Many are the supporters who strongly agree to it but many are the ones who oppose and report that feminism is the cause for the \"corruption\" of a woman .\n\tBut lets see the matter from a closer point of view. Due to feminism, woman has power. She is an important and respectable tool to a society, who contributes for the generous improvement in it. A woman since late 70's has gained the freedom of speech and will. She is independent and can participate, take action in al the sections of life. Horizons in job, house, family, sexual relationships and state affairs have expanded. In the society of the 20th century we see woman in very high and strong positions, head principles, general manager, scientists, musicians and even presidents, as lady Thatcher in Britain years ago .\n\tAlso, women's role in a house and family has taken another form. She is not anymore the one responsible for house labour and raising the children but these roles have become etc. hangeable with the other sex and less demanding so as for a woman to fill her personality with other interests .\n\tThirdly, sexual relationships are more loose and gives the woman the opportunity to meet a lot of individuals, live or marry many times (of course the number of legitimate marriages varries from country to country) and discover with whom she can be satisfied and happy. This is very important since in the old days women had fixed weddings and were forced to spend their life with a person they hardly knew .\n\tAs we see, feminism, has brought dramatic changes in a woman's role which have led to an improvement of life standards. But let me mention at this point the bad effects of this social movement. The strong devotion to job necessities causes less valuable time to build a personal life. Carreerists spend many years in job qualification and either end up bachelors or with a miserable family. Children grow up with the lack of motheressee care and husbands feel at their bones the ellipsis of their wife. This is an important reason why many couples divorce in our days .\n\tAlso, since women have become very active in a society's marketing consumption an immense part of products is addressed to her, having as a result the brainwashing of her needs and an incline to materialism. As a result, we witness many women today to talk only about how they must go to a gym, buy all kinds of hydrating cremes and cosmetics and not to mention the tendency or better passion for buying clothes. Overall when the main core of feminism is sidetracked it, we end up with the diversion of the essential goals' which is freedom and independence .\n\tA feminist movement was very much needed when it was forced upon the countries. But since then, the societies have changed, and the issue is not if feminism has done more harm or more good but to employ feminism according the basis, structure of each society, in order for women not to loose their real personality. For example, feminism as it is expressed in Western countries cannot be applied upon Eastern ones who remain far behind modern civilization. A mousoulman woman who has learned all her life to dress in long dresses and hide their faces with big scarfs cannot be forced to wear minies and dye her hair. She needs a legitimate system who will prevend misbehave from her husband, as it is accustomed to many countries, like Iran, Iraque and not one who will let her buy modern clothes and cosmetics. Feminism is an active movement who needs to be modified throughout the years in order to be applied to societies having as a basis the real, actual needs of a woman." + }, + { + "title": "178_GRAR3005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n\n\tThe concept of feminism is not a simple one. The effects it had upon society, including men and women, cannot be characterized as just good or bad. Once it appeared as a trend in academic circles first, it challenged people's and especially women's worldview. Until now feminists all over the world define the concept of \"feminism\" in various ways depending on their experiences in life as well as their studies. For me, feminists' attribution to the improvement of women's life and position in the society is great. Hadn't be the feminists who some decades ago declared women's independency, women would live until now supporting their husbands and family instead of themselves, would have no personal life, would not enjoy the joy of being self-sufficient and dynamic .\n\tHowever, changes in a well-established patriarchical system cannot be radical. Things concerning women's rights change slowly and not in the same rate in all countries. In West women took advantage of the feminism whereas in East and in Africa many things have to be done to improve the bad conditions under which women live .\n\tAs an ideology which once it appeared had great effects on societies, it is logical and expecting to have its extreme supporters. Maybe the people who accuse feminists of having done more harm to women that good, have in mind feminist's extreme supporters. It is also expecting for an ideology such as feminism to get negative criticism and sabotage from those who benefited from the pre-existed patriarchical system .\n\tNevertheless I don't think that our society has ceased to be patriarchical. Men are the leaders, men are paid more than women for the equal work, in Greek Parliament women constitute only the 10% of the representatives. Men who are afraid of feminism and attack it in every chance have unfortunately misunderstood what feminism is for. Feminists do not seek to take men's position, they just want women to be in a Cooperative role, to make decisions for themselves and for our society as only men until recent years did .\n\tAs a young girl I cannot imagine myself living in a subordinate way like my grandmother. Fortunately feminism once occurred in Europe influenced Greece and for this reason my mother's attitudes were of that kind that promoted her independency of girls, open-mindness and self-sufficiency. Next generations live obviously in better conditions as far as their rights are concerned and this is due to feminism. Of course problems concerning the female gender continue to exist. Feminism is an ideology adaptable to different times and once most women believe in how it can change their life, less women will be victims worldwide .\n" + }, + { + "title": "179_GRAR3006.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n\n\tDuring the time that the movement of feminism started to be developed, every woman in the world that believed that has something to improve about her situation either in her home or generally in society took part in the struggles that this particular movement was giving. The original and the general target of those women, who were considered as rebels at those times, was they demanded to became equal to men, something that was not happening in a male-governed society. Women's demands included equal education, equal opportunities for job, equal salaries and generally they wanted to gain the same respect as men did .\n\tA lot of intellectual and open-minded women of that period wrote articles or even books with hints that depicted the ideas of feminism and when the movement started to have wider appreciation of the women globaly the messages that those writers were \"sending\" through their pieces of work started became clear. That movement helped a lot in order women to earn the respect they deserved and make the societies all over the world to consider them useful and not inferior to men, eventhough there are a lot of other things that have to be fixed about woman's situation, such as the woman's abusen from men; either sexually or psychologically .\n\tBut unfortunately there are women who want to consider themselves as feminists who don't fight right a woman should have in a society but they try to convince that women should become exactly the same with men, even in bad habits that men is believed to have. The new generation of \"feminists-like\" women wants women even to sleep with any man they meet without sensitivity and emotions, just like they believe a man does. They found weird and not-accepted ways of protesting their demands, such as parading naked along streets and screaming insulting and \"dirty\" signals. They believe that men are not worthy to be respected and they are bad and evil by nature. The weird thing though is that they try to become like men, who they hate so much, since their demand is to become totally same with them. By doing all these things and demanding this weird equality the only consequence is that they lose completely their sexuality and those special features that make them women. What people nowadays think about the so-called feminists is that they are women who does not want to improve woman's situations but with their actions they try to make it worse. This \"thing\" has nothing to do with the original term of the movement of \"feminism\" since the first feminists, as a matter of fact, did gave struggles and fights for the woman to have a better life and everything she deserves .\n\tThey were rebels because they did wanted the society to change dramatically and make women to have an active role in it (e.g. the right of woman to vote) and not to be seen as creatures whose only roles were to be wives and giving birth. The difference is that the fake-feminists are rebels without reason, since they do not fight against women's problem such as sexual abuse that is spread dramatically in our days but their only target is women to become men's caricatures .\n" + }, + { + "title": "180_GRAR3012.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n\n\tNowadays the position women have in the society is considered to be equal with the position of men. However, some years before women did not have such a position, they were regarded as inferior to men and not clever enough to work and study in universities. Their role was that of mother, wife and housekeeper. Nothing more, nothing less .\n\tThe huge changes in the position of women was achieved through the act of feminist. As a result, I strongly disagree with the statement that: \"feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good\". If the feministic movement would not have arised then the women would still be treated like animals in circus. We used to live in a patriarchal society were men's dominance was taken for granted. Women in those societies were not considered as human beings but only important for the extension of the human species. On the one hand men were allowed to work, to study to universities, go out and come whenever they like and not obliged to help with the house-work. On the other hand women were not allowed to study at universities, or work, they were not permitted to go out and they were forced to bring up children, cook, wash and make all the housework . \n\tIn addition, in our modern society women do not pocess the role they used to. They are allowed to do whatever they want, they can go to universities, decide whether marry or not and finally they are considered to be clever enough to compete with a man. But even though those changes have accured we cannot admit that we do not still live in a somewhat patriarchal society. We can admit that women are in a better position than they were in past times but when nowadays a woman is married and also working, she is obliged by the unspoken rule to do on her own the housework and to raise the children without her husband's help .\n\tThis fact leads to the exhaustion of the woman. She has to work, to be there for her children and to take care of the house. As a result she has no time for herself. So, if we consider carefully nowadays circumstances, we will understand that not so many things have changed. Something that I should add so as not to exaggerate is that not all women face such treatment. Some men nowadays respect the role of women and the equality of the two sexes. This minority of men give hope for the future. If gradually all men and women as well start to realize the importance of both genrs and the equality of them then there will be no need for feministic discussion .\n\tTo sum up, the feministic movement helped a great deal with the improvement of the position of women. Feminists cannot do much if we, people, especially men do not understand the basic idea of feminism and realize that no person, either man or woman, is superior of inferior to anyone else .\n" + }, + { + "title": "181_GRAR3036.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n\n\tThe feministic movement which made its appearance in the second half of the 19th century, has undoubtedly achieved much in changing the condition of a woman's life over the previous years. As a matter of fact, women can nowadays vote, work, study and, generally speaking, do almost everything that a man does. But is this really for women's good or all these feministic \"achievements\" resulted rather in harm than good?\n\tTo begin with, no one can deny that women's predicament, during previous years, was suffocating. Women lived under the dominance of men and they were entitled to live through and for domestic sphere. In other words, they were supposed to fulfill the role of a dutiful mother and obedient wife, while they were excluded from any kind of social life, they did not have access to education, as they were confined to domesticity, and they couldn't even leave their house without their husband's omission, otherwise they should give a proper excuse for their absence. In fact, patriarchal authority was always there to impose severe punishment to those women who made any attempt for independence and, especialy, to those who could adhere not easily to the sexual pattern they had been taught to follow. These restrictions, in combination with the patriarchal punishments, even reached death sometimes, usually with the excuse that particular women were peculiar, mentally unbalanced or, simply, disobedient to their husbands. Obviously, divorce was not a typical solution, as only man had the right to abandone his wife if he wanted .\n\tNowadays, all these have pretty much changed; women are no longer considered to be treated as something inferior than men, and the same opportunities are offered to both, as far as education, politics and occupation is concerned, in the name of the equality of two sexes. However, it seems that the obligations of women have now has dramatically increased, as they now have to work outside their house and inside, as well. That happened because real equality between men and women have not really been achieved yet. Indeed, women have now to face the same burden of housekeeping, which has traditionaly remained a woman's duty, together with the job responsibilities that she now has. And it would be an omission not to add, here her primary role of being a mother, as well .\n\tConsequently, women are nowadays, torn out of complicated duties, and they're exausting themselves in a race with which they try to prove that they're capable of everything. They want to be successful businesswomen, to keep their houses clean and tidy, to spend time with their children, to try to go the gym in order to be still desirable to their husbands, and, maybe find some time for themselves to spend with their own friends. Obviously, such thing is not possible because you cannot do many things and still be good in all of them. Nobody can do it because nobody is made from steel (not even women!)\n\tThe solution for women's overburdened situation is not, of course, to return to the old patriarchal system, which not only denies any right to women but it also dehumanizes them. On the contrary, it relies on each man's personal feelings for his own wife. In other word, men should take action in the housekeeping, as well, instead of expecting everything to be done from their own wives. In this way, equality will not stay outside the family, but will be in depth, instead of a superficial word, which has only deteriorated women's predicament .\n" + }, + { + "title": "182_GRAR5010.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n\n\tModern world was a dream for the past generations and a reality for the people of today. After so many struggles and difficulties, humanity has reached very far in so many fields such as science and technology that noone could have imagined fifty years ago. Who could imagine that with the use of just one button in our personal computers we could get information about the news all over the world! Not to mention the fact that couples can chose what the sex of their future child will be! All these and many many others consist what we, the people of the modern world, experience in our every day life. But there is always a question; does all this improvement leave some space for people to dream and imagine?\n\tBefore we answer the question above, it would be nice to have a closer view of what living in the modern world means. Starting from the everyday reality someone could say that people's lives have become much more suppressive since the obligations are getting biger. What society expects from its people is much different from that many years ago. Today they should work harder, which has as a result to rest less, sleep less even think less . \n\tTechnology improvement and industialization has made life easier but more mechanised and automatized thing that leaves no space for human creativity. Today almost every wish of ours can become true - you can even have a cyber \"boyfriend\"! We should not forget to mention that even though technology has brought all the world close, people have became greatly alienated. Few people decide to meet each other since the \"facility\" of the internet makes something like that unnecessary. All the above prove that even though the standard of today's people living is better, there are also disadvantages that have to do mostly with human communication and feelings, not to mention dreaming and imagination, since what one dreams can probably become true .\n\tAs a conclusion we could say that living in the modern world has its benefits and drawbacks. Noone can deny how the improvement in science and technology has helped humanity, how many people have been saved from disaster. However all these have an impact, especialy on peoples psycology. Despite all the difficulties each one should create its own resistance and not leave \"modernity\" \"steal\" its dreams and its right to imagine, because this relies only on people's hands. Although we are materially wealthy, life in the modern world is spiritually impoverished. People have lost touch with nature and no longer have an intimate relationship with their surroundings. In some countries family bonds have broken down and parents cannot spare the time to speak to their children. Pressures at work are so great that people are unable to lead a relaxed family life. In many ways, the world is a better place than it was fifty years ago. Many of us enjoy a very high standard of living. In the developed countries of the world, people have free schooling, excellent medical care, spacious homes, plenty to eat and almost full enjoyment. So far, there do not seem to be any limits to human progress. We get richer and richer year by year but does all this improvement really leave space for people to dream and imagine?\n" + }, + { + "title": "183_GRAR5029.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n\t\n\tNowadays, it is quite often admitted that the modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, does not leave any place for dreaming and imagination. This is actually a serious problem and it should be taken into serious consideration .\n\tIn the first place it is really obvious that the rapid development of science and technology had a serious effect on people's psychology while industralization affected somehow negatively life in the big cities. Science and technology have certainly improved and brought a lot of advantages in our life but, on the other hand, they have caused a lot of problems and most importantly they have left no place for dreaming and imagination. People have become too much addicted to the messages carried by the television and all the other innovations of technology. As a result they do not feel free to dream and imagine because they lead a life which is clearly directed by science and technology. In many cases, they have substituted activities which offer them the opportunity to dream and imagine with activities that they do not do so. Spending a lot of hours in front of the television or the computer has certainly taken a lot of time from people which in an other case they could spend by reading a literature or poetry an activity that offers a great opportunity for dreaming and expanding our imagination .\n\tOn the other hand, life in the big cities which is to a large degree, affected by industrialization, has become really monotonous, dull, boring and unpleasant. Industrialisation has caused great isolation, alienation and lack of communication among people. Human relations have become impersonal and because of this people feel really depressed, pessimistic and they try hopelessly to find a goal and a sense in their lives. The routine, the problems of everyday life and the high demands of the modern world to which they try to respond do not offer them a place for dreaming and imagination. Moreover, due to the demands of their job they do not have free time for themselves and free time for taking up hobbies and travelling and any other activities that would let them to get away from the routine and that would set their soul free to dream and imagine. In general, living in a world that causes great insecurity, frustration, depression and allienation because of the domination of science, technology and industrialisation, does not let people to dream and imagine .\nActually, some solutions should be certainly be found to this problem. First of all, people should try to regain their self - confidence and self - respect and try to require some kind of hope and optimism for the future. Moreover, they should resort to nature and try to regain respect and love for it. Moreover love for music literature and any other kind of art will certainly offer them the opportunity to cultivate their soul. It is quite obvious that such measures will certain offer some solution to the problems and they will certainly offer them a place for dreaming and imagination .\n\tIn conclusion, the domination of science, technology and industrialisation is a basic characteristic of our modern world. Despite the great scientific and technological innovation and despite the progress that the world has made because of them, science and technology together with the industrialisation has brought a lot of disadvantages one of the most important of which is that there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. It is necessary, therefore, that some actions should be taken so that people will be able to dream and imagine .\n" + }, + { + "title": "184_GRAR5054.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n\n\tIt is universally acknowledged that the society of today has achieved a profound evolution at all fields of life, as compared to what was achieved in the old times. Nowadays, we live in an industrialized society where human hands have been replaced by the most - highly - developed machines. Technological innovations have facilitated people's everyday life. In the area of science, there have been made great steps for understanding and exploring the natural world as well as the human being, such as the decoding of the human DNA. However, there have been posed many questions about whether this rapid technological and scientific improvement is responsible for the social alienation and dehumanization of the individual, about whether people have barricaded on themselves, have become less humane, materialistic and have made money their top priority . \n\tOn the one hand, we cannot neglect the undeniable fact that the technological and scientific development has facilated people's life to a great extent and has helped to familiarize with the human nature and, especially, with the human psyche .\n\tThe decoding of the human DNA is a crucial medical success, since scientists will be able, through experiments and researches, to find cure to diseases that are considered by now as fatal. Human cloning, if it is ever applied, will prove to be of utmost importance for those people who may need an organ transplant .\n\tIn addition, in terms of the technological field, we have the invasion of computers and television as ways of entertainment and relaxing. As far as computers are concerned, not only are they useful in our professional life, but they also offer us, and especially the youth, opportunities to make new acquaintances with people from all over the world, through the use of Internet. So, it could be said that, in this view, computers have put aside the old tradition of having a penfriend. Nowadays, young people can communicate with people from other countries by entering a chat-room or by sending e-mails that are read and answered by the receivers directly, with absolutely no waste of time, in contrast to the old way of corresponding .\n\tTelevision is a means of entertainment and relaxation after a very tiresome day. It can live up to everybody's interests, since it includes a variety of channels and programs, starting from childhood up to the elderly people .\n\tHowever, on the other hand, there is a great deal of drawbacks because of the excessive industrialization and need to become even more successful . \nFirst and foremost, the human being has become very vain and gready. He chases money, power and fame as a result he has lost his sensitive and humane feelings. Vanity has made him very selfish and materialistic without understanding that there may come one day when he will lose everything and he may have to begin again from scratch. Trying to catch up with this new way of life and to live up to the society's expectations, man has lost his critical thinking. He doesn't care anymore for social contact, for real communication with other people, because he thinks of everyone around him as a rival. Stress conquers him. In his effort to survive in the hustle and the bustle of the society, he forgets who he really is, where he started from, his dreams, his real goals in life. Nowadays, his goal is to create a successful career and not to become a good person. In the society of today, there is no place for imagination and dreams. The number one priority is money, career .\n\tConsequently, the human being barricades on himself, is alienated from the outer world. During his entire life, he struggles to create a highly-esteemed personality, a highly-acknowledged career and, in the end, he realizes that he has lost the real essence of life .\n\tAll in all, taking into consideration both pros and cons of the issue, I firmly believe that technological and scientific innovations have improved the quality of our daily life, but this has been done at the expense of our personal life and of our communication with our human beings if this plight deteriorates, then I don?t want to consider its consequences on the human nature .\n" + }, + { + "title": "185_GRAR5064.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n\n\tIt is true that in our modern world, concidering the development that has been noticed in the scientific and technological fields, it is a little difficult to find a place for dreaming and imagination; dreaming-that is in that pure escense of a child's soul .\n\tLots of people believe that the industrialization of our life has made it impossible for us to make dreams. They tend to see development in a negative perspective, allowing technology to play a very small part in their every-day life - still, this isn't true for all of these people; some of them may use a lot of science's discoveries and take advantage of the technological progress but, at the same time they keep complaining for the loss of innocence. They keep accusing development for the loss of dreaming and imagination; as if people don't have the time to dream any more or someone has deprived them of their freedom to imagine a better life!\n\tIn my opinion, the truth lies somewhere in the middle; people may have lost some of their old ideology but there is always a place and a little time for us to dream. Probably this is because a life without dreaming couldn't go on; people need to make dreams in order to escape every-day life's difficulties and problems. This is the only solution, the only way to deal with our life's routine and get through, without falling into deep depression. After all, there would not be any technological or scientific development if people didn't make dreams .\n\tIt is rather obvious that all of our modern society's achievements are a result of people's imagination! If human beings didn't have dreams for a-constantly becoming-better future, then we would still live in a primitive society and we would have conciliated with the idea of a life full of difficulties, a life full of personal struggle for survival!\n\tPeople are-even in our modern world - able to dream and imagine how their life could be better, not only in a personal aspect but also, concerning other human beings. We all need to make dreams for our world to continue developing. The world is not dominated by science, technology or industrialization; these are all human's achievements taking advantage of which society can continue progressing. The world is dominated by us, people and by correctly using this authority that has been given to us, we can make miracles in every scientific field! The responsibility lies in our hands; it's our dreams that become realized; our imagination in practice that brings all these technological revolutions. As long as people with spontaneity and good will are alive, there is always a place for dreaming and imagination. It's the same place where we can find all of our modern world's accomplishments .\n" + }, + { + "title": "186_GRAR5095.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n\n\tEveryone of us, when we are young, we dream of how our life will be when we get to be when we are grow adults and what proffession we will have. Most of us dream to be worldwide known, rich and have and happy families. All of these dreams are crushed after the years pass, and we all accept the fact that we will have an ordinary eight to five job in order to support ourself. A job that we may not even like. Dreamers and imaginative people don't seem to fit in to this world no more. Science, technology and industrialisation has taken all of this away.\n\tThere was a time when scholars, writers, composers, poets, thinkers and in general all of those people who were dreamers of a better world and who lived to give us parts of their imagination, that they were looked up to, and people valued their work. Nowadays that logic and money are the most worshipped values of life, there is nor time nor taste left for our people to appreciate the beauty of these things. The dreamers and the ones who imagine and want to see the world become a better place, are mocked upon.\n\tSome time ago, most of the people believed strongly in God, acted as he willed and tried to improve themselves to be better human being. They believed in the abnormal and the metaphysics. They maybe were naive to believe this things and \"Had a strong imagination\" but at least they were not as thick-skinned as we have become. Science has taken that away from us. These days most young people are atheists since they believe that either they have evolved from the apes (Darwin) or have evolved from cells and chromosomes...\n\tWalking down town, we see people running off to somewhere with their suits on, not noticing the wheather nor the people around them. They don't have time for that. How can they even think of having time to dream?! By the time that we are eighteen or so we somehow know that we will be one day, one of those, always - in-a-hurry men and women. Our industrialized world forces us to.\n\tWhen we were young we played outdoors in the neighboorhood with the neighboors kids and our friends from school, always getting ourselves wet and dirty, until all of our mothers came outside and yelled for us to go inside. Nowadays, children don't bother going outside because they are too hooked up playing video games, watching television, or surfing down the Internet. Technology has offerred them so much visual reality that they seem to forget that it is only visual not real. Sometimes I wonder even if they forget having friends... These kids will eventually lack imagination and will have nothing to remember by of their childhood.\n\tNoone can argue that science these days has gone a long way. They have found cures for many diseases, had the human kind walk on the moon, they know now more than ever how the human body functions and even how to recreate a human exactly like someone else (clones). But a human is more than that ... It thinks, it crys, it laughs, it has nightmares, it falls in love, it gets angry, sad etc. To these thinks they have given little significanse to.\n\tAll of these that we have noted above are the reasons why the human kind has grown to be so flat, in the way they think and why they stopped dreaming and imaginating things. Since we stopped dreaming we stopped being that different from one another. We have to start dreaming again, so that we can picture inside of us a better future, a better humanity... And as Martin Luther King said \"I have a dream\"...." + }, + { + "title": "187_HUEL4018.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile phone leads to loneliness\n\nIn the course of human history members of different communities have always felt the need for the company of their acquaintances. As time past, technological improvement appeared, mainly from the 20th century, n order to be able to contact with our relations, friends or lovers more easily and quickly. The first of this kind was the telephone and prefebly the mobile phone. However, it has become a tool which unconsciously though, but makes us feel lonely in the most negative sense.\nThe meaning of the worked loneliness has altered in the last couple of decades. While in the past it meant the time of examining ourselves or fro some being artistic, in the present century the members of a community feel neglected if they cannot contact with somebody by using a technological device called mobile phone. The member of a family tend to priorities talking on the phone to talking to each other. Even the undisturbed family meals have disappeared. Adults and children lose everyday contact because of the phone's presence. They consider telecommunication more important than real private communication. Therefore, the members of the family become lonesome in the world!\nIn addition to feeling as an outcast in the family, a person can also be abandoned by his or her friends. People get accustomed to be able to call their friends any time in order to tell about every little events which happens. Nevertheless, if something un expected occurs it gives the feeling of ignorance and neglect. In the past it was a natural thing to not to hear from a friend for weeks. Friends wrote long letters to each other. However, friends are obliged to response immediately otherwise the receiver is left lonesome. This person cannot be blamed for this kind of emotion. Not receiving an answer certainly makes one ignored. It is the speed of this communication device which has to be accused of.\nLastly, there is the relationship with our partner which is also effected by the use of mobile phones. Most people would disagree with its negative effects. They consider that it is wonderful to contact with our lover anytime during the day. There is no doubt about its magic especially when a couple is still very much in love. On the other hand, as their relationship progresses it becomes a disturbing factor. Partners talking during the day lose their interest in the other person by the time they meet. If they discuss different issues, beforehand, on the phone there is nothing to talk about personally. It gives the impression of being left alone for ourselves. Moreover, if connection cannot be completed a person feels offended and abandoned. Being in love does not last as long as it did in the past. In old times a woman or a man could remain in love with somebody for even a lifetime. Nowadays, it is impossible. Lovers open to the other opposite sex in a year. as much as they did in ten years time in the past.\nIn conclusion, mobile phone is a deceiving device of communication. Users expect to feel closer to others by possessing one. However, it leads to the opposite direction and makes people blind to observe the things which are really important in life.\n" + }, + { + "title": "188_HUEL4021.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile phones equal bad manners\n\nNowadays almost every single person holds a mobile phone, wherever they go, whatever they do. Mobile phones are very useful but can be very annoying at the same time. Unfortunately, a large number of people owning such telephones can not use them in a way that would not disturb the others around.\nThese are a great number of places where the use of mobile phones should be banned.\nFirst of all, I would not let people bring these devices in theatres or cinemas switched on. The best way of saving great plays or films from being interrupted would probably be to extend a special electric net around such institutes, so people could not use them even if they wanted to. There is nothing more irritating than - when being absorbed in watching great actors - s sharp ringing breaking the romantic silence. At least for me, as for the audience, I feel so. But what might the actors feel then?\nSecondly, on flights using mobiles can be really dangerous as they might interfere with the various devices of the plane and it can lead to disasterous events. No matter how many times and in how many languages people are asked to switch off their phones, there are always a few to ignore the request.\nAdditionally, I often hear people talking about so intimate and so private happenings! I would like to close my ears. Even if they are in central places (not in cinemas or at some meetings but let us say in the street) they should lower their voices, as the things they are talking about are not anybody else's business.\nA certain number of people seem to behave as if they were the only ones in the world and absolutely ignore that other persons are around as well, who might not wish to listen to what these are discussing, talking or arguing about.\nI do not say that mobile phones and other high-tech devices are to be blamed for people being so ignorant. Modern devices are very useful, they can even save lives or simply make our lives easier and more comfortable. It is the people who should know how to behave in public.\nIf I were in charge of an organisation of selling mobile phones or distributing any similar high-tech devices, I would definitely make purchasers take part in a psychological test or at least I would give an etiquette leaflet wit each single device, pointing out how to and how not to behave when using the freshly bought object.\nBut, unfortunately, as we all know, our world today is only about money, and when the money keeps rolling in, the \"multies\" do not care how people's lives will change, how more ignorant they will feel and how harsh and loud and impersonal this planet will become. It is up to the individuals to change. To make our world better, to teach our children better manners.\n" + }, + { + "title": "189_HUEL4026.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile phones in public places\n\nNowadays mobile phones play an important role in many people's life, even children and elderly people seem to be acquainted with them. Wherever mobile-owners go, the phone is always on them, which, in itself, would not be a problem, but there are many cases when mobiles are not only unnecessary but also harmful and unethical, such as in public places. This is why mobile phones should be banned from public places.\nFirstly, the social aspect of mobile usage should be taken into consideration. Mobile phones in public places such as restaurants, schools and cinemas are definitely embarrassing for other people. A lot of mobile-owners ignore the basic rules of etiquette which provide people with peaceful coexistence. This way those people who use their mobiles violate human rights, since they are not allowed to speak lovely in public places, although they do so since poor audibility makes it inevitable. This kind of misbehaviour appears in almost all public places, which requires the ban.\nSecondly, according to psychological research, overusing mobile phones results n lack of constant concentration, oral fluency and lack of care about other people. Since public places are the ones where people develop and maintain their relationships and mobiles disallow them in this process, restriction on mobile phone usage could contribute to more vital interactions. Moreover, it is of high importance that children's and adolescents' social development should not be restricted by incompleted sentences and half-a-minute talks that mobile telephoning requires them to formulate.\nIn addiction to the social and psychological aspects, mobile-owners should not avoid considering mobile-usage as a physically harmful activity. There are several studies confirming the greater probability of brain disease among those people who use their mobiles more than five hours a day. Public transport, which is not a place as such, but could be linked to them since it is used just as often as public places, might be a source of danger for those who are exposed to micro - or radiowaves for they sit very close to one another. Besides that low-quality restaurants may cause similar damage.\nHowever, there might be cases, when ban on mobile usage cannot be acceptable, such as emergency. Doctors and people whose job requires constant accessability are exceptions, although it should be taken into consideration that those people are just a minority. Generally, arguments against restrictions are not underlined, since there is no necessity in cases when people are involved in social activities.\nAs a conclusion, the widespread usage of mobile phones has created such a situation that requires an immediate action. Since loud telephoning violates the right for peaceful social social activities and both psychologically and physically harmful, a reasonable solution could be a ban of mobile usage in public places. Although there is a minority for whom it is inevitable, phone usage is not maintained in every case.\n" + }, + { + "title": "190_HUEL4029.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile phones are bad for us\n\nIn the past few decades our world has changed beyond recognition. Thousands of inventions found their way to our homes. Especially the communicational technology has been developing quickly. For example, there is hardly anyone who does not own a mobile phone and cannot use it at least three times a day. The problem is that while many praise this invention, they often forget about the unwanted side affects of this communicational device. Mobile phones have caused negative changes in our behaviour and personality as well as in our personal relationships.\nThere are several examples which prove that mobile phones make us impatient, ignorant and even frustrated. Knowing that many people switch off their mobile phones only before they go to bed, many people do not care what time they call their friends or acquaintances. This, of course, can cause problems since many people forget to switch off their mobile phones when they should. Calling someone or receiving a call at an inconvenient time can be very frustrating and annoying for both the caller and for the called one. In addition, many people feel angry and become impatient when they cannot contact with a mobile phone owner who switched off his or her mobile phone, since for many it seems to be natural that mobile owners can always be reached on their phones.\nMobile phones have negative effects on our personal relationships as well. Owing to the high prices of the calling people tend to speak less in their mobile phones than they do at home in their telephones. Moreover, text messages allow us that we even do not have to speak to the one we want to contact with. Mobile phones, therefore, reduce both the quality and the quantity of our conversations which can have negative effects on our relationships.\nOpponents of my position argue, that mobile phones are great inventions. They claim, that by using them people get to know each other more because we can use mobile phones more often than normal phones, so we get more information about our friends' and acquaintane's life. However, this is not entirely true. Since mobile phone conversations are not face-to-face contacts we do not gain many information about the one we talking to. In addition, many often think that phone calls substituds personal meetings, and they less and less often realize that they do not meet their friends.\nTo conclude, mobile phones are not as great inventions as one might think. They not only make us impatient and rude, but also can harm our relationships\n" + }, + { + "title": "191_HUEL4045.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Buying mobile phones for children under 14 is the parents' responsibility\n\nNowadays, we are overwhelmed with mobile phones, and we cannot imagine communication without them. During the last decades, they became inseparable from us as if they were part of our body. However, we seem to ignore the harmful effects caused by mobile phones. These phones, especially when used by children under a certain age, can damage the brain by changing the structure of neurons. In addition, children can easily become addicted to mobile phones which, in turn, will influence their achievement in school. Therefore, on my opinion, parents should not allow children under 14 to buy mobile phones.\nThere is a critical age for children, when their organs are most prone to be damaged. Under the age of 14 children's brains have not reached the developmental stage of an adult's brain, therefore they are more sensitive to the effects of mobile phones. According to several research studies carried out by medical universities, children, who used mobile phones before their fourteenth birthday, had serious mutation in their neurons which, in some cases, led to abnormal changes in their brains as well. Comparing these results with those of the control group, it was asserted that the neurons of the control group's members retained their original forms.\nBesides the physiological effects of mobile phones, the psychological effects also play an important part in influencing children's life. In fact, psychological addiction can cause more damage in children's than physiological effects. For instance if a child takes up the habit of playing on his/her mobile phone all day then his/her attention will not be concentrated on his/her duties in school. As a result he/she will lag behind his/her schoolmates and this will worsen the chances in his/her later progress in school.\nParents, as the representatives of the opponent side may claim that it is useful to buy mobile phones for children even if these children are under fourteen because with the help of the phones children can be easily reached at any time. To a certain extent they may be right, however, their opinion can be debated. Few decades ago when mobile phones were even not heard of, parents knew about their children's location their programmes without the use of any technical device. In order to arrange such affairs such harmful means as mobile phones are not needed at all.\nTo sum up, it can be asserted that mobile phones are highly responsible for physiological as well as for psycological damage which endanger children who have not reached the age of fourteen and thus are the most sensitive to these effects. Thus, responsible parents who take into consideration their children's physical and mental health will not buy mobile phones for their children.\n" + }, + { + "title": "192_HUEL4052.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Away with mobiles!\n\nIn today's digitalized and modernized society, where education is also based on modern technology, living without a mobile phone seems to be inconsiderable. As an increasing number of the young, including even kindergarten students is in the possession of a mobile, the fact that mobile communication is of paramount importance nowadays can clearly be seen. Though having a mobile can be useful in certain situations, the harmful effects of the untimely possession of one are also considerable. Therefore, the use of mobile phones should be banned in schools and other education centres.\nAn overwhelming majority of the scientists researching mobile radiation agree that the amount of radioactive waves a mobile phone emits is over the permitted limit. Such radiation is especially harmful for a body in development, so teenagers are more prone to be affected by it. As the parents seem to be negligent concerning this issue, it is the school who should take responsibility for the children's health.\nIn addition to the biological aspect, mobile phones possible cause certain social and psychological damage to undergraduates. As teenagers tend to judge their classmates on the basis of the financial circumstances of the latter a social hierarchy is established by the mobile phones they possess. Consequently, the privileged occupy a higher position in such a scale, irrespective of their internal features. Therefore, mobile phones contribute to the over emphasis of the external values, which probably causes moral decline among undergraduates.\nOpponents of this position claim that, as social security shows a declining tendency nowadays, it is safer for the young to have a mobile phone with them. These researchers are partly tight in claiming that in case of a threatening attack a mobile phone on hand is certainly useful. However, when in real danger, one probably does not have the opportunity to use the phone.\nIn the majority of cases it is only the parents who feel safer because of their children's possessing a mobile. Furthermore, a brand - new mobile attracts the attention of juvenile delinquents as well, who 'specialize in ' stealing hi-tech devices. Consequently, mobile phones even endanger the security of undergraduates.\nIn sum, there should be an urgent ban on the use of mobile phones in school. As mobiles are harmful for an immature user from a biological, psychological and social aspect as well, a change in the attitude of the parents concerning this question would be required, and at the same time the responsibility of the school be emphasized. Therefore, the proclamation of the fact that mobile phones are harmful for undergraduates seems to be justified.\n" + }, + { + "title": "193_HUEL4053.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should Mobile Phones Be Prohibited?\n\nThe rapid spread of technological devices is one of the greatest problems of our time.\nThe proper regulations regarding the use of these devices are still lacking. While many such instruments are silent and discreete, mobile phones can be disturbing, indeed. There are restrictions in theatres, cinemas, libraries, etc., however, it is considered to be a problem that many people use their mobile phones on means of public transportation. This problem could be solved, if the use of phones was prohibited on vehicles of public transportation.\nAs there are people who ignore regulations that are unwritten, these should be created on a legal basis. For this reason, a law should be passed, regulating the use of mobile phones, including and detailing, the restrictions of using mobile phones on means of transportation. Enforcing the regulations should be the common issue of local governments and the companies responsible for maintaining the public transportation systems.\nWhile nearly everyone now owns a mobile phone, there is a large number of people who would renounce their use of these devices during the time spent on means of public transportation. Considering the opinion of both sides, it still remains true that the loud conversations, often related to the private life of the owner of the phone, are disturbing. The other travellers may consider this behaviour uncomfortable, inappropriate, and even uncouth. Meanwhile, it also takes away the privacy of the speaker's life, disclosing information that would not belong to public attention. This may cause psychological problems over a long time.\nBesides these nervous problems, it has often been stated that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by devices, such as mobile phones, may have harmful effects on one's health. This concerns the owner of the phone, as well as those in their immediate surroundings. Even though this effect is not proven as fatal as the effect of active and passive smoking, the time available for the research has not been enough for a definite conclusion. The health hazard, however, should not be ignored, and it should be taken into consideration, when making a new regulation.\nIt can be cited. as a disadvantage that in our information-dependent society the prohibition of the use of mobile phones on means of public transportation will have negative effect on business life. This, however, is an exaggeration. The primary means of information transmission now rely more on local and global computer networks, as these provide users with more possibilities, while keep the level of redundancy and noise as low as possible. The partial prohibition of using mobile phones, while may be uncomfortable, will not cause severe problems.\nConsidering the arguments for and against introducing a prohibition of mobile phones on means of public transportation, while the possible problems are clear to all, the step is needed, and should be taken. This would later be supplemented by additional solutions, but the advancing of modern technology requires immediate regulations regarding these devices.\n" + }, + { + "title": "194_HUEL4059.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile phones are ruining privacy\n\nThe technology of mobile phones has developed greatly in the last fifteen years. The improvement is still continuing and the use of these objects has spread like wildfire. By now almost everybody owns a cellphone. It can be seen in the hands of tiny school children as well as in their grandparents! Of course, mobiles have disadvantages too. Some doctors claim that the radiation of the electromagnetic waves these phone work with may cause heart attack. What is even more threatening, is how mobiles effect people's daily life. Privacy is seriously endangered by the constant presence of cellphones.\nOn one hand, companies are to blame. Managers very often demand non-stop accessibility from their employees. This means that workers have to take their mobiles home and they are not allowed to switch them off even at night. This is not only disturbing the employee but his or her family as well. If the person is called at night, the ringing wakes up at least his/her partner or, in worse case, the children as well.\nCompanies are not taking into consideration that their employees have a life outside the office, which should not be so. People should be allowed to switch off their phones at least in the night hours.\nOn the other hand, mobile users create the problems themselves, even if unconsciously. Many people are addicted to their mobiles and they are not aware how this might affect others in their environments. By owning the mobile some people gain the - sometimes fake - feeling of importance. Since they cannot bear missing a call or a text message, these people carry their phones along with them everywhere - even to the toilet. This is a wrong attitude. They should realize that not looking at their cellphones every second will certainly not result in catastrophe.\nBut even very important persons (doctors, for instance) should think about the people around them, when they are making or receiving calls or messages. Often they rudely answer unimportant calls in the middle of a conversation or a consultation. This immediately makes the partner or patient feel bad, because it gives them a feeling that their speech is not as valuable and worth continuing as the phone call. Most likely nobody would appreciate it if a third person came and interrupted their discussion. Private calls at working time should be thought of the same way.\nTo sum up, mobile phones mean an increasing threat to people's private life. Be it the company or the owners of phones themselves who decide not to switch the mobile off, the constant use of cellphones might harm one or more people's intimacy and privacy. This is an unhealthy situation and people should realize that sometimes instead of paying attention to the mobile they should pay more attention to their environment.\n" + }, + { + "title": "195_HUEL4063.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile phone use should be strictly controlled at workplaces.\n \nMobile phones are considered to be one of the most important means of communication, as they facilitate everyday life by making everything easily accessible. Unfettered mobile phone use, however, have several disadvantageous consequences especially at workplaces where the question of restriction is still to be solved. Mobile phone use should be strictly controlled at workplaces by adapting mobile etiquette guidelines, because thoughtless telephoning can draw employees' attention away from work, as well as disturb other employees, and ruin social contacts.\nFirst of all, unrestricted mobile phone use by employees can result in the falling behind with their duties, since those workers who are occupied with making telephone calls and sending or receiving text messages all day long can hardly pay attention to their tasks. Failing to live up to the expectations of their employees, however, might result in losing their job. By the restriction of mobile phone use to a certain number of calls, workers could be obliged to fulfil their duties more efficiently.\nMoreover, with their constant telephoning, mobile users might disturb their colleagues as well, thus depriving them of the opportunity to complete that task successfully. The ringing of mobile phones can also be very disturbing during business meetings as well, because they might interrupt the continuous progress of the live conversation.\nDisregarding other people's duties can be considered as a highly unethical and selfish behaviour which could only be changed by the imposing of a code of mobile etiquette on the workers\nThirdly, unfettered mobile phone use posesses the power of ringing social contacts, since those who are engrossed with telephoning tend to neglect traditional forms of communication such as one-on-one conversation. Workers usually fail to pay attention to their colleagues because of constant telephoning and thus deprive themselves from the opportunity of effective co-operation. The lack of personal contacts might bad to irreversible consequences such as the alienation of mobile users from their colleagues. This could be prevented by the initiation of a code of mobile etiquette.\nMany people claim that mobile phones play such and important role in today's world that the use of them is impossible to be restricted. It should be understood, however, that in certain situations it is inevitable to put barriers before unfettered mobile phone use in order to preserve traditional norms of behaviour. Only by the implementation of etiquette guidelines could selfish behaviour be prevented at workplaces.\nIn conclusion, although mobile phones has numerous advantages which make their use inevitable in today's world, their spreading and unfettered use should be restricted in certain situations. As the thoughtless use of them might result in unwanted consequences regarding the behaviour of employees and also the atmosphere of the workplace, it should be strictly controlled by a code of mobile etiquette. The initiation of such etiquette guidelines would be inevitable in all companies in the near future.\n" + }, + { + "title": "196_HUEL4074.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile phones - disconnecting people\n\nCell phones with internet access are the smash hits of today because they enable lazy people to keep up relatively good relationships with others in strictly 160 characters, or a few minutes chatting per day. The reason why this is accepted is this \"running world we live in nowadays.\" Since most of the people do not complain about the impersonality of mobile phones, the most private and prescious things are communicated through these devices. This leads to the excessive use of cell phones which only results in people growing apart.\nEven though the mobile companies claim they help people stay in touch, they do exatly the opposite and further more they create cell phone addicts. The ads everywhere about the brilliance of new phones makes people believe that they are only important and lobed of they get texts and picture messages every day. People are deceived into believing that a few seconds of typing show care, and that mobile devices are capable of transferring feelings.\nThus, they are not afraid of carrying out the most important conversations through mobile phones. Unfortunateéy, however, the little machines tend to run out of batteries right in the middle of these most prescious discussions leading to horrible misunderstandings and arguments. All because of people trusting networks and machines more then each other.\nWe should remember that cellphones are meant to be last resorts and not a substitution for real - life relationships and conversations. In fact, texts and chats do give hundreds of opportunities to carry out white lies which will surely go unnoticed. You cannot hear the voice of the sender, you do not see the face, and the place he/she might be at. For example, a text message to the worrying parents such as \"I am fine, at my friends place\" coming form a pub, typed by a friend while the supposed sender is lying passed out, will save the mobile owner a family argument on alcohol, but without doubt makes parents and child grow further apart.\nTo add a different aspect, I would like to mention that the limited number of words in chats and texts lead to further problems in relationships or even business matters. Senders tend to gain space and time by leaving out words such as ' please ' and ' thank you ' which makes texts rude, and more impersonal, if possible. This is an aspect proving that mobile communication was originally meant for help in cases of emergency and not for solving family matters or carrying out complete business conversations.\nTo sum it up, I believe that mobile communication is not the right means to keep in touch with one's loved ones because it is highly impersonal and deceptive, these networks and devices cannot be trusted, and the features of texts and chat enable people too easily to lie. Furthermore the limited number of characters makes these messages way too much to the point and often very rude. Therefore, we should tresure mobile communication as a huge help when in emergency, and carry out our personal and business matters face-to-face; no matter how old-fashioned it might sound.\n" + }, + { + "title": "197_HUEL4081.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile phones: blessing or curse?\n\nThe phenomenon of mobile phones has been around for decades. At first, we looked at them with aroused curiousity, now we see them whenever we look, and cannot imagine our life without them. Still, the question arises whether they make our life easier and more comfortable or whether they make us become nervous wrecks. Some argue for them, some against but, I believe, they are rather harmful than beneficial.\nFirstly, it is not only our own mobile phone that can annoy us but also that of other people. Though some of the ringtones are enjoyable, many to them are so unpleasant that it is difficult to bear them. We have to endure them on trains, buses and trams no matter how loud or disturbing they are. And it is not only the ringtone that we have to tolerate but also the conversation that follows it. It was unbelievable for me. At least for a while, that certain people are completely uninterested in the fact that I am listening to their most intimate conversations.\nSecondly, the harmful effects of mobile phones on our health are proved by scientists. Experts carried out several experiments and it came to light that mobile phones can cause cancer in several parts of the body. At the sae time, they have a bad effect on our psyche as, because of them, many people suffer from tension.\nThirdly, we should not forget about the effects of mobile phones on schools. There seem to be a mobile phone boom in the secondary but also in the elementary schools. Lessons are often disturbed by children taking photographs of their teacher or punching the buttons of their mobiles; even though they are not allowed to use mobile phones in the territory of the school. I must admit that this can be the teachers' fault if they are not strict enough. Still, I believe, this form of disruptive behaviour would not exist if there were no mobile phones.\nFinally, the intimacy of family dinners seem to evaporate since the members of the family rather talk to their friends on their mobile phones that to each other. Also the sight of a father walking his son and making a phone conversation at the same time is familiar. Some claim that mobile phones are vital because they help us to keep in contact with our family members, but I really do not see it like that, the reason for this is that, on the one hand, it is quite expensive to call somebody on the phone who is abroad. On the other hand, people seem to forget the good old days when they had sent letters to each other. In my view, this is a serious mistake, as a letter is always more intimate, personal and longer than an sms.\nAll in all, I think, it can be concluded that mobile phones cause more strain and pain than happiness. They not only ruin family life but also make the work of teachers more difficult, ruin our health, an cause tension when used in public.\n" + }, + { + "title": "198_HUEL4092.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile etiquette should be introduced at workplaces\n\nA lot of companies complain nowadays that the lack of a properly frameworked mobile etiquette is ruining their lives and working efficiency. They claim that a rulebook of the accessibility and usage of any mobile device would be necessary. In my opinion, it would solve many outstanding personnel-connected problems, so it is definitely needed. However, the issue is a controversial one and as attracted a lot of debate.\nFirst and foremost, the fact that anybody's mobile phone can ring at any time and at any moment is bothering in itself. He or she, then, has to stop doing the thing they were doing and starting off again needs much more effort, energy and time than simply finishing the task in a manner that is suitable for the purpose.\nAnother very important aspect of interruption is that it also prevents meetings, discussions and talks from going on in a normal way. Thus, people not only hinder their own work but others' too.\nIn some cases the ringing of a mobile phone can be dangerous as well. Some jobs and professions require much more presence and attention than others. The sudden throbbing or \"screaming\" (one can hear such terrible ringtones) of a mobile gadget may const lives: imagine working at the top of high buildings or a surgeon operating on someone. These may be isolated, extreme examples but their occurrence is said to be more and more common nowadays.\nHowever, a lot of people claim that using a mobile phone any time and anywhere they want can be crucial. They say that if a mobile usage (or what is more a receive-signal) restriction were to introduced, emergency calls could not be made immediately. Nevertheless, these people tend to forget or do not know that telecommunication service providers can easily make the network capable of anyone being able to make an emergency call anywhere, any time.\nIt has also been stated by people who disagree with the introduction of the etiquette that with a possible restriction of usage, important calls (especially incoming ones) would be lost. As it is impossible to distinguish between important and unimportant incoming calls, they say that a placement of a total bar on incoming calls would mean a huge risk for companies losing essential business partners. The weakest point of this argument, however, is that if nobody is allowed to use their mobile phones at certain conditions, nobody will miss any calls. It can easily be understood that, statistically, if there are fewer outgoing calls, there are fewer incoming ones too.\nAll in all, the solution of the problem may be either a limitation of signal or limitation of usage. Once we lived in a world where no gadget threatened the moment and nobody stopped doing important tasks for the sake of a phonecall. Maybe we should find that again.\n" + }, + { + "title": "199_HUEL4094.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile phones: more of a curse than a blessing\n\nMobile phones are only a recent invention but in the course of a few short years they have managed to become a part of almost all of our lives. Everybody has them, everybody uses them - on the bus, in the park, at the workplace - even at home or on a date. We have fulfilled a long-desired goal of mankind: we are always instantly accessible. But what is the price we have to pay? Instead of bringing people closer, mobile phones have, at least in most people's lives, managed to separate us from those who really matter: our loved ones, our friends and family.\nFirstly, mobile phones are like any other electrical device in one respect if we have them, we will unavoidably start using them more and more, much more than we would really need to. We may promise ourselves that we will only use our mobile when really necessary, but after a while we will invariably notice ourselves calling other at all times of the day to discuss matters that we could, in some mysterious manner, solve without a mobile earlier. And thus our mobile will begin to take up more and more of our time, and more and more of the time of the people that we call.\nFurthermore, the moment we require instant accessibility any time, we have already sacrificed part of our privacy: we have let business calls and calls from acquaintances into our private life reserved for our family and friends. The phone may ring any moment and ruin our most special and precious moments, but we dare not switch it off - who know what we'd miss if we did.\nAfter all, what good is a mobile if we are not reachable 24 hours of the day?\nFinally, after a time people tend to get addicted to the \"buzz\" of constant phone calls, no matter how bothersome they may find them otherwise. We may curse our friends or business associated when they keep ringing us all the time, but when they don't when we switch on our mobile and find no new calls no new messages we feel left-out, lonely, insignificant. We start to measure our importance, our popularity, even the extent to which we are loved - in phonecalls.\nIn conclusion, mobile phones, contrary to our hopes of always being there for everyone, distance us from our nearest and dearest. The problem lies in the goal itself: the great promise of mobile phones, instant accessability, means that we have no more time that is only reserved for us and the ones that we love; and also, unavoidably, when we have reached our goal and yet no one wants to access us, we feel disappointed, sometimes even to the extent of forgetting about the people who are there for us in person.\n" + }, + { + "title": "200_HUEL4102.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile phones in elementary and secondary schools\n\nIt is common knowledge that communication devices, such as mobile phones, laptops, computers provided with internet access are present ubiquitously in our lives. Also, our communication habits have undergone considerable change since we tend to communicate, with each other more via communication devices than face to face. Furthermore, the widespread use of the high-tech communication devices affects not only universities and colleges but also elementary and secondary schools. For a variety of reasons, I strongly believe that the use of mobile phones should be prohibited in elementary and secondary schools.\nFirst of all, I am convinced that it should be prohibited to use mobile phones in elementary and secondary schools because the use of mobile phones puts the teacher to considerable inconvenience. On one hand, it disturbs classroom work since students' attention tend to get distracted and flag by sending text messages to each other or playing games on their phones. Additionally, it is highly time-consuming for the teacher to constantly remind students to turn off their mobiles before every single lesson. Likewise, mobile phones are gateway to new cheating techniques in the exams and in-class test, which is also highly difficult for the teacher to cope with.\nIn a similar rein, the widespread use of mobile phones in schools may also result in the proliferation of school thefts. I strongly believe that the modern, high-tech mobiles are a temptation to those who are liable to pickpocketing. Thus, the use of mobile phones lead to the in-school not only economical damage of the student's family but to the fading of the morality of the school.\nTherefore, I would prohibit to use mobile phones in schools because it not only hardens the teacher's work but also tends to damage the morality of the school.\nFurthermore, the widespread use of mobile phones results in the students' social differentiation. I am convinced that students whose parents are not so well off to afford to buy expensive mobile phones for their children may face exclusion and bullying within the class. Therefore, allowing all students to use their mobile phones in the class environment breeds considerable psychological pressure for those of humble origins, particularly students n elementary school. It is common knowledge that students at the age from 6 to 14 are unable to cope with outside attacks and criticism. Therefore, bullying and exclusion causes them longlasting damage, which at a certain extent due to the fact that they do not prossess the type of mobile phones their peer pressure requires of them.\nOn the other hand, I would eliminate mobile phones from schools, root and branch because of their supposedly harmful effects on human body. In fact, most recently the issue of the radiation of electronic devices, including mobile phones has been a political hot potato. Since there has not been revealed any conclusive evidence that proves that the radiation of mobile phones is not harmful. Schools put students' health at considerable risk. Since one of the aims of schools is to provide a secure and fertile territory for the students' development the permission to use mobile phones is highly inconsiderate.\nIn contrast, it is also a widespread opinion that schools are supposed to be the reflection of the real world, thus schools are encouraged to provide the same facilities and circumstances of the outside world. In this respect, many people are convinced that students should be provided with the most recent innovations not only at home but also in schools. They argue that the use of mobile phones is essential if schools wish to prepare them to cope with the outside world. However, I strongly object to the promotion of mobile phones in schools because students can already acquire all the necessary technical skills at home, since they have a wealth of communication devices at their disposal.\nAll in all, I am convinced that elementary and secondary schools should be encouraged to prohibit the use of mobile phones. On one hand, the ubiquitous presence and use of mobile phones makes the teacher's work difficult due to their time-consuming duties. More concretely, mobile phones distract students' attention and offer them new cheating techniques, which are difficult to overcome for a teacher. Additionally, schools may face more thefts among students. Ultimately, mobile phones may cause lasting damage in human body. Therefore, it is highly irresponsible for schools to expose students to an electronic device that has the potential to cause damage.\n" + }, + { + "title": "201_HUEL4109.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile phones should be banned\n\nIn our high-tech society mobile devices have achieved a great importance. Lately wireless phones have become ivailable parts of our daily routine. We usually feel lost without a phone at hand: we do not know the birthdays of our parents, we cannot recall our business appointment or we cannot contact our friends. Mobiles supervise, control and register each minute of our lives, we suffer from mobile-addiction. Therefore, suggest that mobile phones should be banned.\nFirstly, the use of mobiles should be forbidden so that we could regain the sacredness of the private life. If we take a bus or we just walk along the Danube, we are forced to over hear other people's problems and details of their private lives. Mobile users do not seem to respect privacy of other people and that of their own. Furthermore, we are burdened not only with their intimacy but we should be always afraid that someone will call us and we will be in the same impolite situation. A mobile phone can ring at anytime and any where, thus we cannot feel safe and secure as it can break any harmonious moment of our lives.\nSecondly, the ban of mobile phones would reduce the number of accidents. Car drivers will not turn off their mobiles when sit in their cars. Statistics, however, show that a large number of accidents is due to the use of mobile phones in the course of car-driving. Communication via mobile phone usually takes away the driver's attention that results in serious accidents. Therefore, we could conclude that if there is no mobile, there will be no accident.\nThirdly, many people say that mobile phones have become the symbols of the social status. The latest model of the equipment you have, the highest social position you are considered to be in. Therefore, many people spend a fortune in order to obtain the most recent mobile phone and keep up with the fashion world. Unfortunately, this process has appeared among young children, too. More and more parents are forced to buy mobile phones for their children, though they could not afford them. Mobile has become one of the gadgets that we should buy according to market-manipulating mobile producing companies, though we could easily live without it.\nMany people say that mobiles rather ease than suppress or lives as these devices can prove to be useful when we lack time it is true that mobiles have advantages when we are in hurry, but we would not be hurry if we did not have mobile devices. In my opinion these wireless equipment are the cause of the acceleration of our world. We cannot slow down until we employ them.\nTo sum up, we can conclude that mobile phones destroy the privacy and intimacy of our lives. We are in constant stress whether our mobile phones will ring or not. Furthermore, statistics show that the use of mobiles increases the number of accidents on the roads. Finally, mobiles have become fashion devices and people spend much money to buy a new model. All these disadvantages of mobile phones, in spite of their advantages, suggest that mobiles should be banned from everyday life.\n" + }, + { + "title": "202_HUEL4125.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile phones: useful but dangerous\n\nToday in the 21st century nearly every person has got a mobile phone, even little children at elementary school. Everybody has got an opinion about mobile phones but even if this opinion is negative people cannot stop using them. Mobile phones are important for the life of modern people but they should not be essential. It is clearly to be stated that people should try to reduce the usage of their mobile phones because it has a negative effect on their lifestyle, on their human relationships and on their health.\nFirst of all, due to the advantages of mobile phones such as mobility and long lasting accumulators one can be connected at every time of the day, however, this may turn into the state of being checked and supervised by everybody, for example by the colleagues form the company or by the members of the family. This state is likely to make the person in question nervous and irritated and his or her lifestyle is likely to be directed by other people with the help of the mobile phone.\nFurthermore, due to the fact that phone operators offer phone calls for a little amount of money people tend to make phone calls instead of talking to people personally. This reduces the intensity of the relationships because one can communicate far more information during a personal intercourse with gestures, looks and even with clothes and hairstyle than during a simple phone call. Thus, people are losing the ability of personal communication because during a phone call it has no importance what the speaker is actually doing.\nThe third crucial factor which is to be considered in connection with mobile phones is health. Mobile phones have a negative effect on people's health from two poinst of view. Firstly, one can be addicted to the usage of the mobile phone in a way that the person is only feeling happy and contented if there is a message coming or somebody is calling. People who depend as much on their phone are not able to have a quiet, peaceful rest which is also harmful to their health. Secondly, it has been proved that the constant noise of the speakers is harmful to the ear of the listener especially when the phone is turned on a loud modus for the sake of being able to hear the speaker while travelling on the bus or on the train. In addition, due to this loud modus other travellers are likely to hear all parts of the conversation which might be irritating to them.\nAs a conclusion it can be stated that people who use their mobile phones too much are likely to have a hectic and restless lifestyle, lose the ability of personal communication and threaten their health. Therefore they should reduce the usage of their mobile phones. However, unless technical development does not slow down, people will not do so. Nobody knows where this process is leading to.\n" + }, + { + "title": "203_HUEL4132.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile etiquette should be enforced by law\n\nRecently debates concerning the use of cell phones in public places have become more and more popular. However, the debates remain still debates, and they have not provided a solution for the problem of regulation yet. The establishment of a unfied mobile etiquette is considerably urgent, though. As instructions and advice have not proved to be effective enough, the etiquette and regulation of mobile phone using in public places has to be necessarily enforced by law for moral, security and healthily reasons.\nFirst and the foremost, the prohibition of mobile phones form public places by law is morally important. Public places as theatres, cinemas, concert halls and schools are rarely respected by mobile - addicted people. They do not consider other people's entertainment important enough to switch or at least mute their cell-phones. Consequently a kind and polite callingof their attention to do so is not sufficient. Mobiles' prohibition should be fulfilled by law and also strengthen by the possibility of financial punishment.\nSecondly, the lawful enforcement of the mobile etiquette is enourmously important for public security. Cell phones are already prohibited during driving vehicles, but it is also hazardous to use them during public transportation. Receiving or starting a phone call, or even reading text messages highly require peoples' attention and they cannot concentrate on invisible and dangerous factors of traffic. Mobile phones often lead to accidents, even to lethal ones. A phone call is sometimes more important than the security of someone's own life.\nAnother significant aspect of the issue concerns health. Using mobile phones in public places like hospitals and other social institutes of health care is not only prohibited and impolite but also very dangerous. Still there are people who are indifferent to the prohibition. Forbiding the phone calls by law would prevent disasters of pace-makers' interference with mobile phones and generally would provide a more pleasant environment in hospitals, which is essential for the patients' recovery.\nOpponents of this position argue that the enforcement of mobile etiquette by law is not only unnecessary but also impossible to apply. It is necessarily difficult to carry out a lately developed ruling against the accommodated habitation, still laws of the nation have their considerably great effect on public acting.\nA law is always more powerful than an advice, an instruction or a rule. Regarding the issue of mobile etiquette and the attempts that are made to enforce it is public places, the only solution available is the lawful regulation. Prohibition of cell-phones from public places provides people healthier, safer and morally more appropriate life.\n" + }, + { + "title": "204_HUEL4136.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile Etiquettes Are Urgently Needed\n\nThat employees make long phone calls on their mobile phones discussing either their private lives or managing their usual everyday affairs is a well-known fact, unfortunately. These kind of phone calls disturb others while they are trying hard to concentrate on their work. This insufferable situation is due to the fact that no etiquette concerning the adequate and proportionate use of mobile phones has been established at workplaces yet. Therefore, every workplace, company and office should formulate a detailed eituette regarding the use of cellular phones so that employees would not make each other's work performance decline.\nMost importantly, by establishing and applying a set of rules restricting the use of mobiles at workplaces the quality of work could be sustained and improved effectively. If there are no redundant mobile calls during work a greater adherence to work and the elimination of phases of milder concentration on the part of employees will both be achieved. This will result in a more successful business management.\nIn addition to the enhancement of business management, creating a mobile phone etiquette would also lead to ameliorated collegial relationships since everyone would have to take their peers' interests into consideration as well as regards the use of cellulars. Thus, heated debates on the topic would cease because everyone would obey the established rules. As a consequence, cooperation among colleagues would be fostered, and several new friendships may also develop.\nIt might be argued, however, that such a restricting etiquette is inherently confusing and disorienting since there are quite a few borderline situations at a workplace when it is almost impossible to decide whether responding to a particular call violates the etiquette. Moreover, in such situations one must make a decision within a few seconds, which might not be enough for estimating and anticipating the exact nature of a call, which then also needs to be compared to the points defined in the etiquette. While this is undoubtedly true, it ought to be realised that on the whole the advantages outweigh the mentioned disadvantages; after contemplating all the possible aspects of mobile phone rules, it seems reasonable to claim that in the case of properly defined guidelines employees and employers alike will surely face fewer disturbing or even embarrassing situations related to the improper use of cellular phones than in the case of entirely lacking such rules. The lack of a mobile etiquette would eventually lead to frustrations and a tense atmosphere at any workplace. Hence, mobile phone regulations should be applied at workplaces for the benefit of all the people working there.\nIn conclusion, it might be stated that a detailed set of rules concerning the use of cellular phones needs to be defined at every workplace since it is the only way to guarantee the high standard and the quality of work. Not only will such rules help to preserve high quality work performance but they will also improve collegial relationships and the atmosphere of the workplace.\n" + }, + { + "title": "205_HUEL4140.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile communication - 'connecting people'?\n\nNowadays hi-tech gadgets aiming at better communication and more intense interpersonal relations abound around us. One is apparently available whenever, wherever he may be. However, by peeping under this perfect image on the surface, one might find that the fine-sounding initiatives have backfired. In my opinion, the worldwide spread of mobile communication devices did not only result in positive effects but also in extremely impersonal communicative methods and in splintering sociability.\nFirst and foremost, the impersonality of the most popular electronic communication tools hinders the basically personal aspect of this process. It is most visible in the case of text messages and e-mails, where only digital signs and small machines convey the information. This apparent distance allows us to express ourselves more freely, neglecting the usual codes of conduct, in terms of communicative methods. That is the reason why we appear to be ruder due to these technological advances. Letters written by hand still involve personal involvement, therefore the aforementioned distance does not have such grave effects . \nBesides these written forms, the seemingly interactive phonecalls lack important features of one-on-one conversations, including the use of the devices of non-verbal communication. The ever widening range of emoticons attempts to compensate for this deficiency in the case of e-mails and text messages. Though phonecalls provide the vocal tools of non-verbal communication, the lack of visual and gesture-involving ones often nears the efficiency of these conversations. It is for these reasons that I consider modern communication devices impersonal, thus inappropriate for their aims.\nApart from the impersonal trait, the mobile devices often distort the existing social relations of the individual. Instead of concentrating on the events ' here and now', many indulge in the relations distant maintained via e-mail or mobile phone. Interrupting an on-going conversation thanks to a call or the arrival of a message is a familiar scene to all of us. As for me, I often find myself in front of the computer (where time seems to fly) typing a mail for hours, while I could spend my precious time for more ' live ' communications, too, for example talking to my family with whom it would be more important and nonetheless, more easy. This feature of focusing on ' there and then ' instead of the current situation is also a disadvantage of the theoretically sociable process of mobile communication.\nHowever, many argue that the advantages of cell phones and widespread Internet use outnumber the disadvantages. They claim that immediate and constant access of people made life easier in problem-solving and that detached relatives and friends can bridge the geographical gap almost entirely. Though their point is reasonable in some special cases, in my point of view the ' intimate zone ' of the individual, and his right to be alone and ' unavailable ' is infringed this way.\nAs it has been mentioned, the technological advances in the field of mobile communication has resulted in positive effects, in many aspects. Nevertheless, I beleive that the principal aim (as it is included in a slogen of a cell phone manufacturer) to connect people is not achieved completely, since the use of mobile communication devices encourages impersonal communication and a neglect of living, existing personal relations.\n" + }, + { + "title": "206_HUEL4143.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Mobile phones used more intelligently\n\nNowadays, almost everyone has a mobile phone and one is not surprised to hear a mobile ringing on a bus or tram. However, it is very disturbing if someone is phoning loudly on a means of transport. Mobiles ringing during a lecture or a seminar or in the middle of an intimate conversation can be even more annoying. Unfortunately, being late is not considered so badly nowadays because one can always postpone the appointment by sending a text message. Taking all these into consideration, a more intelligent use of mobile phones should be encouraged in our rushing hi-tech world.\nFirstly, it is very disturbing if someone is communicating on his mobile very loudly on a bus or tram. Lots of people have to travel through the city every day to reach their workplace or their school. Some of them use the time of travelling for reading, studying or even trying to rest. Being forced to listen to someone's conversation because it is so loud, violates their human rights. It should be forbidden to talk on the phone loudly on the means of public transport.\nSecondly, it is also very disturbing if a mobile phone rings during a lecture or a seminar at university. Although, it is common knowledge that students should switch off their mobiles when attending a lecture or a seminar, it is not important enough for them. During my university years there were several occasions when someone forgot to switch off his mobile and in the middle of the lesson it started to ring loudly. It was even worse when the person whose phone rang could not find his mobile easily and it continued to ring for several seconds. It should be taken more seriously to switch off one's mobiles before going to a lecture or a seminar.\nFinally, when one is involved in an intimate conversation and his mobile rings, the other person may feel very disappointed. It can be interpreted as a lack of respect if one starts talking on the phone with someone else while the original co-converser is waiting for the continuation of the conversation.\nUsing a mobile can be considered a very good device if one has an appointment and wants to postpone it because of being late. However, it is much likely to be late if one knows that he can send a text message to postpone the appointment. Probably, if one did not have this possibility, one would be more punctual.\nIn conclusion, there are several occasions in one's life when it is indisputable that mobiles are not used properly. Talking loudly on a means of transport or mobiles ringing during a lecture or seminar can be very disturbing. Moreover, starting to talk to someone else on the phone during a one-to-one conversation or postponing more and more appointments by sending a text message can be a sign of lack of respect. We should learn to use our mobile phones more intelligently.\n" + }, + { + "title": "207_IRGOL01006.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nMost university degrees are theoretical and don't prepare students for the real world. They are of little value.\nI agree with this subject but even with such a situation students shouldn't give up. Education is taking a big step in our life. In the ways to cross the bridge from the teen years into adulthood, we all we'll have to get ready for the real life, so even if our educational system doesn't prepare us we should take care of it ourselves. For example, part time jobs-extra university activities-having and lecture can be very helpful.\nPart time jobs: It's a very effective way which can prepare you to work in the future only if you don't miss your classes. The aim of having a part time job is not just to earn money.\nExtra university activities: with working on extra programs you'll improve your motivation. Writing a paper would help you and inventing is so useful too. It is not important that how great is your paper or how cool is your invention, the only important thing is trying, because trying makes you better and batter, so just keep trying.\nHave a lecture: There are many jobs which needs having a good speech, having self confidence and managing the situation such as a translator or a teacher; therefore, a lecture can help you improve yourself and get ready for the real world because it makes you more experience.\nExperience is a big issue. It is one of the biggest problems for those students who want to start working. An educational system should prepare student for the real world, but a theoretical educational system can't do it, so I recommend a practical educational system in which students will get more experience.\nIn a practical educational system students won't be just studding their books. Actually they will be more active. They will experience their lessons and they can feel the things they'll learn. Feeling things is different from reading things. When students feel the things they learn, they usually won't forget it though in theoretical educational system lessons will be forgotten soon.\nPragmatic courses can make students more experience too, but unfortunately these kinds of tests are not used in our country too much. In many of the countries in the world a class is just a room, but it should be more than that. A class should be a place more than a room with boards and benches. It must be a place of thinking, creating, acting, making, communicating and inventing.\nWhy most of the countries won't change their educational system from theoretical to practical?\n1 economical problems\n2 it needs more facilities\n3 it requires a great change in the way of teaching\nThe problem is not just university degrees, the problem is the whole educational system which should be totally changed from the primary school to high school and to collage. Theoretical knowledge is important but without practical knowledge it is not useful at all. A good educational system will teach student things more that math, physics and literature. Actually it influence their all life and thought. It can turn a little child to a creature and reasonable man, so the educational system should be the first program of each government.\n \n\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "208_IRGOL01008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nLearning must be based academic study and practical work experience providing them for jobs. Learning experiences provide for the student to use and combine theoretical knowledge gained in academic students to real work .\nwork place practical experiences, and to fit the student for the student for a job with professional skills .\n\n\tI agree about this topic, at first, the educational experiences are not involving the students at first and their learning not very high and the time they spend on task disappointingly low. they may employee with disconnected course that it be thought in university. some organizations will not be able to consider an extended work experience or on suitable work space to do the student project, it is wonder that students seem so uninvolved in learning. their learning experiences are not very involving. students are more likely to persist and graduate in setting that foster learning. learning has always been the key to student persistence. students are actively involved in learning, that is who spend more time on task, are more likely to learn and, in turn, more likely to stay and gradute .\nthe second, students should recognize their responsibilities to their carrier, the public and the occasion pace with .\nthey should he interested in working when dealing with their job it is important that the student considers a perfecl program of experiences and responsibilities within the organizatin to the placement and keeps its although students should be fit to take on duties of their projects. if the student already works within the organization, they should recognize a specified project whit the focus of their placement. students are expected to practice their professional, behavioral and technical skill to the best of their ability. third, support is a condition that improve student success. research shows to three types of support that improve success acodemic, social and financial. above academic support, unfortunately many of students don't study sirusly and they should be support for education courses, study groups and academic support programs such as perfect instruction is an important condition in the university. And also about socail support in the form of counseling and ethnic student centers. such centers provide much support every students and a safe for all of students when they find themseleves out of place. perfect instruction, for example provides academic support that is connected to a specefic class to help students succeed in that class .\nat the end, learning should integrate with communication skills professional networks, industry & business knowledge and personal organization along education enhence, students should discover new possibilities offered by work integrated learning . \n" + }, + { + "title": "209_IRGOL01011.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nIn today world, education is one of the essential factors for being successful in life. Most people try to go to universities for obtaining a degree and being a literate person. Nearly a lot of people today believe that the key to successful life or an occupation is the quality of education but unfortunately nowadays most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world so they are therefore of little values. As a matter of fact, I completely agree with this issue and in the following paragraphs I explain why I'm agree about this issue .\nAt first, one question is considered, by obtaining a university degree are the students prepared for the real world? It is important to note that life outside the walls of university is distinctive. So it needs a skill and the ability to adapt to environment. When the students enroll in universities, they expect to gain knowledge and also the practical skills that they will need for their future .universities should prepare students for future work not just giving them theoretical concept about their majors. But unfortunately recent studies shows that universities fail to prepare students to a life after graduation. For example in accounting major instead of teaching students theoretical concepts. Universities must improve their communication skills and also their critical thinking for their real world so that they can be really skillful in their major .\nSecondly, by passing the time peoples expectation is getting higher because they want to embrace new innovations and technologies. Future is waiting for the people who are creative and competitive. However; universities need to concentrate on the areas to prepare the students for the real world. The first one is improving the classroom. For example by equipping the classroom with the technology that is necessary for student training, we give them a chance to acquaint with this thing when they enter the real world. For example by equipping the classroom in mechanic major the students should know the latest technologies that can help them in their future work and on the other hand if they don't learn the practical concepts they can't begin a valuable job in future .\nThirdly, professors must be qualified and proficient in the subject or skills they are about to teach. The teacher who knows nothing about a subject cannot effectively teach students. They must employ professionals for their expertise. For example in English institution the teachers must be able to communicate with the target language. The teacher attempt to use a method that attracts the students when he or she teaches .\nAt last, I said that there are some factors that cause universities concentrate more on the practical things. I hope that universities change the process of their teaching that we can have a better life. A nation's future depends on the quality of workers it produces, Workers who are the students that well-equipped with knowledge and skills that universities prepare them .\n" + }, + { + "title": "210_IRKI09041.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nWhen students first register in university, they begin a new section of their life, they should know they will encounter a completely new style of learning and acquiring lessons. The students, who have a perfect background in their new field of study, must have been more successful than other students. I completely disagree with the topic, because education is never null. I think it depends on the students view of how they think about the value of university, they interest in their field, they knowledge about chances in university, and their effort to achieve their goals.\n\tFirst thing is how a student thinks about university? Does university degree won't be theoretical and useless for his life world and his future life. He can also apply what he had learned, in his conduct and social skill. Although some people think there is no value in studying in university, but the fact is another thing and it would completely change a man's behavior, lifestyle, and point of view . \nInterest is another factor which helps students to be as successful as possible in their future. If a student is interested in his field of study he could be able to do his best and be prepared for the real world and utilizes what he had learned, in his vocation, by going to university and acquiring new subjects he could know better what he can do by what he got form education.\nIn addition to value of university and interests of students, as we know university stands a chance of doing something. Little knowledge in a major which a student sees a lifelong ambition in it and a daunting challenge will guarantee success. Nowadays, people do not pay respect to degree. They'll look at his remarkable achievements on what he is sure to do it, i means his proficiency, something that he has been skilled in. University, is a place where students rise above problems in their lessons, investigations, (etc.). There is a strong chance of learning new methods. It is a place where he can develop right personal qualities, learn misleading information and further more try hardly to compile them. Lack of knowledge is never admirable but, knowledge is not enough to make money. University will give him the chance and motivation. It's his duty to work out depend on the major, knowledge he could also studies different books and resources during his university period to learn and urgent and unexpected problems and do his best to tackle it and end in failure in a real life style. He is hardly likely to strengthen motivation in work if pursue only theoretical information, he has to put forward a plan to get worked up about his knowledge and something he is going to do equally. He has a head for figures which can make his personality, nut it depends on his sight of view in university, he can have a noticeable effect on his degree. In addition everyone has a mind of one's own whether get ready for a future job and lifestyle by learning lessons, different books and working out, or studying only for a piece of paper, called degree. But realize an ambition in different aspects of life or have an outstanding achievement in other profession.\n\tFinally it may far-fetched for some people to achieve their goals and expectations in university. But it won't be possible for a student to achieve his expectations unless he try as much as he can for making his goals accessible and study in advance levels of his favorite major.\nIn conclusion, we can say that it's the matter of students thought about every aspects of university degree. Whether they think it is valuable or not, they can gain more profession in what they are interested in or not, and if they attempt an effort help them to achieve their goals or not. Hopefully, I think university degree is not theoretical and prepares students for the real world. Naturally there are lots of differences between educated person's lifestyle and non-educated one. In university we would learn something beyond what we have learned before in other steps of our life.\n" + }, + { + "title": "211_IRMA01005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated; no civilized society should punish its criminals. It should rehabilitate them. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nThere is a logical relationship between crime and punishment. In fact every action has its own results and the responsibility of the result of every action is on the one who does it. So s/he must face the music. In the society when one does things which are against the law, one must accept its consequences. In my opinion, living in civilized societies without a system for punishment is not a good idea. A society is called civilized not for the mere of reason of the personality of the people who live in them but for the sake of the modern systematic organizations which form the society such as governmental organizations and prison.\nBut what is considerable is that rehabilitation for those who are not obedient to the law can be very useful to take them away from the wrong way in their life and it may be more efficacious than the punishment itself. Rehab centers work directly on the mental problems which causes the anxiety in the criminals to take up the wrong doing. Hence if we work on the mental sanity of these criminals we might get good results.\nHonoring criminal's personality is one of the ways which is very important in rehabilitation. Personality is one of the undeniable qualifications for all humanity. Different elements influence personality such as family. Family is the very first society that we experience and set foot in and also other organizations that we are a member of. In other words, we ourselves create our personality based on our life's values. Criminals are those who trample some parts of their lives' values but they cannot forget them. By honoring criminals' personality, we can help them to return to their values. We can help them find their real selves instead of injuring their very own characteristics traits.\nIn every one's personality, we can find both positive and negative points. I believe that by focusing on the negative points, we will just put them in such a way to stick in their minds the points and we stand in their light and perhaps we will never let them change, while we can put our finger on their abilities and talents to prove them how well they can start their life again. If we punish them in the severest way which is to hurt their feelings and pride, then it is like that we have done the same to them. We might be considered as criminals too and have no difference with them.\nTrying to win some one's heart, whom we call a criminal, affection is another way which is related to rehabilitation as the new method. A gracious speech will be very useful in influencing some one and may prepare the way for speaker as for example councilor to be the most influential person in listener's life. Making up for an effective speech is another way. The speech should be effective in a way that produces some resolution to their problems. In other words, we have to find answers to their problems, let them know of the ways they could get out of their misery. Help them get up and start a new life. Speeches which only advise people of what to do and what not are just as good as bed time stories which one would get no benefit out of.\nAll in all I say that both punishment & rehabilitation is good and can be effective only if we know how to do it. There is always a way to every problem but we have to look round and find something which best suits our problem.\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "212_IRMA01023.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated; no civilized society should punish its criminals. It should rehabilitate them. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nOld people are always saying things about crimes and criminals, also those who are in power or in charge of it. We have all heard of different sort of reasons or solutions but actually it is hard to cope with it practically .\nPersonally I think prisons or detentions should have been with more supervision, especially when we may have different jailers or prisoners whom are mostly committed crime accidently even if they are really a vandal, smuggler, shoplifter, pickpocket, mugger or murderer. They have to be jailed separately due to the kind of their crimes. In this way some of experienced and hard-headed jailers can not have a team with a ringleader against them .\nAs everybody knows we do not want them to be punished illegually. In my opinion situation of the prison should make prisoners sure or worried about their lives after finishing their penalty. There might be something beneficial like giving score or sth which shows the way of their behaving. So jailers should be recognized by people in official positions that they could be considered as a promising person or no hoper person in their future .\nThere for, for instance some promising one can be transferred to a correction center and they can have a better situation now and future as well. Totally the motivation should not be taken from prisoners in order to reforme. Unlike should give them the opportunity or chance to turn to a healthy life for those who have prison sentence even life imprisonment because without that, jailers have no family and no one they can turn to, released from prison with nowhere to go .\nI wish we did not have death penalty or death sentence. I am strongly against the capital punishment but as we all know unfortunately we have money-laundering and kidnappers that purposefully do wrong. In this case we have to take security measures and also more important thing is to take preventing measures .\nTV violence is one of our significant reasons of criminals. The violence criminal has become a kind of hero figure in our time. He is glorified on the screen; he is pursued by the press and paid vast sums of money for his memoirs unfortunately, it is always fashionable type of movie. How ever many experts feel that violent TV programs make children more aggressive and they will grow up to be aggressive adults. To my mind, we mustn't refer to such a people as thugs, but as social misfits .\nBelieve it or not, charlatans are coming from the part of society that welfare or in a way that identify themselves like a right person. So they are kind of invisible criminals that are usually successful in their fraud. It is one of the most drastic problems and I do not know how to end up with. May be we should use of detector more before .\nFrom my point of view, impostors or impostures are threats to a healthy society, and government should deal with it and cleanse our society from such these things. More important is, the government should not let invisible criminals off, or get away with or maybe up to now they are not thought criminals in some of estate agency or other jobs .\nTo sum up, taking measures like job training may help some people to get new skills and find work for not doing petty crime. I believe officials should encourage the prisoners with giving privilege which is related to the way of spending their sentences, because after releasing they need to this kind of supporter even for being a casual laborer also providing an surrounding in prisons in order to improve their knowledge or education can charge totally, as I know someone that he became a lawyer with studying in cell during or over his prison sentence .\nThe way of bringing up the children is the most important point in preventing crimes and being a good backer for our children help them avoid from crimes .\nIn fact care free families make them to no good. I think after having a suitable family we need healthy and safe society which is really necessary. For example replacing useful entertainment can be effective. Doing sports is one of the other things to prevent crimes. Having suitable sample that people can follow them as a model or good things can be helpful to prevent crimes . \n" + }, + { + "title": "213_IRMA01035.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated; no civilized society should punish its criminals. It should rehabilitate them. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nWhat will happen for a prisoner? Have you ever thought about them? Have you ever seen a prison? You may have seen it in a movie but you cannot imagine how hard it is to live in. Obviously, prisons have many problems. Most of prisons are overcrowded; therefore, two prisoners have to share a one-man cell. The cells are cold and dirty, with little natural light and poorly screened toilets. Drugs are easily available. Violence is unavoidable and insecurity is obvious. The food is horrible. There ought to be difference between a dangerous criminal and a stealer. The future life of a prisoner is unclear and unfortunately not so good. The problem originates from four major reasons. First, there is not a comprehensive and useful instruction for how to control a prison. Second, there is not a serious supervision by independent inspectors and human rights activists. The third one is about the officials who see these problems and ignore them, and the last one is the existence of illegal prisons which results in illegal actions too.\nThousands of prisoners are released every year without anywhere to live, worsening problems of homelessness. Almost three-quarters of those in prison have mental health problems and almost two-thirds have drug problems. Prisons must combine elements of punishment with elements of rehabilitation. Not only should they work on reforming the character of prisoners but also to focus on preventing reoffending. Prisons should use techniques, like educational and vocational training to help the offender learn a skill for use outside the prison. Drug-addicted prisoners should also receive treatment for their condition in prisons. A large percentage of inmates are illiterate, and learning improvement will enable them to make a living. When an inmate is released from prison and returns to his previous environment, he often falls back into old patterns with former associates and ends up back in prison. He should learn how to cope with negative influences. It will help him to learn the social and antisocial characteristics of his friends, family and associates and makes him much less susceptible to harmful influences. An inmate should learn communication skills. These skills will increase his ability to face life and not withdraw from it. Every criminal has also a lack of self-respect. When a person can no longer trust himself, he becomes a threat to society and his fellow man. By restoring his sense of self-worth he can become a productive member of society. The study of all aspects of an individual's life and his personal ethics and integrity helps an inmate take responsibility for past misdeeds, rather than perpetuate them. Helping people to turn their backs on a life of crime is a slow and uncertain process, but it worth trying. Maybe you think that improved conditions and opportunities for rehabilitative activity in prisons generate the complaints that modern life behind bars is soft and too much like a holiday camp; however, these techniques and trainings build a safer and more secure world . \n" + }, + { + "title": "214_IRMA03002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated; no civilized society should punish its criminals. It should rehabilitate them. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nIn my opinion, putting a person in prison is like putting him in a place with many aggressors, thug and insane altogether and expects him to come out sound and think established is not logical. But the question is that How can the prison be able to teach prisoners that justice, morality and soundness have value, while it will push criminals more into disappointment and dehumanize them and allow them to learn more tactics and reasons on how and why be violent by exposing them to other more-experienced criminals. Prison by itself can cause crime or may increase some criminal behavior. Depriving individuals from society is the most important problem with prison. Prison should not divest aggressors; we have to deal with them. Locking people up permits problems to rise and allow individuals' improbity to spread and affect others' behavior. Being excluded from society, may lead prisoners to feel they are being wronged, instead of having done wrong. They also may feel that their human rights are being denied .\nSome specialists believed that the prison system is outdated and is in crucial need for change. Rates of imprisonment are unacceptable and some see it as a failed experiment. But governments believe that to have a safer society imprisonment should be more. They spend a lot on the imprisonment each year; while with removing imprisonment money would be free and can be put into the society where the problems really lie. Instead of spending a significant amount of money on locking people up, we can ask for better results by lowering use of imprisonment or even better alternatives. For example people with mental illness, needs to have access to better community-based treatment convinience for them rather than simply locking them up. For real cure of mental illness and drug and alcohol addiction investment should gush to decrease both prison and imprisonment rates. To deal effectively with the problems and their causes we need to look at other ways of tackling the problem. Prison cannot effectively deal with the individual and social problems that lead people to crime and felony. The prison system has a direct influence on people and the society. As some believe imprisonment have little impact on crime but a great cost to taxpayers and society and so calling for a major justice-system overhaul. It absorbs community money and creates festering sores of social futility. They suggest shorter sentences and parole terms, alternative punishments, more help for released inmates and decriminalizing recreational drugs. They believe these steps would cut the prison population in half, save budget and ease social inequality without endangering the public .\nIt can be spent making sure kids have got something beneficial to do. I think it would be better to concentrate more on prevention, on nurture, which would solve many problems that societies are facing. Researches showed that the influence of hunger, thirst, lack of nutrients and hopelessness on human mind in harmony with poverty, war, and even the effects of climate change can foster the rate of crime. Attempt to survive is an inherent human flair. If setting above your limits you will do whatever you can to survive. Now, I'm not going to say all prisoners don't deserve to be there, but I think prisons are epiphany of the society's fault. It is like a map which shows how we should act from very young ages. We have to focus on how we can bring our children up with love and support during their life span. All criminals were once children. It is not logical to think they had a dream at their childhood of being sociopathic killers or child rapists. Mental health problems are far widespread with no adequate treatment. If you behave like an animal with someone, he will treat like one. Prevention is an important key to all of this. Prison is just a Band-Aid .\n" + }, + { + "title": "215_IRMA03008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated; no civilized society should punish its criminals. It should rehabilitate them. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nWhen the first prisons established, government considered them as the most important and effective punishment, but little by little, it lost its punitive effect . \nWhile governments imprisoned criminals, they had two purposes. First, to correct guilty persons, and second, they wanted other people be safe; because some criminals cannot be corrected, and the least they can do is to imprison them. On the other hand, on body can proudly say that he have had spent his time in prison, so it can be useful way to make people afraid of commit crimes. At the time a guilty person comes to prison because of the minor things he had done, he would become familiar with professional criminals and for sure it would affect his attempts. Consequently, government must separate them and do cultural efforts, but the purpose of governments must not show their power, because when somebody sentence to prison he lose his respect; consequently he does not commit crime any more. Then it is better that they pay money for their crimes, but; unfortuently, paying money instead of going to prison, make rich people think they can do whatever they want and whenever they have money, nobody can stop them and even, they consider this type of punishment as show off. But this certain punishment cannot be exactly measured and be fixe because the crimes and things that people commit are not like each other and there is no device to illustrate how much money must be spent as punishment, but in this cases, government and judicial branch can somehow define that almost how much the criminal should pay in order to get rid of being in prison . \nThus, government ratify a new law that instead of criminals go to prison with his agreement do another things, such as work for government free .\nThere are some specific gadgets which can be placed in the body of criminals that can illustrate the place of that specific criminal, so that he cannot simply go or do whatever he wants and under this certain supervision, government can control them and dictate them what exactly do . \nIn foreign country, they have specific law, it is NAME AND SHAME. In this law guilty person have plate that make clear his identity, in this plate all of his characteristics is written, such as his name, family, and what crime he had committed. He must be located at the place he had committed that crime and must state his remorse .\nIn England, there are more than 4.2 million cameras; it means for 14 people we have one camera and everybody more than 3000 times come across the camera; with these cameras, government try to control people, but has some disadvantages. First, for controlling people, governments need more lights and lamps in the street and it is very expensive. Second, governments need more people involved seeing through cameras and it is expensive too, but people do not agree with this law and they say that they have right to commit crimes, so government have right to arrest and punish them; they also claim that they do not want to be controlled .\nI suppose immure criminals is not really a useful way to correct or punish people; on the other hand, it is a far better way to prevent people from committing crimes, but sometimes the condition of the country force people commit crime and it happens more in developing countries . \n" + }, + { + "title": "216_IRMA03016.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated; no civilized society should punish its criminals. It should rehabilitate them. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nImprisoning criminals is a regular feature that happens all around the world. Some people are great believers in the idea that the prison system is outdated and that the criminals would rather be rehabilitated in any possible ways. Another group of people, however, take the side of prison as a very suitable punishment for which nothing better could be a replacement.\n\tAs a dissident, I do agree with the idea that the basis or foundation of education inside the families and then in the society, no matter where in the world, is affection, and not punishment. I sometimes wonder we have a crisis on our hands with the rapid growth of the jails here and there, for it sure is a wakeup call and an alarming sign, warning us that the acts of crime have noticeably increased; therefore something must be done for that.\n\tAccording to statistics, putting criminals in jails not only doesn't decrease the number of crimes, but also might add to them in many cases. So what value is it to imprison people when in due time they're sent out like battle-weary troops, going on for a lowly way of living after freedom in such a deteriorating condition? Now if prison has made better people out of them, don't they really deserve a better life? Observations indicate that many cases keep living the very miserable life they used to have before going to jail, if not the worse. Rock - certainly, all attempts of those people in charge to make positive changes in prisoners and change them for good are just aborted, because no naughty kid will be manageable by being taunt that they're evil.\n\tI for one, reckon a resolution should be passed, as a result of which nobody would be sent to prisons, instead, to institutions in which the main reason(s)- many of which spring from childhood, based on psychology - causing the act of crime would aptly be known, and then eradicated, root and branch by professional experts. Although with a great deal of difficulty, it's worth leading them to live an ordinary life and put them back in good condition. Then later they could adopt new activities, according to their personal interests, including different hobbies like learning a musical instrument, books and movies worthy of reading and watching, doing exercises in various fields of sports, gardening, painting and whatnot.\n\tTo my point of view, this is an edge and a big aid to them, because during this useful process, many of them will probably find a special skill gifted within them, of which they were totally unaware. This could also be a contribution to them for choosing the best occupation in which they're most immersed.\n\tTo put it in a nutshell, in my opinion, to get the hold of their hands a new decision shall be adopted so as to fixate attention at the idea of trying out the plan on building schools instead of prisons, and if things won't go the way we want, we could just send the criminals back to jails!\n" + }, + { + "title": "217_IRMA05002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated; no civilized society should punish its criminals. It should rehabilitate them. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nThere is no any doubt about it that, prison is a dangerous place, especially for those who enter it as the first time, have no concept of respect, and those who have been locked up the longest automatically receive deference for the time they have served. But the greatest danger is about officers working there: prison guards, who have pleasure with playing games with prisoners' lives. And, the staffs' violence, generally does not report also the reason for the attack, which is usually a form of prison flow.\nSome people believed that private prisons are the answer for better conditions. But will private prison mean that more people will be put in jail for a longer time, to increase the owners profit (since the owner gets paid a set fee per prisoner per day). Will the private prison owners cut back on the prisoners benefits to save money? Do they prepare better conditions for the prisoners such as: better quality of food for the prisoners, gym, swimming pool, prisoners libraries, prisoner televisions entertainers who come to entertain the prisoners, prisoners computers for entertainment, rehabilitation program, medical care to the prisoners, or for saving more money they have already lower salaries for prison employees so the prisoners will get lower quality service by low level prison employees who have to accept low wages due to as they name: their low level skills? \n\nOr will the private Prisons somehow be good for whatever reasons! But the fact is that although government tried to give responsibility to private section but the situation of prisons are still Very bad, because profit becomes the first priority instead of rehabilitation. Here is a fact: a prison is a prison. That's all. Prisons are not meant to be good places to be. They are not resort communities where people lie around and have to work unwillingly. There are no psychoanalysis treatments.\n\nThere are gangs and violence all around the prisons, and while these are prevalent, it is not as necessary as some might have you believe to become involved with them. Prisoners often try to join to one of groups to survive. Groups which are gather under a name of a person who usually is done the worst crucial and savage action and the group have a name chosen by him. There is no Greeting Group led by anyone named waiting ready to support poor and weak prison members. Nothing is faire in a prison . \n\nThere is an important question here: What is the responsibility of a prison? To establish justice? But how? Is it possible to settle justice In an injustice environment?\n" + }, + { + "title": "218_IRMA07015.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated; no civilized society should punish its criminals. It should rehabilitate them. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nThe just way of punishing criminals has been a question which has met much controversy over the years. The ideal system of justice has undergone many changes during the decades; yet, sociologists and psychologists are unsuccessful in finding the ultimate answer . \nMany consider the current prison system to be the best solution; secluding the black sheep from the rest of the herd seems to be the easiest way after all. The criminal is to spend his time in prison and learn to adhere to the society's disciplines. That seems a fair enough treatment, but unfortunately there are some downsides to it .\nThe first of its disadvantages seems to be that in many cases, a criminal is not refined at all after his time in prison. He might even be aggravated by being punished so. The reason seems to be that imprisoning doesn't provide any special way of honing the felons, they are simply kept from harming other members of the society by force. Also, as they stay in their cells, angry and embittered, they inevitably socialize with their inmates, many of whom are possibly callous. Therefore, a young and rather innocent human being who had committed a somewhat minor mistake would morph into a ruthless villain. The tax paid by honorable citizens would be spent pampering people who cherish the idea of taking revenge on those same humans. That barely seems fair .\nBut imprisoning also has its own benefits. For instance, one is forced to face the outcome of his actions and also, in case of those who have committed unpardonable crimes, the life sentence would keep them from further harming innocent society members .\nThe alternate system of disciplining the delinquent is rehabilitating them. Some consider this method as being too mild and tolerant toward the offenders, but this doesn't seem to be the case. The culprit is sent to a rehabilitation center and he has to stay there for a specified time so as to be prepared for living in the society without breaking its laws. During that time, he has the opportunity to benefit from the service of professional psychologists who will help him adapt himself to rules and regulations. After his stay in the rehab center, the wrongdoer would return to the society without any feelings of resentment and with a strong desire for success and perfection .\nThe benefits of this particular method seem to be numerous; the offender is actually refined and elevated to some useful human being, he would not suffer from the general backlash against convicts, and is presented with clear-cut morals to help him as he faces further dilemmas later in life .\nIn spite of their advantages, rehabs also have their drawbacks. The expenses being high and the possibility of some reservedness on the part of criminals, are two of the doubts many share about this approach to refining offenders .\nNone of the systems above seem to be perfect and applicable to all societies. The underlying reason might be that each community has its own unique culture, and treating all of them with the same rules is more than simply illogical . \nSome societies, especially those who have not yet undergone drastic changes, are very strict and severe toward those who break their carefully-set laws; any redundant care or help bestowed on the villains would be considered as an encouragement of the future lawbreakings. Therefore, in a community such as the ones sketched in the previous lines, the prison system is the best approach since it is not at variance with the deep-rooted culture of its members .\nOn the other hand, in a more dynamic society, the rehab system seems to be the ideal solution. In such a community, people would not consider this method as being docile; because they are well aware that civilization demands the abolishment of vile systems and traditions . \nA certain system has to be chosen and adopted with great care and consideration; after all, if not compatible with the culture and beliefs of the people, it would cause many difficulties. The necessary changes in a culture need to be made gradually, allowing people enough time to adjust themselves, so that in reasonable time, adopting a wholly different system of disciplining lawbreakers would become possible\n" + }, + { + "title": "219_IRMA07029.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated; no civilized society should punish its criminals. It should rehabilitate them. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\t\n\tFirst, I want to define some definitions that are necessary to know First, criminal according to Oxford Advanced English Dictionary Criminal offence is an act that is harmful not only to some individual, but also to the community. Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law if a person happens to do a criminal offence he would become a prisoner. Based on Merriam Webster Dictionary a prisoner, also known as an inmate, is a person who is deprived of liberty against their will; this is the second. Now about the topic of this essay we should know that; many individuals believe that rehabilitation is one of the major purposes of the prison, but why should the rehabilitation happen in prison and not in other communities? It is widely believed that the prison system is outdated and no civilized society should punish its criminals, it should rehabilitate them. We should know that some criminals choose the prison as a place for learning crimes rather than for avoiding crimes, and after they became free they continue their crimes .\n\n\tLack of legal educational programs, teaching job skills would result in uneducated individuals who are more interested in taking the risk of doing crime. And also some of them, are who try to follow their leads. Leaders in prison are mostly those who are more intelligent than others, and sometimes their punishment is lifelong prisoner. These people have great influence on others, and they should not encourage them to do so . \n\tThey should define rehabilitation as a way to help somebody to return to a normal life by providing therapy which would prevent prisoner from having a desire to go back to prisons but actually they do not do this. They encourage and teach them new criminal . \n\tActually the leader of the prison or someone who is responsible for the prison must doing something for them. Government and public could run some communities to teach these prisoners rather than to punish them, and I heard that they established some workshops and they taught them some works like: wood carving, painting and something like this, but some criminals did not work, and I totally agree with this idea because when they come back from prison they can work for themselves and make a new life for them selves and their family. another thing about their families is that when they are in jail their families have not a good life with out them .\nThe bad reality about them is that their families left them a lone .\n\tAnother important thing in my idea is about some prisoners who are debtor; I think that they should have another place. they should not be in a place that dangerous criminal are there. They should have a special place because I think they do not do crime, and I think government is responsible for this, and they should rehabilitate this rule and provide a special location for them .\n\tThe other thing is about the youngsters who are in prison I think the rules that refer to them must rehabilitate. Because some of them are actually innocent. Some of them became assassin because of doing a foolish work in a moment they lose their control and they kill some body. That is not true they wait till they become eighteen to gallows, when they are in prison in this time they do not have any hope for their future lives or about others who are in prison for stealing. I think they are whom that have problems in their lives and with their families. Most of them have not parent, And have not a good family to support them, and they grow in ruin places with criminals that they teach them stealing from people and begging in streets or selling some goods .\n\n\tI think government should do something for this problem they can provide a suitable place for this child that they can have a real life with a suitable place for sleep, for education and they plane for their future time that is their right like other children .\n\tI believe the laws about this children should rehabilitate, and about the votes commanded by a arbiters need some changes .\nI heard that in one city in our country a judge commanded a interesting vote about two boys that killed a rare animal in forest, this judge said to this boys that they should write an essay about animals and environment instead of going to prison .\n\tI think judicature should spread this new laws, and ideas in our country and rehabilitate them till there is no innocent prisoner in prison .\n" + }, + { + "title": "220_IRMA07036.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated; no civilized society should punish its criminals. It should rehabilitate them. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\n\tEverybody has the right to live in a safe society. Sometimes, this safety is under the threat by those who break the law. These criminals are responsible, so they must meet the consequences of their actions and this happens by putting them in jail. Some people believe that by punishing inmates, we can prevent them from committing more crimes, while others believe that we have to put all efforts to reform them. In fact, we should make a balance between controlling and reforming them.\n\tMany people think that the first and foremost justification for prisons is mere punishment. I believe they say so because punishment can be the easier solution in hand, this can be also because we have the habit of punishing even in our daily life. If a child misbehaves, her mom or caretaker punishes her for her wrong deed. Instead of thinking in depth and finding the reason behind her action they threat the child to punish her, and the degree of punishment varies according to her action. For sure, punishment can reduce wrong deeds, but for sometimes. In this case, the child will find the courage, because she has tasted the punishment and she is not scared anymore. Punishment alone may not be enough. Not all behaviors are changeable through punishment. So, the point here is that if we punish criminals, our community can be protected in a short run, but how about the long run?\n\tSome other people believe that prisons should be a place to rehabilitate. Rehabilitation means providing therapy and education classes for prisoners in hope that they experience a normal life in future. This is great, but not everyone wishes to be rehabilitated. It all depends on the individual's decision, whether he wants to change or not. Since we are not aware of their motives for doing the crime, rehabilitation can get even harder. Based on all these things, if the criminal justice system spends huge amounts of money and time and energy on prisoners, that would be a waste.\n\tIn fact, I do believe that punishment and rehabilitation should be seen as complementary. Our purpose for imprisoning inmates must be punishing them in the first place, but more importantly, making sure that this is helping them to behave like a normal person in their society. By punishing, I do not mean treating them inhumanly. In fact, criminals should be treated in a way that we expect them to treat when they are released in future. They should receive care and respect, so that they will be able to give them to others. If we segregate them from society to punish them, they will explode and commit more crimes when they come out of jail. To me, reform does not mean taking it easy on prisoners. They should not receive leniency; instead, they must do long hours of hard work with no payment. There must be tough rules and desciplines. Inmates must be aware that everything has a pay off. At the same time, there must be therapy classes to provide an opportunity to change the way they think and act and stop them from committing further crimes. Therefore, based on what stated, combining punishment and rehabilitation can be the most effective strategy that the criminal justice system can use.\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "221_IRMA10001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\n\tAs the science gains momentum, so do the applicants for universities. Call it keeping up with the Joneses or a deep-rooted passion for learning for the sake of it, the number of graduated students at various levels of education in different fields is skyrocketing. Each semester, loads of alumni with their degrees are injected to the vessel of job seeking and working systems, but the question is: Can they get the most of their acquired knowledge or they are holding merely a certificate and they are literally some chassis stuffed with absurd theories, ineffective regarding to real world? Well, the question has its own proponents and opponents. Here come some of their claims:\n\tOn one hand, advocates may say that university is a place that offers a spectrum of miscellaneous subjects. If you are smart enough, you will be able to make them work for you, even if they are just sheer theories and nothing more. Furthermore, they might say that science is based on theories, then the theory is a prerequisite to almost any kind of job, as a result, by knowing a set of theories regarding to a specific issue, you can check on different aspects and dimensions, subsequently you will be able to come up with better solutions and make up for the probable upcoming shortfalls and that is what segregates the grassroots from the elites . (In a sense that you consider a university - graduated person an elite!). So for them, universities are no vocational training place and if someone wants to get hold of such functional skills, s/he can register at a university which provides such abilities such as: University of Applied Science and Technology.\n\tTurning to the other side of the argument, the martinet opponents claim that the society is in desperate need of dexterous labor force, not heads inflated with theories. The moderate ones may say that theories are necessary but not sufficient. They go further that there should be a link between these written formats, their corresponding usage and the real, tangible issue, but unfortunately, in many cases, this ring is lost. They claim that instead of theories, the element of logic behind the theory and the problem should be taught, otherwise, getting hands on concrete, useless forms written in books, articles, journals, etc. can be achieved without the assistance of professors, i.e. it is not of complex nature and almost any normal, literate person with an average-to-above IQ can understand and grasp the material more or less. Then we can conclude that for them, mere theory holders have no place in a working society.\n\tI myself am likely to go for the second group, but at the same time, I cannot deny the very fact of this simple but oh-so-true sentence: Education is never worthless, even if it is too sheer a theory, it can come handy, at least it broadens and widens the peoples' attitudes, makes them look at the issue from another angle and also exercises their minds. To my way of thinking, we can have some solutions which a couple of them are listed below:\n\tWe can say that if universities provide hands-on workshops alongside the material, this controversy can somehow be alleviated. One other probable solution is to run needs analysis for each occupation and design teaching materials in a suitable framework to establish the above-mentioned link.\n\tThere still remains another problem, which is the supply and demand issue. The question is that do we really need as many graduated students in our working system - even if almost all of them are so assiduous a student - as currently we have? Or there should always be an unremitting competition for job vacancies?\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "222_IRMA10012.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nNowadays it is thought that most university degrees do not guarantee whether students can measure up in a particular job or not! Unfortunately when it comes to reality and involving with practical aspects of the theories which are learned during the years of attendance at school and then at university level, many students are not capable enough. Admittedly, this problem exists; and the purpose of this essay is to come up with an explanation. But before going through reasons, we should bear in mind that at the same time there are students who have put their theoretical knowledge and information to use and don't limit themselves to memorization and they are not just obsessed about grades; so they have made best of their degrees. Therefore the first reason is devoted to students' attitude.\n\nI remember when I was a school student, there were some sections in some of our course books called To Know More and those parts were not intended to appear on our exams, so most of the students didn't read them and just a few ones were interested to know more for its own sake. Sometimes the same story happens in universities. Many university students are not motivated enough to read more than is required or to discover something new. So they end up like people who hold university degrees but not really excel in their majors. So they may go to school and university and extending their higher education, but they do it, not because of genuine and personal interest but because of other reasons like parental pressure or show-off, etc. And they gain university degrees eventually but do you consider such degrees truly worthwhile? And how is it possible to dedicate ourselves to a job or everything in our lives if we do not like what we are doing?! After graduation and starting a job related to one's major, some students realize that it wasn't what they wanted. So recognizing and cultivating our talent is so significant . \nAnother reason is the inefficient system of education in some of our schools and even universities. What's mostly valued is how well students memorize the material and receive a good score. I do not intend to mention that it is totally wrong but what about improving a more comprehensive and richer understanding of that subject? And it gets much worse when we are dealing with the courses that carrying out experiments is the integral part of them. In highschool, although I got good grades in physics, most of the time I didn't fully grasp the theories because the experiments weren't usually conducted practically. This issue reminds me of the Chinese proverb that goes [Quotation] In this case universities are better but still they can take more steps about it. In order to satisfy this requirement, more facilities and opportunities for doing practical trainings and workshops in addition to theoretical aspects should be provided for students. And about universities, one crucial issue is that we should establish a close link between industries or working environment and educational environment; and the number of students attending universities should be determined by job opportunities and needs of society . \n\nFinally I would like to mention how teachers and instructors can have an influential and positive role in this process. Now as an English language student at university level, I can't forget my experience in one of my courses _Pedagogic Phonology _ when we were asked to write an essay based on what we learned during that course; so we as students learned how to move from mere knowledge to the level of application and analysis in order to solve a problem. I found it so interesting and useful and I believe it is something that makes learning more memorable and effective and students can see how the material and theories they've learned can work more realistically and the reason was that we were deeply engaged with the material. So the role of informed and creative instructors and teachers in making learning more effective and life-long is indisputable . \nAs a conclusion, learning theories should go hand in hand with learning how to put them in use for solving problems and making significant discoveries. And I believe it is not just the matter of education or work, it is a matter of life, too. As this proverb nicely put this issue in a nutshell that [Quotation] . \n" + }, + { + "title": "223_IRMA12003.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nNowadays, in our country, the rush for entering universities does not let us to even think whether what we learn there is practical in our future career, or not. It seems that our learning at university is so theoretical that cannot be used in real life career. Actually, universities have forgotten their ultimate goal which is preparing students for the occupation related to their majors. Students pass different theoretical courses and few or none practical ones. Even if they pass a practical course, it is not taught in a way that can provide them with experience or make them become familiar with their future possible career. Moreover, as they cannot link their educational background to career related to it, they choose careers which are completely unrelated to their degree. Therefore, curriculum design, masters and students are three evident factors that show students just learn about theories and read about practice at university, which is not enough .\nCurriculum design is a leading factor in orienting toward theory or practice. If we have a theoretical orientation, we can add more theoretical courses to the curriculum, and if we have a practical orientation, more practical courses and workshops can be added. However, by taking a look at the curriculum for different majors (whether related to human, basic or engineering science), it would be noticed that most courses are theoretical. The courses are about the history of the major and the theories, and students may read about their application. These students rarely ever have the opportunity to utilize and experience the theories as they learn them. Consequently, educational system at universities does not provide a situation that students can be able to establish a relation between theories and their practice; the gap which even masters find hard to fill . \nWe all have had masters whose knowledge we wondered about. But it has rarely happened that we wonder how experienced our master is in related careers to our major. Most masters, all their lives, have been studying hard to pave their ways to get PHD, and finally become what they are now. Consequently, they hardly ever had the opportunity to work, and scarcely faced what the related careers require. When they become a university master, they try to teach what they are expert at, not things they know a little about. Therefore, they focus on theories. It worth mentioning that, here, curriculum design may also lead experienced masters to teaching theoretically . \nAs a result of the above mentioned factors, students cannot establish a connection between theories and their usage in related careers. This may lead some of them to choose a job completely unrelated to their educational background . \nIn conclusion, our curriculum design for majors, the masters and the students, as mentioned above, completely support the idea that universities focus more on theoretical issues rather than practical ones. These three have also changed our attitude toward going to university. We think going to university and graduating means reading some books, taking some exams, then passing the courses and finally getting a degree. However, we are so confused that we never ask, To get a job, do I need to go to university?\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "224_IRMA12008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\n\tSince the advent of neural synapse in human brain people were concerned how to turn ideas into action. You should keep in mind that the question provided can be subjectively addressed by anyone who comes across with it. Here I'll briefly mention two thick walls that separate us from the spectrum of knowledge and practice. To begin with, the lack of the right method of learning within universities. Secondly, the absence of sheer will force in each and every individual within the period of education. With these contextual and intrapersonal factors, the graduates can rarely relate university learning to real life problems therefore I think the university degrees are becoming more theoretical nationally . \n\n\tThroughout the world or at least in the developed countries the current established method of learning is PBL(Problem Based Learning), unfortunately we are still living in the stone era of implementing the modern approaches and methods of education in the curriculum design. The method Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered pedagogy in which students learn about a subject just like real life through the experience of problem solving. Students learn both thinking strategies and domain knowledge. The goals of PBL are to help the students develop flexible knowledge, effective problem solving skills, self-directed learning, effective collaboration skills and intrinsic motivation that are critically important in encountering real life situations. The tutor builds students' confidence to take on the problem, and encourages the students, while also stretching their understanding. PBL represents a paradigm shift from traditional teaching and learning philosophy, which is more often lecture-based, theoretically passed, contains way more theoretical units than practical ones and it is used in the whole nation as the primary method of teaching. PBL educates students in a way that they would behave efficiently not only in a domain specific task but also in real life problem solving ones. Our system of education lacks such a perfectly designed method of teaching and learning. So the students cannot benefit from real life stimulations and as a result the problem of relating university learning to real life situations arises.\n\n\n\tPreparation for real life starts since birth. From childhood the humans interacts with the real world through trial and error, reasoning and prior experience of others. Consequently each human being perceives the surrounding world differently from one another; some choose to gain experience from a mistake and look at it positively, meanwhile others try to ignore the whole happening and bury it deep down among other unpleasant errors of human kind. Like all the changes in human condition success comes from will; with the brute force of perseverance the individual can outwit the real life challenge eventually. Since this four legged creature is capable of thinking and making decisions from childhood, in the end the choice is up to the person whether to develop a will toward succession or to be doomed to failure. Observational studies have shown that people think life is becoming harder to get by each year. The reasons and motives for such negative attitude could be economical, regional, psychological, physiological, political, cultural and personal. Thus not having the required volition causes increased rates of difficulty in encountering real life situations . \n\n\nThe failure in preparation of students for real life can be caused by two reasons. First, problem of do not having the right implemented approach to learning, teaching and assessment that could best serve the growing number of applicants in different fields of study in order to relate theory to practice in real life. Second, we have the power of will; you and I know that it would have the strength to melt mountains to the surface if it is used in a way to see problems solvable and goals reachable. Accordingly the reasons for such depravation may arise from the surrounding of a person or from within him/herself.\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "225_IRMA13002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n\nToday getting an academic degree has become so important that almost none of the students pay attention to what they are going to study during that course and whether the units are theoretical or practical. If what is taught in the universities mostly consists of theoretical matters then the student will not be well prepared for the job market in the real life, some experts say. In this essay I try to state a few reasons both for and against the above claim. Some of these reasons are as follows: learning only theories without any practice is like learning how to swim without even getting wet. The job market is and always will be going to need some experts who not only know how to do something but are also capable of doing it. There are always some points where we cannot afford the consequences of a blind risk and here is where using theory we can lower the risk .\n\nAlthough knowing theories is helpful, as long as a person is not able to use them in real life, they are doomed to fail. Statistics show that more than sixty percent of university graduates have been left unemployed due to lack of experience and practical skills. As a matter of fact companies and factories are tending to employ those who already know for example how to work with a machine or to fix a computerized system. So at this point I think it is the universities job to teach students how to put what they have learnt into practice .\n\nThe biggest concern of almost every university student in Iran is unemployment after graduating. This concern leads the poor youths to pursue higher education, not knowing that there is nothing waiting for them but more and more theoretical matters. Saeed Bagheri, a twenty-three year old electronic engineer who graduated from university of Shiraz last year, says that: [Quotation] , said Saeed. But looking at the glass half full, theories are not useless at all . \n\nPractice without theory is blind. It means that it is not worth taking any risk without knowing what the prices are. Just think of a skyscraper that needs to be torn down, of course no healthy mind in the entire world would take the responsibility of pushing the explosion button without knowing what exactly will be happening next. See! So it is not fair to say that practice always have superiority over theory. Moreover, we should bear in mind that, a society would also need theorists who shed some lights on the way of practical experts, and without whom we never could afford the prices of our wrong choices .\n\nTo sum up this essay I should say, I agree that universities should allocate much more time on training their students with practical skills rather than spending almost all their time teaching theoretical matters. In the same time I also should mention that I strongly disagree with those who underestimate the value of theoretical issues. In my opinion a university student should have a good command on both theoretical and practical matters for that as Marx says: [Quotation] . \n" + }, + { + "title": "226_IRMA14013.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? \n \nThese days, education plays an important role in each society. Everybody attempts to be educated. They enter university to improve their knowledge on a specific subject in order to be an expert and this issue is more important for young members of society. However, there are some debates on the purpose of education. Mostly believe that the purpose of education is preparing the students for their future job, while some argue that most of the university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. In my opinion, obtaining a university degree does not necessarily mean that one is ready to start working. There are some reasons that I am going to discuss in the following paragraphs .\nThe first reason is that the statics show that most of the people who are graduated from university do not have a job that is related to the subject matter that they have studied at university. We can also see some people who have M.A or B.A in some field of study; however, they are working in a place that is totally different from the degrees they hold. For example, best scenario considered in Iran a person who wants to be an English teacher, before getting a B.A and studying in a university for that purpose, can be a good English teacher. Another example is that, there are a lot of great English teachers that they studied engineering in university or any other subject matters but have proved to be great teachers. Another one applies to the situation where holding a B.A or M.A, regardless of what the subject matter is, will give one the opportunity to be accepted in some important jobs like being a banker, or working in a governmental company. It means that the subject matters that are being taught in universities are not related to the job opportunities that exist in the society. Therefore, it shows the impracticality of the university degrees regarding the fact that they do not prepare students for real life situations .\nThe Second reason is that the theoretical credits that students have in university are a way more than the practical credits that they have. In most of the prestigious Iranian universities, most of the credits are theoretical, and when it comes to the practical credits there are always some problems like not having enough equipment, enough time and having over crowded classes that the professor decides to skip them and do not waste the time in order to work more on the theoretical credits. As result of this, there are some training courses that before having a job, one has to attend them. These training courses are totally educational without any payment and one has to enroll in order to get the job. For example, even if someone has a B.A in teaching English, that person has to pass some teacher training courses in order to start working in an institute. On the other hand, a person who has studied an irrelevant major to teaching English, only by passing these training courses is competent enough to teach in any institute. Some people argue that people who have passed those courses at university and then pass these training courses will be more knowledgeable and successful. However, the truth is that they will be more knowledgeable but not necessarily more successful in real life and their job. The point is that the credits that students pass during their education program at university are more theoretical than being practical and do not prepare students for the real life .\nConsequently, as I mentioned above, most of the university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. Universities need to focus in some areas to prepare the students for the real life. First, they should improve the classrooms to the latest technology and keep up with the new technology and innovations. Second, professors must be qualified and proficient in the subjects or skills they are about to teach. A professor who knows nothing about the subject matter cannot prepare students for the real life. Third, curriculum must keep up with newest and latest knowledge and it has to constantly change depending on what is relevant in the workplace. In other words, it must include all the knowledge, skills and training that is necessary for a person who wants to start working after graduation. And they should always consider that Students must be required to show mastery of the skills that they have studied before graduating. It is not enough that they graduate. They must be highly-skilled graduates. The ultimate goal must be for students to be prepared for a life beyond their classrooms .\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "227_ITRS1001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nIf someone should define the twentieth century in one word he would call it the television era. Nowadays we are so used to television that we find difficult to think that it did not exist before, and that our ancestor did not even know what it was .\nSo we may happen to find ourselves asking: what did they do then? How did they pass their time? The matter is that we cannot think of our life without television if we think accurately of a sample of our day we find out that we watch television throughout the day .\nGenerally speaking one person watches television at least three times during the day. The first one is in the morning: as soon as he wakes up he switches television on to hear news and then of course during the meals which means at lunch time and dinner .\nSeldom, as soon as he goes back home in the late afternoon, after a long working day, he switches television on maybe because he feels relaxed by watching at it, or maybe just because he is annoyed and he thinks that television could help him .\nIf we count the hours that we pass in front of television we notice that we spend at least the third part of our day watching it .\nNow, the problem is not the fact that we watch at it. As a matter of fact, television is useful because we can recent news every hour and we can know what happens in the other hemisphere of the world in real time .\nFurther more, some programs are very interesting and useful. Let's think about health programs which teach us how to discover or to cure an important disease. Or let's just think of the didactic or somehow entertaining documentaries: those about history .\nIt is out of doubt that thanks to television we can learn new things and come in touch with different realities that otherwise we cannot know or which at least it would be very difficult for us to know .\nThe real problem is that several times, if not always, we cannot do with out television. May people cannot bear not even one day of their lives without watching at it. Sometimes they also give up to interesting situations like for instance going out with friends or have a chat with them, because they prefer to stay home watching at their favourite program. Moreover, if someone talks to them while they are immerged in a program they don't even answer back .\nIn a certain way for this kind of people, television becomes a sort of drug. Their relationship with television is of dependence and they become incapable of conducting their life detached from this domestic * tool *.\nIn this content I totally agree with the fact that if Marx was alive he would state that television is the opium of the masses. But of course, is not only in this sense that we must consider the phrase. For many reasons, television, with its programs distracts people's attention from real problems. Its forms of entertainment which in some way are rather foolish, banal and far from being cultural aim to detach people from reality. As a result people are led to ignore political and social problems .\nWatching television is a passive action because you receive images, news and words but you do not really create anything. Sometimes it forbids you to think, especially to think in a critically way. In certain way television does not allow you to develop your personality or at least a personality which is a different from that of others .\nIt seems infact that one of the television goals is that of bringing people all to the same level especially the one of language. Even if we do not realise it, we tend to speak all in the same way using the same words which are those that we hear from television programs .\nMarx would certainly transform his statement replacing religion with television: but what I think is that he should also invite people to make a good use of it, because if we understand the real value of it I am sure that people's life will certainly improve .\n" + }, + { + "title": "228_ITRS1003.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nThe introduction and diffusion of the so called * mass-media *, such as television for example, in the modern and industrialized society, is strictly connected with the change of the culture, the behaviour and thought of modern men .\nI agree with the title of the essay, that is to say, Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television. In fact, the influence of television on the * masses * is powerful and extraordinary. Television, * the opium of the modern masses *, has developped the public opinion, that is to say, the thoughts of civil society, which has, though the use of television, all the methods of information: films, soap operas, serials, television news, documentary films, and so on. People watching television are like * voyeur * who are deeply involved with the power of persuasion and conviction of Tv .\nIn the 20th century, television plays and has an important and decisive role on * the modern masses *, together with the development and expansion of technology and culture. The negative aspects of television became the object of study and analysis of authours such as Herman Marcuse for example. He underlined the negative power of television on the * modern masses *, such as the aspect of alienation, of the * manipulation * of the thought and behaviour of men. However that may be, television is and has been in the past, a powerful means and source of information, which contributes to the development of the cultural emancipation of men. Television has the power * to enter * and * filter * in the houses and private lives of the * modern masses *. It is like a * magic box * which is in strict touch with the privacy of men and it shows people, for example, how to organize their free-time, their job and social life. It gives all the information people need .\nWatching television gives men the opportunity for dreaming and imagination is our modern world dominated by technology and industrialization. In fact, the presence of films, thrillers, serial stories, and so on, represents the projections of our dreams and myths. Television has become the favourite pastime of both old people and children, who like to see films and cartoons, such as * Tom and Jerry *, etc. It has become an important * vehicle * of personal knowledge and information, and it underlines everything is exceptional, moving and sensational, when it presents an adventure, a story, a film or gossips of the so-called * vips *.\nTelevision is also an important means for the political propaganda: home affairs, foreign affairs, political elections, become a television * competition *, like for example the last election of the American President of the United States Bill Clinton, of whom, television has exalted his human qualities and his private life whit his wife Hilary .\nCrimes news for example, which are strictly connected with disasters, murders, accidents etc., give men topical subjects of discussion .\nTelevision is, without any doubts, the best * means * for the divulgation of information, which marks the advent of a new era, that is to say, the modern age dominated by science technology and industrialization .\n" + }, + { + "title": "229_ITRS2007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nGenerally speaking, nowdays the number of students who attend University has increased. I don't exactly know the situation in foreign countries, but in Italy some Universities are crowed with students, who sometimes decide to attend it just because they can't find a job after High School .\nObviously University is seen as a sort of passport for the working world, but we know that most degrees do not prepare students for it. Let me give you some examples .\nI'm taking a degree in foreign languages and literatures and I'm still really proud of my chooice .\nI study English and Spanish, besides many other subjects, and one day I'd like to teach them. But when I think about this possibility I get very sceptical because I don't feel able to teach Spanish at all .\nI don't think I can speak Spanish fluently even if I passed the three exams with high marks .\nActually the classes were too theoretical and students didn't have enough time for Spanish conversation, not to mention the fact that most of the classes were in Italian. In short, I believe I have a good knowledge of Spanish literature but a modest one in language. What I'm trying to say is that, too often, University is not qualifying and students need to specialize in the subject they are going to deal with in the working world .\nI have just talked about my personal case, but I know that many scientific degrees are even worse. For instance, Italian engineers are said to be among the best in the world. But is this true?\nHow can this be possible if they start going to the laboratory for experiments only after the fourth year?\nI have a lot of friends who are studying engineering and most of them have very good marks in computer subjects, while actually don't even know how to use a computer! Are their exams of any value?\nLet's now talk about the most theoretical degree at all: law. In Rome this department is the most crowed. Students have to get to University two hours before classes start if they want to find a seat and to listen to the teacher. Everything is learned in theory without any contact with courts .\nNaturally there aren't only disadvantages in a theoretical degree. Actually students have often excellent cultural bases and this proves advantages when they decide to take a M.A. in another country. In this case they will become very good workers because they will acquired theoretical system and practical knowledge. But what about people who can't afford it, or who don't want to start studying again?\nThe problem persists and I believe it can only be solved with a general reorganization of University system .\nIt should be given more emphasis at the practical part because in the real world a person who can use a computer is by far more useful than one who has studied how to use it!\n" + }, + { + "title": "230_ITRS2018.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nThe 20th century is also called * modern world *, because by now everything is dominated by science technology and industralisation. Computers, robots, internet and virtual reality have replaced man and his duties. Nowadays, communicate with someone who lives on the other side of the world is very easy, as well as, staying at home and ordering the computer to do the shopping.....that is not surprising .\nTravelling all over the world is a simple thing and quick as a flesh, one can end up catapulted from Cape town to VANCOUVER in less than eight hours and I would not be surprised if two people spent a honeymoon on the moon or on MARS.\nManual work and heavy jobs have been replaced by science technology or rather by sophisticated robots which carry out its duties better than men or woman. Today, working in a factory or in a mine, present minor risks compared to the past; moreover, in the days, the figure of man with his head bowed under a pit or a press, is disappearing. Even if, in some part of the world, these * offices * are assigned to the poor children who cannot refuse to accept them, since they need them, and so they are exploited. In short, I would not define it as an homogeneous industralisation, or rather, I would call it partial (industralisation).\nNew towns, built-up areas and skyscrapers that skim (over) the sky, multiply themselves daily, while our greenery is decreasing more and more. The countryside is not a peaceful place any more where one can relax, or place where a poet can find his inspiration for writing a poem .\nWordsworth drew his inspiration from the Lake District scenery, today, this is not possible any more. Why? Because our countryside has been industrialised and it has become a continual succession of factories, plants and motorways that have taken the place of small farms, brooks and panoramic viewpoints. Even our coasts with its beautiful beaches, that once gave us romantic sunset, are now full of innovating hotels and holiday villages .\nNowadays, every place has become terribly touristy, and on the other hand, it has lost its own romanticism. This marks the beginning of a new era, where there is no longer a place for dreaming, imagination and creativity, an era exactly defined as the mechanical age. So we are awake of the risk and the loss that this space age implies!! Because as we know, creativity and originality are more important than technical skill .\nIt is not surprising, if in the near future, our children will play with real spaceships or will operate by remote control real passenger trains or will pilot fighter planes. I do not know where are the frontiers between science and reality. Probably, our playgrounds will be replaced by real motor racing tracks or real runways, while the classic merry-go-rounds sink into oblivion .\nIn my opinion, all that cannot be defined as * modern world *: firstly, because the industralisation is partial, as we have already seen; secondly, it is no use having children able to pilot a plane, if then, they are not able to write a love letter or to use their own imagination. All that is very sad!\n" + }, + { + "title": "231_ITRS2021.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nAfter having finished schools many students go up to the university with the hope of being better prepared for their job to come; they sometimes choose a degree because, according to the statistics, it is better valued when you are looking for a work .\nThis is the reason of the recent boom of some university degrees which offer a more practical preparation for real world of work: if studying data-processing gives you a job, you will study them; if becoming an expert in economy gives you a good chance, you can't help taking it .\nThose degrees which are more theoretical than practical are in a period of crisis; they are considered of very little value. I do not agree with it .\nIt is important to be prepared for the world of work but you can't choose a degree only to have a work, putting by all your inclinations .\nWhat is wrong is the structure of Italian universities; it can't stand comparison with the development of technology and industrialisation. Politicians do nothing or very little to change this situation with new laws and funds .\nIncluding some new exams in the prospectus of those degrees which are too theoretical could be a solution; you could have exams in which applying your theoretical knowledge to practical matters; you could have a general idea about topics without which you don't fit in the world of work .\nThey could be maths, law and economy because when you look for a job you are requested to know them .\nWhen you know these topics, then you are free to choose your degree without being afraid about future possibilities of work and without giving away your dreams .\nMen do not have the same inclinations and the same desires; what university must cope is the homologation to a standard even if statistics say that it wins. It is better to have ingeneers or architects who love their job instead of having potential philosophers who are compelled to become architects only to receive a salary .\nYou can't forget that some disciplines are purely theoretical but they are not less important because of it; if society asks more and more for a skilled and practical preparation what about the human knowledge which is not important in the production process? What about an obscure line of poetry or the history of ancient civilization? They have value, a great value to mankind even if there is no place for them in the real world of work .\n" + }, + { + "title": "232_ITRS2025.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nChurch has always inebriated people's mind, first with cruel prophecies about the fire of hell, then with the promise of psychological order in an age of competition, exploitment and materialism as our age is .\nCenturies ago, Church preached a terrible and vindictive God, who, on the day of the Judgment, would have punished those who had not behaved according to his laws. It disseminated great superstitions threatening people to the point that they really believed in witches and in the Inquisition's condemnations of women to stake. Church convinced people that hey are * sinners in the hands of an angry God *, so that religion must be present in every action of everyday life to avoid evil and sin. But Church hided the luxury of its ministers under a veil of puritanism and profiting from people's ignorance, they sold the indulgences to support their expensive way of living .\nNowadays Church preaches a merciful God, who can satisfy their request of graces in exchange of prayers. It continues to profit from people's sense of superstition, it is not so intolerant as in previous centuries, but it contributes to maintain a fatalistic mentality, according to which everything comes from heaven. It preaches about peace among people, against violence upon women, and about every sort of modern mental and physical abuse; but it never concretely participates to establish peace or stop violence. There are very few cases of clergymen who fight against * mafia * or against * drug *.\nChurch must awake people from the dream that * Divine Providence * brings welfare. On the other hand, it is true that people need to believe in a pre-established order, to take rest from the stress of making money. Church offers some values, some * opium * in which everyone can abandon himself and forget the psychological stress he is exposed to .\nIn the 20th century, people are distracted by something different from religion. It is not Church that bombards people's mind with false news, but it is television that confounds masses, presenting things from restricted points of view, so that people cannot see the whole reality of thing - just like Church did centuries ago to obtain the favour of the masses. Television is manipulated by political parties which show things as they would like them to appear. People let themselves at the mercy of the most various news, without detecting the real aim of those who want to manipulate public opinion presenting a distorted reality .\nTelevision is also dangerous because we live in an age of extreme vulnerability. After the slogan * God is dead * some of the certainties of humanity are lost, so people are in search of other gods. Actors, top models, singers, managers of industry become the new idols to worship and to imitate .\nTelevision contributes to present how easy is to reach a comfortable way of living .\nGirls become anorex in order to look like Claudia Schiffer, some people dedicate to illecit affairs to gain money to have a beautiful * villa * like that of any manager of industry; even because they know from television journal that some gangsters of the underworld are not judged as they deserve. In fact they repent of what they have done, they collaborate with * justice * and so they are protected by that law that should condemn them for their crimes .\nTelevision influences people beyond the limit of danger; it can be noticed a relationship between the unjustified death of a student and the previous telecast of a film in which one of the protagonist kills some people without any reason. Today, some people suffer from frustration or other psychological illness, so that they can be easily influenced .\nOn the other hand, television tries to sensitise the masses to the problem of violence, telecasting * Film dossier *, or debates, or it tries to * save * children from watching violent films by marking them with red marks of danger. However, all this is done to be marked as a good TV channel and so to raise the audience. In fact, there are few television personages engaged in the campaign against violence on children, or on women, while the most part are engaged to replace the * Divine Providence * with the * Television Providence *, as if everyday life is easy like soap opera's life, and as if the aims people propose in their life are easy to reach .\nEven publicity presents a happy family, causing a sort of shock for those children who hear their parents quarrelling .\nReal life is different. Apart those cases of drunk father and mother and drugged sons, who however exist, a normal family lives problems of money and little controversies between brothers and between sons and parents .\nWe must distinguish what real life is and the distorted reality television shows of modern age .\n" + }, + { + "title": "233_ITRS2027.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nAlthough it is not long since television has been invented, it has become the most used electrical household appliances all over the world .\nAt the beginning, in Italy, only well-to-do people could buy a television set due to the high price and the low economic level of most of the population. It was a rarity looked at with admiration! But thanks to the increased economic level during the fifties and the sixties, television was available to every family and it became the symbol of the gained welfare .\nNowadays people make an uncontrolled use of television, each family has one or two television sets at home; in some desperate cases there is even a television set in each room of the house. Television is no longer a symbol of the achieved prosperity but its presence in a house is obvious because it passed from a rarity to a common electrical household appliances or rather a mania .\nAt first was considered as means of information and entertainment and those people who did not have it, gathered in public places such as bars where there was one in order to watch it and exchange opinions. But now it is alienator because even in a family people are more concentrated in watching TV than talking to each other. During the few moments in which a family gathers together such as lunch, supper or in the evening the television set is on in 95% of the cases. Widespreading its use, the values transmitted by television have changed too .\nIf at the beginning a kind of censorship checked that a good language polished from vulgar words or concepts was used; that dancers and announcers were well dressed, today there is freedom of ideas and of representation. A freedom which is sometimes wrongly exploited by those who make television and in the name of money and business they transmit news, discussions, crime, sex, violence without control. It depends on the spectator to choose programmes of quality and to avoid the so-called * trash * television. But television has acquired a strong power on its spectators so that not all of them are capable of distinguishing good quality from bad quality. People tend to consider as true everything they watch on TV but it is not so .\nSometimes some news are false or not correctly reported and they are transmitted in order to increase audience but the passive spectators are those people who watch TV in a not objective way and let themselves be influenced by it .\nFor example advertising has a strong influence on people because many prefer buying a product even if it is the most expensive only because it is advertised on TV and consequently considered absolutely good. This television has become an instrument of commerce through advertising and it handles people's preferences .\nHow forget the interest of politicians for the television scene as a channel to express their ideas through obliging journalists who emphasize personal political ideas in their programmes instead of being neutral and objective .\nThe line between ethic and not ethic is subtle and it can be easily surmounted but this does not mean that television is totally negative .\nOne can not forget the positive aspects such as informing, instructing and entertaining which may contain some faults and it should be in the spectator's interest to understand and not to take everything for granted .\nOne should be educated to the use of television and remember that a black box should not attract completely the attention of a person. It is an instrument at the service of people and not the contrary; at the basis of its function there should be always people's will and discernment .\n" + }, + { + "title": "234_ITRS2034.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nThere is not much knowledge about feminism among young women. It is considered a kind of * revolution * of women against men, but it is not simply so .\nThis social + political movement developed during the last years of the sixties and it believed + aimed that women should have the same rights, power and opportunities as men. However this movement cannot be understood without referring to the situation of society in those years. The late sixties and early seventies were characterized by a deep crisis, which involved, politic, education, social relationships and in this context feminism set up a protest against an old-structured society ruled by men .\nFeminism has old and noble origins which trace back to the French revolution. Women at that time claimed the right of being considered an important part of society, asking for civil and political rights .\nIn Italy during the Risorgimento, the question of feminism was still of little value, but at the end of the 19th century, due to the great number of women working in factories, the * female problem * became very important. Nevertheless what women really claimed was not only the right of working in good conditions, but they aimed at the emancipation of women as a movement of renewal of the heart of society. However women had to wait until 1945 to obtain an important success, indeed in that year they gained the right to vote. From 1945 italian population, like many others in Europe, was * busy * in * starting again *, there was a lot to do in a country destroyed by the war. This period sees the rise of the middle-class, and witnessed the so called economic * boom *. This well established middle-class still didn't give women the same opportunities as men, so in the seventies due to the ferments developed feminism broke out .\nIn those years women expressed their anger showing a strong rebellious aspect. They stood up for their rights in a society which didn't give them the same chances as men. They fought against male power, thus trying to destroy his role in society. They were against the old structured society where women could be mainly housewife, whereas man could study, work and chose with freedom. Unfortunately their noble ideas degenerated into a sort of extremism which spoiled their ideals, thus reducing, in some situations, their insurrection in a sterile fight between man + women for who had the duty to do the washing up, or the houseworks in the family .\nIn my opinion feminism was an important movement that marked a necessary break in Italian society. Thanks to those fights, now there are women free to dedicate themselves to successful careers in management, politics, science, before denied .\nHowever these glorious conquests are only one aspect of the results obtained. The new and imposing role of women created a lack of balance in our society. Families are more and more abandoned by women interested in working many hours a day. Children are no longer educated by their mothers, but by baby-sitter, grand-parents or nursery-schools. The family isn't a strong institution any longer, and the consequences are a lack of values. Many sociologists claim that the weakening of the family and the consequent weakening of familiar bounds, are the main sources of many problems that distress our society .\nSo as I have analyzed the subject is controversial, because to some important conquests correspond some failures. I don't consider myself a feminist because I don't agree with the extremism they reached; but I believe that it was necessary to reach a certain freedom of choice and also to develop a certain self-consciousness which are the most important elements to be aware of our limits and our potentialities as human being .\n" + }, + { + "title": "235_ITRS2035.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nThe end of the 20th century is a witness to a dynamic world ruled b the development of so many different kinds of sciences and technologies that man often runs the risk of losing his control over them, even though he himself has given birth to them .\nThe improvement of technology and industrialization seem to proceed at the same rate as civilization, both looking for efficient services in a short time. But the rythms of industrial production, which have become part of man's life, determine some heavy consequences, such as man's alienation and loss of identity. The danger carried on is that the comfortable means of modern age may increase our mental * laziness * and contribute to our neglection of deeper values, of those spiritual ideals which require some effort to be discovered and actively cultivated. It is often easier to accept ideas from outside rather than elaborate personal thoughts .\nThe burst and definite ascent of * easy * technological means have dinned a purer, more genuine world, the inner self, with an invasion of pre-established images and material resources. This kind of messages is more quickly conveyable than written information, for example books. In such a practical society, images tend to prevail over the taste for conversation and reading, talking and dreaming: a state of war is set between images and imagination. It immediacy and universality of images which explain the success of this ready-made world upon man: they necessarily dominate him (unless he chooses hermitage!). Images also have a great power for persuasion, being able to reach millions of people at the same time .\nThere is still a place and a time for dreaming and imagining but these two dimensions are strongly threatened by powerful systems, coming from the external world. Today man's inner world seems to be tiny, restrained with respect to the overflowing magna of materialistic issues .\nReading represents one of the best ways to stimulate man's phantasy. It helps create personal images, worlds open exclusively to the reader himself. It may lead to a flight from concrete reality, and may also satisfy the reader's wish to start on imaginary journeys and meet fictional worlds, lively and coloured. If books tend to be unread, it is because one often yields to the temptation of doing actions which require less effort, like watching TV.\nNevertheless, dreaming and imagination are so deeply enrooted in man's life that no other activity will replace or destroy them. Their power is to enrich the mind with no-barrier worlds: microcosms in which man can happily lose himself, forget actual problems for a while and take shelter whenever he needs to, either when he is physically alone or when he is in the middle of a crowd .\n" + }, + { + "title": "236_ITTO5001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nProbably the person who wrote this song had so much money that he did not know how to use it and, for this reason, money was perhaps more a source of anxiety than a fortune for him/her .\nAnyway, nobody never died of money and, especially nowadays, having at least a small amount of money helps people to survive. More and more here in Italy you hear people talking only about money and how to make it; the State does not know what else to invent in order to make people try their luck through different games: * scrape and win *, other national lotteries, horse-racing or football pools .\nAnother reason for trying to make as much money as possible is that the cost of living has gone and is still going up more and more. For a middle-class family (but far more for a lower-class one !) it is not enough just a single salary to live anymore. That is why people dream a win, for instance in the lottery, in order to improve their life conditions and, if possible, to change their life completely .\nLet us suppose that one morning, awakening, a person finds out he/she has won a lot of money; probably the first feeling would be of astonishment and fear, but surely then the first thing that this person will do, would be going to collect his/her money. Where is the evil in it, then ? Is there anything wrong in money itself ? Not at all .\nOne may object that having money sometimes leads to anxiety, fear of being robbed or swindled and to moral corruption, in the sense that the more tou have, the more you want, no matter who you trample on. This is partially true if you do not know how to make profit from your capital; it could also be objected that in that case too you could run the risk of being swindled by carrying out a wrong transaction. This is true as well, but \"nothing venture, nothing have\", as the saying goes .\nApropos of songs, in the text of a song written by Alanis Morrisette, a Canadian singer, \"An old man turned 98, he won the lottery and died the next day\". Surely money does not make happiness nor health or immortality and fate in most cases decides for you, but in any case having money let you life better without thinking always of saving, of choosing cheap (and often of poor quality) goods. Having money in a certain sense helps you also with health, because if you have a serious disease you can pay for those drugs, hospital stays and treatments you eventually need .\nMoreover having money would be for poor people really a godsend. It is not necessary to remind in what conditions third-world people live. How could you say that for them \"money would be the root of all evil\" ? Even if we do not look so far, we perceive that also in our country there are people living on the border-line of dignity; for all these people we ought to remember the importance and the civil progress brought by money circulation in order not to waste money but to appreciate it as a divine gift and to learn to be satisfied with what we have, without profitting by other people's misfortune and misery .\n" + }, + { + "title": "237_ITTO5004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nSince money has been introduced our life has become more practical, that it to say we do not need to have something to exchange anymore but we just need to have enough money in our wallet when we want to buy something .\nIn the beginning money was made up of gold, silver and precious stones and many people began to accumulate it in order to have a financila richness other than that they already have (land, house, etc.).\nNotwithstanding money has brought a lot of trouble in the history of human kind. If gold had not had its value, one could assume that now the American Natives could still live in peace .\nThey were instead exterminated because more * civilized * people were looking for a new place to live on and were then trying to become richer with the gold that the West of America hid .\nWith the invention of money the differences between the rich and the poor became more and more visible. In effect if one had a possession, he/she had to have also the right amount of money to maintain it and to pay taxes. But generally the little owners could not afford all the expenses and were obliged to sell their land to people who already had great properties. So, all around the world, there were a little number of rich and a huge number of poor and destitutes. In order to try to change their awful reality big rebellions against the States and their representants were made but things did not changed too much. People gained more freedom and rights and more economic help from the State but they remained what they were before .\nBecause of money men made also many wars. In the past already, people fought in order to gain a plunder for themselves and, at present, things have not changed much because if there is a war it means that great economic interests lie under it. For example why did USA decide to attack Iraq so quickly and let the ex-Jugoslavian people fight for four years? One could answer: because Iraq has a thing which ex-Jugoslavia does not have, i.e. petrol .\nIn our modern times everything is measured with money. Time is money, people say .\nBesides if you have money you have a better social status. People inconsciously think that you are a better person even if you are not. For example if you go shopping well-dressed the shop-assistents will treat you with respect but if you go badly-dressed, it does not matter if your bag is full with money, they will think you are poor, you want to buy nothing and they will consequently treat you as a second-class person .\nNotwithstanding its importance there are many things that money cannot buy. Health, Love, Happyness are what every human being actually looks for in his life. To reach these goals there is no material price which can be paid. That is why in the end we are all the same. The difference is only that if one is rich, he/she can have more opportunities to achieve what he/she wants than one who has not money at all. For example Giovanni Agnelli has died because of a cancer but he had tried to be healed in America. Probably if he had being a common person, he would have suffered more and died earlier. Yet he has died. What is important to notice anyway is that he could not save himself. His money was useless in order to stop his illness .\nBesides also happyness and love are well-known unacquirable * goods *. There are many rich people who have everything they want but who cannot assume they are happy and loved .\nFor example Kurt Cobain, the singer and leader of the group Nirvana, committed suicide in 1994 in spite of being very rich, being famous and having a wife and a daughter .\nIt seems, in conclusion, that what really count is the meaning we give to money. If one let money become the goal of his/her life this attitude will bring nothing but evil. Yet if one manage to consider money just as a means, he/she will be able to hold a certain distance from it and will try to achieve other aims .\nFinally, if the English song says, * Money is the root of all evil *, an Italian one says, * I know money does not give happiness. But fancy how can feel one who has none at all!*\n" + }, + { + "title": "238_ITTO5005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nDuring the last two decades, we have been witnesses of a rapid development in any field of knowledge which grow more refined day after day consequently, the labour market requires skilled people more and more. It is for this reason that almost two young people in three decide to continue their studies going to the university so to improve their work opportunities. However, the value of the university degree is nowadays put in question because of several reasons .\nWhen young people enter a university, they are aware that they are going to spend many years studing a particular area of knowledge but once in possession of the so aspired university degree they have to face many difficulties in making the transition from education to work: they find themselves not so skilled as they thought and often have to deal with demoralization and allienation .\nOne of the main causes derives from the fact that even though university experience open people's mind creating the cultural basis to build up a career, it focuses only on theoretical and traditional teaching and lacks of practical one. For it is true that here in Italy there exist not training programs where students may learn what are effectively the real needs of the labour market. On the contrary in Germany students are required to do them in order to acquire different strategies to turn theory into practice which will be included in their curriculum .\nIn a situation like the Italian one, the consequences in the labour market are essentially two. On the one hand most firms of little and medium size do not engage graduated people without some kind of practical experience because from a legal point of view they should be paid as a complete skilled workers while they have not the working knowledge required resulting in this way too much expensive and unfruitful for years. As a consequence, firms prefer non graduated people who can be paid as apprentices. On the other hand big companies which can afford higher costs induce the young to attend training courses whose aim is to introduce them into the practical work. However, being engaged by this companies is not so easy: competition is very strong and only few people have access to these employments .\nBeing in the van is then another actual problem which involves both Universities and students who are placed in this sense in a position of disadvantage with respect to their peers of foreign countries. This is due basically to a lack of strong connections between universities and the employment world and to a general cultural closure towards experiments and new ideas. It is well known that researchers in italian universities are too limited and traditional and that the most intelligent brains here encounter serious obstacles in developing their new theories or techniques .\nTherefore, they are forced to migrate abroad where universities, supported by industry, give men means and instruments to develop their creativity in order to make new discoveries and to apply them in practical working. It is no without reason that U.S. universities as well as their students are considered the most advanced in keeping up to date with developments in any field of study .\nConsequently, italian graduated are handicapped from this point of view: they receive only a traditional teaching which, alhtough of great importance, is not sufficient in assuring a competitive knowledge in the labour market. Thus, graduated are often obliged to attend refreshing programs abroad spending further time and money .\nIn conclusion, universities should make efforts to establish strong cooperative relationships with the labour market introducing innovative new approaches to teaching such as trainings and experimental programs which can build more valuable and competitive skills .\n" + }, + { + "title": "239_ITTO5006.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nDuring the Roman Empire who used to own a great deal of * pecus *, that is to say who breeded cattle, was considered rich compared to the slaves who had nothing. Consequently the word * pecus * developed into the one of * pecunia * with the meaning of richness, as we are used to consider it today. As a result, owning money man had the possibility to lighten his way to build up a decent life going for instance to a good school in order then to get a good job. Despite this, man has also seen how, throughout history, his possessions and his never-ending will of having always more have also become the root of all his evil. Therefore, why do not we finally consider the case of finding a happy balance between the two choices?\nThere is no doubt that man has an inner will which pushes him to obtain always something more from his capability, and money does not certainly stop this push. As a matter of fact, our modern and superficial society leads us towards buying, obtaining and possessing always more in order to be always happier. But doing so man has been reduced to a colourful, beautiful, brightly, but empty box whose appearance attracts whoever walks on the side-walk. Apropos of this, already in the 17th century Shakespeare asked himself if being or having was a solvable problem or not. The reflections of his far thoughts should be read in today's newspapers concerning the use one makes of money. How much money was spent for instance to build up soccer stadiums before the latest world championship? How about the money spent by the MAFIA to enrich its powerful and unmoral pockets? And the money spent in the illegal children trade from coast to coast of our different countries? Without continuing the list, there is no doubt that only considering the material and reluctant aspect of having money one tends to forget that before having one needs of being .\nNevertheless there is always the other part of the coin, which in this case shows how money can most of the time make people happy. And going back to the previous meaning of the word * pecunia *, it is easy to think that without something to possess and to trade, as it was for cattle, men could not eat and live. One needs to work in order to earn a certain amount of money and then live in a good way. This does not necessairly mean that one must be eager for gain, as a matter of fact there are lots of rich people that help and have helped the needed. It is shown, for instance, from various international pop singers who give part of their earnings to the third world populations. In addition, who does not remember the charitable and good works done by Lady Diana while living? And she was the future England's King wife!\nFurthermore, one should step lower from the rich and famous people and see how much one can do from our less rich positions. If we had not had the right amount of money we could not face the university studies. We could not have gone to foreign countries and see the beautiful cities spread over the world. Not only can we better ourselves with money, but can we also help other people. Do we forget how many families adopting orphan children have helped them build up a new life? This has been possible not only because the future parents had a good heart, but also because money helped them to do it .\nTherefore it may be concluded that doubless for many years in the past and for many years to come money could be considered the root of man's evil, but as it has been seen it is not always so. As a matter of fact is not completely true. Money and good will can cooperate to build up a good life and finding the right balance between the two one could also modify the famous book title * To have or to be?* by the psychoanalyst Erich Fromm, into * to have AND to be *.\n" + }, + { + "title": "240_ITTO5007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nThe word * money * is one of the most common ones in songs, books, newspapers and every day conversations. Everything that sorrounds us can be * translated * into money, everything has its own price .\nA well-known motto says that money does not make happiness, but as we know, it can be useful! Moreover, another statement has to be kept in mind: it is better being in good health than having a lot of money. It is not always true that if you can pay for your treatments you will surely be better, as the touching case of Giovanni Alberto Agnelli has recently shown. Money is undoubtedly the means by which people can grant their own desires. But what are they? A new powerful car, a big house, beautiful clothes, but also other people freedom or institutions. When someone gets used to buy everything this becomes a sort of * illness *. If there is a problem money is the only solution, money becomes the key which opens every door. People pay for being privilegiate, for cancelling accuses, for a better appearance and so on, as famous political men and actors always show .\nMoney should be used for noble purposes, but, in many cases, this is not true. Everyone thinks at its own pleasures forgetting the rest of the world. So there are case of rich people who pay judges not to be condemned for their crimes and often innocent men or women pay the consequences. Not to speak about moral corruption money can bring. People who can afford every kind of pleasures are never satisfied and want always more; so it is common the use of alcohol and drugs to reach the highest level of emotions. It is a never ending circle which brings to unbelievable facts, like selling everything one person owns or having a great deal of debts .\nAnother aspect linked to money is the behaviour of people who do not own much money or, worse, who have nothing and live in indigence. Someone tries to improve its state with its own strenghts, other get worst and making money becomes the only reason of their life. So these people start ?bedding? and even stealing. They can eve kill in order to make money. To this trend many offences are connected and it is difficult to say whether illegal acts are due to the need of money or money is so powerful to corrupt human souls .\nIt is too easy saying that money is the root of evil, it is not always true. Men are often the major causes for evil actions, their aspirations and desires drive them to commit crimes. Money must be taken apart, it is our fault not its. Our nature is too feable to resist to temptations, that is why we hide ourselves behind abstract concepts. Money can be the root either for evil and for good: it is up to us making a choice .\n" + }, + { + "title": "241_ITTO5008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nIn all probability university students wonder whether or not they spend their time uselessly in studying through four or five years in order to take their degree. it is necessary to underline that there are some university degrees which are more theoretical than practical and which aim more at enriching culturally student ' minds than preparing them to enter the real world. The university degrees which are more theoretical than practical are the Art Faculties degrees such as degree in History, Philosophy, Modern and Classical Languages; on the contrary university degrees which are more practical than Art Faculties are Medical Faculty, Engeneering Faculty and Business Administration Faculty .\nThe degrees in Medicine and Business Administration give the possibility to students to do training courses in hospitals and in enterprises in order to help them to become more familiar with the world of business. Take the instance of Arianna Cataldo, a friend of mine who last year took her degree in Business Administration and now works as secretary in an enterprise in Turin. During her four years university course, she had to do training courses in different enterprises where she learnt to use computers and to keep enterprises accountings. Consequently, last year when she obtained her degree, she quickly found a job as secretary in one of the four enterprises where she worked during training courses .\nIn the medicine Faculty, students are obliged to do practical courses in hospitals, in fact it is not sufficient to pass all theoretical exams to get a degree in Medicine. Take the instance of Marcella Vittorini, a friend of mine who would obtain a degree in Medicine. Every day she does practical hours at the C.T.O Hospital of Turin. She tells me that practical hours are very usefull in order to understand better medical theories and to understand in what consist the doctor's work. She find practical courses very important in order to become more familiar with her future work .\nIn general, Arts Faculties initiate students into the teaching career. People are persuaded that being a teacher is easier than being a secretary and consequently they are convinced that practical courses are unnecessary. Take the instance of Jane Morris: ten years ago Jane got a first-class honours degree in history at Cambridge University and two years ago she found a job as history teacher in a Secondary School in London. Last year she was dismissed because the students complained to the headmaster about the fact that she was not able to explain the historical events .\nShe never explained History but obliged her students to study it on books by themselves .\nConsequently, the dismissal of Jane gave rise to controversies about the fact that the Humanities degrees are more theoretical than practical . Final year students should have the possibility to do temporary teaching jobs or should work as teachers' assistants in order to become more friendly with students but above all with the subject which they are going to teach in future .\nAs far as modern languages degree is concerned, it lacks in specialized courses which may be useful to students who are going to find a job as interpreter in enterprises. the languages courses focus their attention more on literature than on language. In fact there are more literature exams than language ones. Moreover there are not courses about Business English, Business French, Business German or Business Spanish which I consider essential in order to find a job as interpreter .\nfurthermore, there are no computer courses or courses specialized in translations. When you have an interview the employer does not ask you to talk about Shakespeare or Oscar Wilde, but he usually asks you whether or not you know how to use a computer and whether or not you are familiar with business English, for instance. Take the instance of my aunt Emilia. She took her degree in English language ten years ago. When she went for an interview, she was not recruited because she was unfamiliar with Business English and computers. The employer preferred to recruit a girl who only held a school-learning certificate but who was excellent in using computers and in writing Business English .\nArt Faculties ought to open students' minds not only theoretically but also practically by introducing into the degree programme specialised exams more linked to the practical world of business than to the theoretical world of culture .\n" + }, + { + "title": "242_ITTO6002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nIn the last few years many intellectuals have begun questioning whether the feminist * revolution * has improved women's conditions or not. It is undeniable that many feminists have exaggerated: for example, in the sixties thousands of women burnt their brasses as a sign of protest .\nNowadays this would seem ridicolous, since femininity is now considered a value and not something to be ashamed of. However they have had the merit of pointing out the many discriminations suffered by women at the time and of fighting for being considered equal to men in their rights and opportunities. Therefore, the feminist movement should be seen as a good attempt, partially successful, toward a more equalitarian society; and every woman today should be grateful to those women who have fighted for their rights .\nUntil the end of the sixties, women in the western world lived in a difficult and unfair situation. Their role was that of mothers and wives and their attempts to improve their social status through a job and a career were deliberately stopped by men. Women were told since their childhood that their fulfilment as a human being could come only from being good mothers and marrying a rich man. They were also told that going to the university and reaching a good level of instruction was unnecessary, since jobs such as doctors or lawyers were not appropriate for them. But this sad state of affairs was about to change; students and intellectuals started to fight for their rights and amidst them many women found the strength of raising the question of their status. It suddenly became a movement on its own, involving thousands of women and lasting several years .\nNowadays, the situation has changed under several aspects. Women have more or less the same opportunities of men. A woman lawyer or surgeon is no longer something unusual. Women may decide to devote their lives to a career, rather than their family. In many countries, governments have introduced laws in defence of women's rights. In Italy, for instance, the Parliament in the early seventies legalised the abortion, prompted by the feminists' fights. This has been considered one of the main victories of the feminist movement in our country .\nIn conclusion, it seems clear that the new opportunities which women have nowadays are the result of the feminist movement. Without their fights and perhaps without the excesses, too, women today would find themselves more or less in the same situation of thirty years ago .\n" + }, + { + "title": "243_ITTO6003.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nOne of the main problems of the last decade of our century is that of the feminist movement. Since the end of the eighteenth century women started trying to change their role in the society, but a real turning point seems to have been the sixties of our century. As usual there are people in favour and other against this movement. On one side stay people who think that feminists have just caused more problems to the society, for example creating a sort of confusion of roles between men and women and all the consequences that this confusion leads. On the other side are those who think that this movement have improved women's conditions, according to this idea their conditions have changed in better. Actually women went out their sort of jail in where they were obliged to live until our century: they started having their own ideas, they stared working, to vote and to have the same opportunities men have .\nWomen have ameliorated their way to live from many points of view: one is the act to think by their own, this is the first step to become independent, to have their own ideas about what is right or wrong for them is a good staring point for the movement. A second important point concerns the job: only working women can gain independence from their husbands and moreover can play an active role in the society; according this last idea, it is important to remember one of the biggest conquests that women have obtained, the right to vote, which allowed them to express their opinions about problems of the society .\nMore recently a revolt of the feminist movement took shape: during the 60's women reacted against the way society treated them, they claimed for more * independence from the house * they wanted to be something more than only a wife or mother, they did not want no more to stay at home waiting for their husbands, they wanted their husbands to help them with the house and the children .\nAnother reason of their revolt concerned discrimination at work, women were subjected to many falls: for example they could be faired because they were pregnant or they were subjected to sexual harassments by their boss and, in most of the cases, they were not recognized; moreover women could not denounce the falls because as a consequence they would have lost their job .\nIn conclusion feminists have made a lot of progresses in the last years; without any doubts women's conditions have improved thanks to this movement: today a woman has got quite the same opportunities a man has and most of the same rights, and what is missing it will be surely gain in the future .\n" + }, + { + "title": "244_ITTO6004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nMary Wollstonecraft indicating the rights of woman was simply extending radical ideas to the situation of women. Feminist movement, which some years after developed, took origins from radical ideas and it was therefore a radical movement that led to relevant changes in the world of women. Thanks to feminists women have now the same political rights and obligations as men, they can receive the same education men have and they can work; but in spite of this woman is not completly not at the same level as men just because feminists wanted to make women similar to men forgetting they are not similar but different. In other words, since feminist movement claimed that woman should behave as nearly as possible like man, it did not improve women condition .\nIt is undeniable that feminism was dedicated to bringing the lives of woman somewhat nearer to ideal perfection and to make woman similar to man. From this point of view they wanted to deprive the male of his power to obtain the power for themselves. But what they did not bear in mind was the was the fact that they are not equal but similar, individually different but always complementary. With the conquer of power woman's condition did not better because women must do what men usually did .\nAnother important point is that work women do nowadays is doubled compared to the one they did in the past. In other words, they are involved not only with children care and household, but also with their job. Long hours of hard phisical or mental work are a necessity for many women, especially in single-parent family, in which woman is the only bread-winners. In the past, instead, woman was asked only to be a mother and a wife. In a way feminism has completly disregarded the basic principle of the woman as angel of the home .\nThirdly, one of the issue raised by feminists is that women should have the opportunities as men and be subject to exactly the same social and political treatment as men. This struggle has not been won. In fact women are often discriminated just because they are women and could be pregnant. Moreover, some kind of jobs are still made by men, as for example the religious career or airplain pilots (to mention only some of them). Also in politics women are not so well represented: as a matter of fact the majority of politicians are men .\nLast but not least feminist movement, the fight for women's right, is seen as a luxury for poor women in developing countries and considered a western ideology. In many countries in Africa and Asia women are the main farmers and also the perform most of the housework. In some families women are in charge of all the farming work because the men have migrated to towns in search of paid jobs. Studies carried out that woman is an ignored part of the economy, despite the fact that they work harder and longer than men .\nIn conclusion, although years of fights feminist movement had had more negative effects than positive ones because we must bear in mind that a female who tries to achieve masculinity (that is what feminists wanted to do) is psychologically ill in the same way as a male tries to achieve femininity .\n" + }, + { + "title": "245_ITTO6005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nSince modern times women have had to strive to prove their worth in front of the society, indeed the social importance, merit and role of men was taken for granted, while women were considered as * alleged culprits * and therefore supposed to show up their value. Did they not have the right to fight to prove the world they were equal to men? Some might say that feminists have taken this struggle to the extreme, and so now they have to face even too many responsibilities. But it's undoubtedly true that without their committment women's emancipation would not have gone so far .\nThe first complains about women's situation within the society can be found in the work of Mary Wollestonecraft * Vindications of women's rights * (that would have later become the Feminists' Manifesto): at this stage the dispute was meant to establish an equality between the two sexes only in terns of moral and intellectual values. But she was already considered as an extremist by the men of her time, so deeply attached to their * angels of the fireplace *. Was it not better for them to have as their only preoccupation their little world inside their house and no larger than that?\nEvidently the principles spread by the French Revolution were gradually affecting women's mind, because they were starting feeling the need of being considered as integrant and autonomous parts of the society in which they lived. This meant the vindication of civil, legal and political rights. The right to vote became in fact the first goal to reach for the movement of the so-called * suffragettes * (obtained in 1918 in Great Britain and in 1920 in the United States).\nIn wartime then being a woman meant a double role: adoring her man and taking his place at work. On the other hand the philosophies of the totalitarian regimes fostered the ideal of manliness, the role of * pater familias * and the physical strenght as far as men were concerned, while women were relegated to the role of mothers of little armies of children (possibly male) who would have served their motherland. On the other hand, they could not only accomplish this subordinated role, because they even had to take their husbands' places at work to earn their living (and obviously to help their motherland economy). This meant to be unofficially active in society (unofficially because not recognized as such). This led to big struggles during the years around 1968, when the Feminist Movement took on his hardest form: women started even thinking that they could bring up their children without the figure of a father present to them, that abortion was only a woman's choice, that omosexuality was the only possible answer to men's degeneration, so on and so forth.\tNaturally these are extremes positions, the right measure should lie in between. The problem that, thanks to the feminists of all times, women have now achieved several rights, but they have even taken on several (if not too many) responsibilities: they keep on having the roles of angel of the house and of mother, but moreover they have a job now, and possibly some spare time to dedicate to themselves and to their interests. So what could be called the * women's burden * is the fact to be not AS men, but even MORE. And this is due to the fact that while a woman's roles have been increasing, often a man's ones have not followed this path, and certainly not at this pace. What feminists maybe did not do is convincing men they should change and mature alongside with women .\nIn conclusion, if nowadays a woman in a civilized society can choose her way into the world and have the possibility of self-fulfilment, this is undeniably owed mostly to feminists of all times .\n" + }, + { + "title": "246_ITVE3002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nThe word which is mostly applied to our society is * materialistic * and the typical description of modern man is certainly sad: always hurrying to work, always trying to earn as much money as possible and always thinking that people who are not strong enough to fight for their place in the world will certainly meet with failure. Therefore it is undeniable that our society does not give us many opportunities of freeing our imagination and dreaming: but does this mean that we do not want to dream any longer? Would not we sometimes give everything we own to have a few hours to lay down and read a book or listen to our favourite music? Many people would answer that what we really need is to be efficient and * produce * as much as possible, but I believe that what we should be does not always correspond with what we wish to be .\nFirst, I would like to consider all those new techniques and methods which are becoming very successful and which have the purpose of restoring the contact between man and the deepest part of himself. I am speaking about yoga or the New Age philosophy of life, which both aim at teaching how to forget the daily stress, how to concentrate and relax and, above all, how to rediscover the power of human mind. More and more people are applying to the many courses which take place in big and small cities, thus showing their deep unfulfilment, their need of discovering a new aspect of life and, above all, of setting their mind free .\nThe second reason why I think that modern man is still trying to find a way toward dreams and imagination is that he is willing to learn how to appreciate the value of a close contact with nature. Those people who can afford it leave their sad flat in town and go to live in the country. Big towns are seen as places where human mind is never * at leisure *, never goes * on holiday *, whereas in the country our imagination is free to wander, our eyes reach the horizon line and start thinking about the world beyond it. Many people are also getting involved in programmes which aim at protecting the few * uncontaminated * areas of our planet, the ones which man has not reached yet, which are seen as the only places where human mind can recreate itself. All this proves that the contrast between what is * natural * and what is * artificial *, which was created during the Industrial Revolution to give voice to man's horror toward the destruction of nature and its beauty as a source of happiness, is still crucial today .\nAs a third and fundamental thing I would like to take into consideration those phenomenons such as drugs-addiction or alcoholism, which I see as extreme methods to find a way-out from our hectic modern life. We know that hallucinogenic drugs and alcohol can give people the impression of entering another world, where everything is easy and relaxing: these are the * new dreams *, this is the proof that human mind, still in need of something more than what money can buy, is trying to find a help, unfortunately in the wrong way .\nAs a conclusion, I want to say that even if in our modern world there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination, they still have a place inside us all, because it is man who does not want to destroy them .\n" + }, + { + "title": "247_JPSW3002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: How English Should Be Taught \n \nI believe that listening and speaking are more important than grammar. Even if we don't speak using accurate grammar, if we just tell several words, a listener can understand intention of us. A leaner must feel something if s/he can understand what a speaker says and can tell their feeling. The emotion could be surprise or happiness. That is, it makes a deep impression on them. And then, these emotions become pleasure of learning English. Because of the emotions, a learner starts to think that s/he wants to speak and communicate more, and then I suspect that motivation and interest will come out from there .\nOne day I asked one native speaker something but before she answered, she told me that my speaking was like interviewer. I intended that I spoke naturally because the sentence that I used was one of sentences from my textbook, therefore I was very shocked and too shy when I was told that. It means that even if I study grammar a lot, I make a listener feel strange once in a while. Therefore I believe from these reasons that it's very important to learn listening and speaking .\n I think that oral approach is very important for especially beginner. A teacher makes learners repeat again and again to learn to pronounce English. It's better to carry on a class with a few students because a teacher can grasp understanding of students easily and also to increase opportunities of their speaking .\n By the way, although I have told about importance of listening and speaking so far, if a learner doesn't study grammar, s/he would reach a wall which is named limit. English has grammar rules like math. Therefore a teacher tells the grammar rules clearly and simply. And then, tell them again and again until a learner gets tired of listen. Because of repeat a lot, a learner remembers the rules and s/he will be able to find a point which needs to be careful by themselves. And also, it's good way too to make a sentence that is easy. And after, let a learner to memorize it. If they memorize it, they can transpose the other words and can apply .\n They are important for students to lay the foundation of English and to be impressed that English is fun. Therefore, a teacher should teach again and again using easy words or sentences and also should be always positive and keep class interesting. Teachers should make a point of student activity. They need to thinka class that students are given opportunity to speak English a lot and also they need to think of activities which are full of variety. Before they carry on class, they need to understand point of guidance that government decided. At least they must comprehend correctly a goal of the grade that they take charge of .\nLastly, I would like to say one more thing. Teachers properly endeavor to make progress with the leaner and it's most desirable that teacher also learn from learners and enjoy a class together." + }, + { + "title": "248_JPSW3003.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: How English Should Be Taught \n \nToday English is widely used among many people in the world. The necessity of that people can use English is clearly rising. Now many students, adults, even little children are learning English at a school or special school like an English conversation school in Japan. But acquiring English in the native country is not easy. Some learners of English have difficulty in learning English before they reach proficient level. Then what are the most important factors in successful language learning? It's not intelligence and aptitude. Some individuals have an exceptional aptitude for language learning. But I think that the answer is motivation and attitude. High levels of motivation and positive attitude are correlated with success in language acquisition. And successful learning enhances motivation. I believe that .\nThe principal way that teachers can influence students' motivation is by making the classroom a supportive environment in which students are stimulated, engaged in activities which are appropriate to their age, interests, and English level. And most important thing is that students can experience success. So English teachers need to devise their classes to make interesting and effective classes so that their students can be interested in English and progress their English well .\nHow class is interesting and effective for students? It's a student-centered class. Some English teachers don't give their students many opportunities to speak in English. In English class, teacher should not be a center of the class and should give students many opportunities to use English as much as possible. And it's important for teachers to make a good atmosphere that all students can speak their opinions or thoughts freely .\nWhen I was a high school student, all English teachers taught us in Japanese. They hardly spoke English except for reading textbook. And they applied traditional method like a grammar translation. The focus was on the language itself, rather than on information which is carried by the language. The teachers' goal was to see to it that students learned the vocabulary and grammatical rules of English. And the goal of students, including me, was to pass an entrance examination for university rather than to use English for daily communicative interaction. So I guess that most of the students couldn't speak English well .\nI think that English teachers should teach in English. I, of course, want to teach in English. The English class in the high school (and junior high school) is only place where students can learn useful English. Many students go to a supplementary private school and study English but the taught things there are only grammar and the way to get good score in English examination or test. So English teachers in high school have to teach more practical English .\nIn many school, the most widely applied method is no doubt the grammar translation method. But this teaching method is inadequate for English acquisition. I think that teachers should many opportunities to engage in conversational interactions in group and paired activities. These activities will be able to lead to increased fluency and the ability to manage conversations in English .\nI heard the news that new school where focuses English would be established in Kanto soon. In the school, other subjects will be taught in English. The number of such the school may increase in future. English teachers will need higher English skills to teach. I will study hard and contribute to students' English learning as an English teacher. " + }, + { + "title": "249_JPSW3004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: How English Should Be Taught \n \n\"Today, we are going to study lesson 3. Please open your text book, page 12. This lesson's key point is ...\" This is typical English class in Japan. Teacher talks too much in class. Teacher's too much English speaking leads students to dreamland! What do they learn in wonderful dreamland? English class is not the stage that teacher practices speaking English. The leading actor and actress on the stage are students. They are expected to express themselves by speaking English, and communicate with each other by English in class. Teacher can help them so that their conversation goes well. This paper explains how teacher should teach English efficiently .\n The most important thing when we learn something is motivation. Students should be motivated to study English. Teacher needs to teach them not only how to learn English but also how to do it with interest. In class, various activities help students to enjoy learning English. They are prompted to speak English by activity. It is effective to arrange appropriate setting that students experience in everyday life, when they communicate with each other in activity. A common situation (conversation at shopping, party, restaurant etc) gets them to be comfortable to think something in English. Also it is necessary to determine an aim of activity, in other words, teacher has to make students figure out what they should learn in it. Activity is not English play, but English learning .\nRole play is one of the activities. The following is example of it .\n \"Where do you want to go?\" (for high school student)\n Setting of language use:communication in group\n Setting of communication: a travel agency\n Function of language:to state one's opinion or thought\n Task: to solve problems with English\n[Teaching process] \n1) Divide class into three people ' group .\n2) Each student is given different task, but a student doesn't know two other student's task .\nTravel agent: He /she recommend customers to go to England. It's the most expensive travel plan .\nCustomer 1(Husband): He wants to go to Korea, because trip to Korea doesn't cost much money .\nCustomer 2(Wife): She is eager to go to America. She really wants to see Statue of Liberty .\n3) Learn conversation style of travel agency . (Handout is prepared as the case may be.)\n4) Start role play in each group. At the end, some groups are supposed to do role play in front of the class .\nStudent can learn skill for communication through speaking English. Cooperative learning in class room helps them to sustain their conversation .\nEvery student has two screens in their brain. One is for Japanese, the other is for English. They use those screens when they think and speak something. When students speak English, they think what they want to say in Japanese at first. They project what they are trying to say on the Japanese screen. Then they translate what they want to say from Japanese into English. They project what they are trying to say in English on the English screen. Teacher has to help students to think what they want to say in English from the first. Through many activities, they will come to get used to speaking English and think something in English by only using English screen. Therefore, Teacher should make student speak English in class instead of he/she .\n \n" + }, + { + "title": "250_JPSW3006.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: How English Should Be Taught \n \nIn recent years, English is called \"world language\" and people of all over the world speak in English when they talk with people of another country. Therefore, we have to use English for having communication with them. The pivot of conventional Japanese method of teaching English was learning about grammar, so although many learners could answer grammar questions, they couldn't speak and listen in English. From on now, English is not learning but using .\nFirst, I think that it is very important for us to learn English in English. Why did Japanese English teachers teach English in Japanese? We mastered Japanese in Japanese, so English learners should master in English like that children who speak in English master English. I think that Oral Approach is one of very good method because all classes don't have to do in English. If Japanese is needed in the class, teachers can use Japanese at that time. Doing in English all the class is very wonderful, but it is very difficult. Teaching English grammar in English is difficult, so it is difficult for learners to understand in English. Therefore, of course, using Japanese is functional when it needs. I think that because listening is one step of speaking, so I want to do the classes in English as much as possible .\nSecond, it is important to be able to use English everywhere, every time. For that, teachers have to prepare learners to have many opportunities speaking and listening in English. There are many situations using in English, for example, telephone, sightseeing, shopping, restaurant, and so on. Therefore, I think that English activity is very important because activity doesn't have correct answer, so they are free to do various things. Learners can say own feelings and opinion in English, and then, they will become to use English for communication. Then, reading and writing in English are very important, too. I think that using English is that they can tell own opinion and feeling to another people in English. It is not answer grammar questions correctly, remember a lot of idioms and words for exam. Certainly, having a lot of vocabularies is very useful, but that should increase naturally when they use in English. The most important thing is having a lot of opportunities to use English .\nThird, I think that learners have to understand own and spoken English country's cultures. Using English, they have to know some of that country's customs. For example, the gesture differ each country, so if I don't know that difference, I will make a big mistake. Therefore, while learners talk with a native speaker, I want to teach them the native speaker's cultures and customs. Because of the native speaker, this way must be learned real things. And then, if learners learn any languages, they have to understand own cultures and customs because they will have many opportunities introducing own cultures when they talk with people of another country. I think that it is important for learners to understand cross-cultural in English class .\nIn conclusion, using English is very pleasant because you will be able to see all over the world if you master English. I have a part-time job to teach English for children. The children who learn English are very enjoyable and their eyes are bright as diamond. I think that the important thing is learners feel learning English is pleasure. I want to become a teacher who is able to tell English is very wonderful!" + }, + { + "title": "251_JPSW3007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: How English Should Be Taught \n \nI should teach speaking or conversation at first, because it is difficult for Japanese to deal with have a conversation. So, I put emphasis on speaking rather than grammar to the beginning learner. Until quite recently, systems of education in Japan have a course such that teachers teach students grammar and vocabulary at the beginning. Recently, we come to have a little opinion of this course. An educational institution put forward that speaking is also important, and teaches should teach grammar and vocabulary and speaking. As compared with another foreigner, speaking is a weak point than writing and reading for Japanese . \nNow, English is introduced at junior high school in Japan. But, other foreign country is introduced English or other foreigner at primary school. In Japan, introduction of English is too late. I should think when children start school, children should learn English at the same time, and children learn other subject .\n I should that the emphasis is on play and enjoyment, rather than formal language teaching at primarily level. So, I want to use task and activity in everyday lesson. I think that students are able to fluent. Teachers teach students formal English or accuracy little by little. Fluency, accuracy and complexity are not learned together. Until now, curriculums of Japan emphasized accurate rather than fluency. A result, Japanese is not fluency rather than other foreigner. Because Japanese stand to attention grammar and mistakes so as to make mistakes. So, students learn fluency accuracy and complexly in sequence. That is to say learners can fluent, teachers teach grammar and reform mistakes. After that teachers teach complexly step by step .\nI should think that teachers accept using English to teach other subject in curriculums at primary and second level. For example, at primary level teachers adopt incorporating English vocabulary and simple phrases, sentences and instruction into every day classroom. At the secondary, teachers use English as much as students can understand in other curriculums. Of course, teachers should use English all the time in school lesson .\nI think that learner should start studying as soon as possible, and they should enjoy studying foreign language. So teacher give students to teach English with enjoyable. I don't teach grammar or vocabulary but attention of foreign language. Because, I am happy when I could have a communication with other foreigner. And I think that communication is very important. If I will a teacher, I teach students English of real situation, and I use tape recorder because of commune with natural to English. It is important that students think to enjoy studying English. Therefore, teachers teach students such as feeling of English " + }, + { + "title": "252_JPSW3008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: How English Should Be Taught \n \nThis time I want to think about teaching English. When I was high school student, I liked to study English, but I didn't like English class because how to teach English by teacher did not interest me. Therefore, I was bored and sometimes slept in English class. Now, from my experiences as student I want to give three ideas of teaching English .\nFirst, teacher should be communicating with students well. It is not good that teacher just speak one-side because to just listen to teachers talking is too boring, and students will not be interested in English classes. In actual, they translate English into Japanese themselves, so student's English skills will not be better. Also it is good for students to tell their opinions and feelings because their English skills will improve well for doing so. To present their opinions and talk with teacher will make an impression for students, so students will not forget easy. Moreover, if what students say in English can tell the other students and teacher, they can feel that English is fun and it interests them. For these reasons, I think that communication between teacher and students is very important .\nSecond, I think that it is good to see and hear natural English. I think that Assistant English teachers who are English native speakers are good for students because students can learn a lot of how to talk from not only textbook also daily conversation with native speaker. Then, native speaker's pronunciation and attitude are different from Japanese, so they act as encouragement to students. For that reason, teacher had better give a lot of chances for students to talk with native speaker. Also, Japanese teacher had better speak English fluently because students imitate teacher's pronunciations. If teacher's pronunciation is not good, student cannot improve their pronunciation of English well, like this I think that teacher should speak natural English. For these reasons, to experience native or natural English is good for students .\nThird, all of students should always join classes. I think that students had better feel a little tension in their classes because if they do not feel tension, they don't think well themselves. It is best that teacher make an atmosphere both friendly and tense. Though it is hard that there is a mood of nervous, students will step up their English skills for being call on them. If they don't answer correct, they can learn from mistaking. For that reason, teacher had better put some pressure on their students. Moreover, to pronounce all of students together is good because students will learn for pronouncing again and again, and they can understand well. For these purposes, teacher should have students joining classes well . \tMy ideas of teaching English are to communicate with students, to be experienced natural English for students, and to be joined class for students. If teacher do these things, I think students can learn and understand English better. " + }, + { + "title": "253_JPSW3009.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: How English Should Be Taught \n \nNow, it is said the internationalization society. The exchange with foreign country is active in a lot of fields. So it is necessary to study and use English that is common language. To study English is to understand different culture in the country where English is spoken. To understand different culture is to understand your culture again too. That is to say, you can have new view and a lot of ways of thinking. For the purpose, I consider how English should be taught .\nIt is important to make students have their motivation. There is a difference at the level and the speed on learning English between students who learned from the same teacher in same class. The reason for this is that there is difference in the motive in the learning environment of students. It is important factor for learner to have motivation. Then, how can we have students improve motive. First, from recognition states, we should give a clear objection (we should say today's contents at the beginning of the class.) and summary (at the end of class). Second, from affective states, we should give chance that students speak English in class and curiosity that is connected with motive. We should not use negative word. Teaching English in more positive attitude than a negative attitude brings students better learning results .\nThere are fifteen teaching methods for teaching English. Each method has both good point and weak point. These methods compensate each weak point. There is no perfect method. We should study correctly view and insistence of each method. It is necessary not to be prepossessed with one method, to assemble a lot of method. We should teach with method of suitable our own method in each case and suit level of students to our class. For example, Grammar Translation Method is a method that we teach rules of grammar and apply this to students and students translates from English to Japanese or translates from Japanese to English. Good point of this method is easy for student who uses fully Japanese to understand. Also, weak point of this method is that students can't acquire English operation ability because focus of class is translation and students can't study listening, speaking and pronunciation in class. This method is suitable for high level students. The load of teacher is light. Students can study writing and reading well. So, we should adopt only good point and compensate listening and speaking skills by other methods .\nFor carrying out this plan, we need to study hard everyday, for example, we should read English news paper and listening to English radio and watch English program TV. And apply ability for teaching students English. Before everything, it is important to think everything from the student's point of view and teach in a kind manner. " + }, + { + "title": "254_JPSW3011.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: How English Should Be Taught \n \nSpeaking and listening are important. They are essential in communication. I think that English learning is not only to learn language but also communication. Speaking and listening are the very first step to master English, so we should have more conversation practices in class. I often hear that if we want to improve our English skills as soon as impossible, we should go to America, England, or Australia. In other words, if we listen and speak much as if we live in these countries, I'm sure we can improve English skills. I want to say again, we should have many conversation practices .\nWhen I was junior high or high school student, I didn't speak English so much. Teachers spoke mostly and we students spoke only a little Japanese. I didn't have chances to practice conversations in English only a few times. It was not enough. At college I had \"speaking and listening\" class for the first time and I was requested to speak English during an activity in the class. I had not had conversation practice before, so I was very confused. What did the teacher say? What should I answer the question? Actually, I didn't catch even a very easy sentence, for example, !What did you do yesterday?\" Then, I wondered why I had studied grammar which was not so useful in communication. I always didn't like to study grammar because it was a little difficult to understand. Also, I learned it was not so useful. The fact was irritating for me. I felt I was a student who couldn't keep up with the others and the class level. I lost my motivation to study English. Now I don't feel so. Now I think grammar is also important. But I learned from my experience that if he or she feels what they studied is useless, they will lose their motivations and stop to improve their skills .\nWe should have many practices of conversation and speeches in earlier education, junior high school. If they are not successful, it is OK! Failures or mistakes are good rather than successes, because we will have many mistakes during communication. Important thing is how we can solve the problems. Failures will lead to successes .\nAlso, the atmosphere is so quiet in class. It is difficult for students to ask questions or say their opinions in such a quiet place. If they don't speak English, they will never be able to speak it. To say own opinions is very important in American culture. Teacher should tell about it and pay attention to atmosphere of class. English should be taught in cheerful atmosphere and we should have many, many practices of conversations .\n" + }, + { + "title": "255_JPSW3015.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: How English Should Be Taught \n \nI have been learned English since I was junior school student. But I couldn't communicate with English speaking people at that time. I learn English I want to speak more fluently. Although teacher taught me English to use textbook almost every day, I didn't remember of their lesson. So teacher should not teach by only textbook .\nFirst, I think that teachers should help students to have their motivation. For example, they teach that English is good way of communication with all over the world or something. Because I still do not master English skill. It's not teachers fault. I didn't think strongly that I want to speak English in the future. So I think that their feelings help their study if students have motivation to English. Second, I think that most important thing is teaching English enjoyably. I think that students will become don't like English if teacher is so strict. And student will be bored by she or he teach in accordance with only textbook or examination. So I want that students will have interest in English. Then I prepare some materials for keeping student's concentration. For instance, the case of word test, teachers change usual test on paper to word bingo or games. Third, I think that English education of junior senior high school in Japan that take a leading part of grammar. Some of schools, which studying English for examination. Although grammar is important, I think that studying grammar is not perfect right way to be able to speak English. So after I teach one grammar point, students make sentence to use new grammar. I want to teach useful English in the future. For example, student will get opportunity of speak in the class or speak new grammar sentence. Therefore I need to create an atmosphere that students can open their mouth in the class. I think that students will have confidence to speak English if they keep on speaking since they are first year. Finally, I think that student should have listening ability. Because I can't communicate if I don't understand what the other person said even I can say my opinions or feelings. I thought that English is difficult when I was junior high school student. I think that I was afraid of English because I didn't get used to listening English. So students need to listen English because of they get rid of their feeling like mine. Therefore I think that teacher should have better teach to use Oral Approach. Teacher can use both of Japanese and English in that way .\nI think that teachers have energy to teach for students. I heard that teachers often use negative word in the class. I think it is one of fact that students don't like or willing to study English. I think that it is fault of teachers to students can not understand. So I will not want to say that why do you understand. I want to be a teacher who has respect for each student and never gives up for teach. I want to teach English accurately, so that I should learn about English and other knowledge." + }, + { + "title": "256_JPSW3020.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: How English Should Be Taught \n \nWe should develop our ability to speak English. Certainly, It is emphasized by a lot of people, but actually even if almost all the Japanese people study English, they can not speak English fluently or can not understandEnglish. If we overcome this serious problem, we can get native speaker's thought. In other words, this is the first step to get ability of language. Now there are three ways to make full use of practicing .\n First, we should watch TV programs (e.g. CNN, BBC, ABC, TV of present day and so on). We can hear the latest words most easily in the TV programs, because it reflects the trend in society. While we watch the TV programs, you should try to write down popular expressions, and you could learn to make proper use of honorific expressions, the language of young people or daily language usage. There are other ways of doing this exercise. At first, it is reading newspaper (for New York Times and Los angels Times and so forth.) This is not for listening practice but for reading it. At the same time, we can learn the latest languages from sentences. Next, it is using Internet. We can get more recent informations from languages, and it fed information into a computer. What's more the computer is capable of storing millions of pieces of it, so whenever we want to know it, we can pull it out. It is your continual efforts that lead you to success. That is why we need to be careful about our home environment. That is to say, Japanese has a register, so does English. They tend to overlook this point, but it is an important field to make out people of different countries .\nSecond, we should make use of e-mail more and more, and you are able to make friends over the entire world. If you make a friend in different countries, you can exchange opinions with them. For example, common habits and their school life within the same generations and so on. Whether you want to make e-mail friends, you had better connected the site of making friends. This will lead us difference of how to use register between English and Japanese . \"Phatic communion\" and \"small talk\" are clearly different things within the same generations. It is important that we learn the way of speaking from our heart .\nThe last point is that we had better study implication of languages, because we can find out different styles of each country. It is difficult to understand this, and maybe it is the largest subject what we learn other countries thorough English .\nWe often tend to overlook these ideas, but this is essential for international society, and it is an important part in relationships. That is to say we have to study the latest words, and we should understand different countries, cultures and temperament. The truth is that, we are surrounded by a lot of opportunity of learning English, but we missed them, so we must be careful watch them . \n" + }, + { + "title": "257_JPTF1007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Death Penalty \n \nI am basically against the death penalty because I think that a man has not the right to judge other persons. If the right to judge criminals exist, only the victims has it. Only the victims know ache that criminals gave them, but not judges in court. I just disagree the idea that other human beings have power to judge life or death of criminals, human beings .\nIt's natural that the victim's family, friends, and colleages have sorrow and want to kill criminals. I will feel the same way if one of my family is killed. But is the criminal bad really? They may have a good life before they do awful crime. I don't think any people are bad from the beginning. They sometimes commit crime emotionally without thinking about it much. Or they just lost all their hope and wanted to act badly. Sometimes the difference between criminals and ordinaly people is small. Then what has made the criminals bad? It may be the criminal's family, friends or social surroundings. I believe that a criminal is not a criminal by nature. Whatever the factor that has the criminals bad is, the responsibility lies in both the criminals and those factors. I mean we have to consider those factors that made criminals bad, because even if the criminals died by death penalty, other criminals will do the same thing if we don't try to solve the problem from the bottom .\nI think it is unreasonable that only the criminals are blamed, the factor that has made the criminals bad should be also accused of the responsibility. If individuals care more about their social surroundings, the crimes will be decrease. It can be said to young people's crimes most. Now people talk about carrying out death penalty to young criminals. But some young people are neglected or treated badly by parents, thus influenced by bad friends or situations and commit crime. Some of them killed people without knowing its meaning .\nSo I don't want to blame only them. I think our social sorroundings based on our own families are more important to make a person good or bad, so the parents has a responsibility of their own children's grow. We have to know this fact, and make efforts to keep good social surroundings. To kill criminals don't solve the problem .\nDeath penalty can solve nothing. Crimes happen if the society is the same, so we should solve the bad points of the society that are making criminals first. The criminals should be given a chance to reform himself. And the society's long support is necessary for the criminals. It's more human to help criminals to become good, than finish everything by death. As I said before, I don't approve humans kill other human. Actually, some examples of misjudges exist. And such \"eye for eye\" approach is not progrresive .\n" + }, + { + "title": "258_JPTF1013.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Capital Punishment \n \nThere are constant controversies concerning capital punishment. The problem is whether capital punishment is necessary, whether capital punishment has the deterrence, whether the condemned criminal's rights should be respected, whether capital punishment rewards the victims and their family. On the other hand, the another problem is whether there is any substitute of capital punishment, whether there are the risk of increasing the crimes if capital punishment abolished. I stand on the necessity theory of capital punishment as follows .\nFirst, it is needed to respect the victims and their families. Shigematu (1995) states that the recent trial sometimes sympathize with the suspects and treat victims coolly. Indeed, the sorrow and injury which the victim and their family accepted should not disappear. But capital punishment is the one of the way to lighten these feelings .\nSecond, capital punishment is needed to keep the social order. According to the public opinion poll in 1994, the public opinion supported the acceptation of capital punishment at the highest figure ever. Shigematu (1995) thinks this data indicates that people have healthy sensitivities to defend the heinous crimes. It means that capital punishment has dterrence. If there is no capital punishment system, what can deter heinous crimes. He insists the existence value of capital punishment system. If there are no crimes, the existence of capital punishment is the intelligence, view and respect of human. It means that capital punishment justifies the human moral. However, capital punishment should not be decided easily in any cases. He admits the risk of capital punishment that if the judgment and step is wrong, misjudgment will happen and people who really did not commit crimes may be punished. So capital punishment should be decided after the strict trial and should not be misjudged absolutely .\nIn Japan, the abolition theory seems very popular now. We can see many articles which state the abolition of capital punishment. The abolitionist is superior to the people who insist the necessity. However, as Shigematu says, the real crimes should not be taken only by whitewash. To support the necessity of capital punishment, we can refer to American debates about it. Gorecki (1983) indicated that the sudden change of the general sentiment has occurred after the abolitionist trend in America. The abolitionist sentiment reached its peak in 1996, but it has undergone a steep decline since then. He proceed from the decay of the criminal justice system to the growth of crime, to the anger and fear, and eventually, to decline of the abolitionist sentiment as the most immediate determinant of the legal reversal under discussion. The growth of crime has been shocking in recent decades .\nRecently, in Japan, too, the heinous crimes like America are increasing. We also have the anger and fear indicated in the public poll in 1994. I stand on the necessity of capital punishment because like America, we need this system to put down these public feelings. Then, as Shigematu(1995) says the existence of capital punishment with the strict and right judgment, under the independent administration, justify human moral .\n" + }, + { + "title": "259_JPTF1019.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Death Penalty \n \nThe number of countries which abolish the death penalty has been increasing. The United Nations General Assembly also adopted \"The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty\" in 1989 and published it in 1991. Contrary to these world movement, in most of America, China and Japan, the death penalty remains. By the opinion poll held in 1994, over 70% of Japanese people agreed to the death penalty .\nExecutions go unpublicized. Families of executed criminals Are notified only after the dead, so they can claim the bodies if they wish. The condemned person does not know when or if the execution will take place. I think this practice is both unusual and unnecessarily cruel .\nBut most of Japanese people don't know such cruel practice. Because the executions go unpublicized. The government has long claimed that executions are implemented in secret out of consideration for the feeling of the families, even of the condemned person themselves .\nBut I don't think that it's good for the families and condemned persons who prefer dying without being know? Most of man may want people around him to grieve when he die .\nThe practice that executions are implemented in secret is not for the families and the condemned persons themselves. More likely, the practice merely serves the interests of the state by suppressing public knowledge of this potentially contentious issue .\nThe lobby against the death penalty is weak in Japan. Under the present circumstances, it is difficult to tell in Japan or merely a logical consequence of the government induced secrecy surrounding capital punishment. The opinion that \"Out of sight, out of mind2 is not good .\nBut Mr, Nakamura Shozaburo said recently that the government was considering the announcement of execution in advance . \"We believe the public should know about executions that are carried out in accordance with court decisions,\" he told reporters. But he didn't say anything about notifying the prisoners themselves. It's a small opening, but it's very significant. Because it is the first time the government has considered modifying its policies on capital punishment .\nActually, the movement has been promoting. For example, the sentences seem to be reserved only for those convicted of the most heinous offenses. I hope such movement promote more and more .\nOneday morning, I watched a certain TV program. The theme was the death penalty. And a man whose brother was kill appeared. His brother was insured and killed by the beneficiary. The defendant was sentenced the death penalty. But he reflected after that and had written letters for the family for 3 years He apologized. The family, of course didn't forgive, but they demanded for the court to cancel the death penalty. But it didn't come true. And the executions went unpublicized .\nThe performer said \"The criminal died, but my brother never revive. We are not healed at all. The death penalty only make sorrow.\"\nAs he said, I think death penalty only make negative things. So I against the death penalty. Nobody has right to kill others. Even if it's government or court .\n" + }, + { + "title": "260_JPTF1027.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Capital Punishment \n \nToday, there are many arguments with the capital punishment. Because criminals become more merciless, it is hard for us to forgive their crimes. Some people say that criminals kill one or two people, they of course should be killed. I also can't forgive them. But I think the capital punishment (death penalty) must be abolished. I have three clear reasons against the capital punishment .\nThe first, there are a lot of risk of false accusation. It is true that miss judgements are decreased nowadays but, even now, there are many illegalities or injustice of prosecutor and police. It is impossible to say there are not any miss judgement. A judge is also a person. He can not be perfect. We can't say he is perfect. There is an objection that if death penalty must be abolished on the ground of the importance of the miss judgement, the penal servitude also must be abolished. by some reason. People who have this objection think death penalty shouldn't be abolished by the reason of the risk of false accusation. But death penalty is completely different from penal servitude Innocent criminal must die cursing this world, but if his ca live, he can do anything he want to do even if he has become eighty years old after the liberation .\nThe second, I want to explain by objecting people who say death penalty has deterrent power of crime. Actually there are many opponents who maintain death penalty saying this reason, but there is no person who committed the crime thinking he would be executed for the crime. In this case, death penalty don't have power to stop criminal from killing people And, In the countries which have already abolished the death penalty, there are not any reports that the abolishment cause any other negative results. So I think The death penalty can't be the deterrent power of crimes .\nI would like to develop the last reason by objecting people who insist on the rationality of the death penalty talking about the emotion of the victim's family. Taking account of the big grief of the victim's family, it is understandable that they hope the criminal's death. Many opponents of capital punish ment say that without the criminals' death, the survivor can't be salveged from the big sorrow. But it is wrong. Every state shouldn't allow them to revenge for the criminal. To make the death of the criminal the means of the consolation is the superficial solution. In the first place, the grief of the victim's family can't be consoled by revenge. Rather they can get peace of mind by forgiving the criminal. The victim's family can't be consoled by the death of the criminal. It is clear that even if the criminal die, the victim will never return. The brank of the family's mind will be never filled. People don't want to be said \"Your enemy who killed your son were killed. So you should be happy and live not having anything wrong.\" And, though the victim's family hate only the criminal, the society around the criminal should take responsibility of the crime, too. It is wrong to e only the criminal .\nBy these three reasons, I object the rationality of the capital punishment. It is true that most nation hope the continuance of the death penalty, but in the first place, this issue is just the right of minolity, the delicate and important point. So we shouldn't confuse democracy and public opinion This issue is out of the democratic system. Every government must take the position that any murder can't be permitted. By any reason, people mustn't kill other people. The politicians who have big power should offer adequate and accurate information and guide the public opinion to the right direction .\n" + }, + { + "title": "261_JPTF1033.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Death Penalty \n \nIn Japan, the death penalty is decided to be the ultimate punishment to brutal crimes. However, I am opposed to the death penalty. Some people would say that criminals, who murdered other people, should be punished by very harsh way, or be put to death. But I don't think we are allowed to derive people's lives, even if the authority admits it .\nFirstly, we cannot say that the death penalty decreases the number of crimes. For instance, there was a fiendish case of murder in which some elementary school children were stabbed and killed by a man with a knife in Osaka prefecture. In the case, the offender said he intended to die after he had committed the crime. In this way, some criminals are ready to be put to death from the first. Therefore, even if we try to stop brutal crimes, to the contrary, the death penalty is used as a reason to commit a crime. We cannot say the death penalty scares people and prevents the next crime from occurring. It is not useful, nor effective .\nSecondly, people usually think that the death penalty is the hardest thing for criminals. However, I believe that there are things that are very tough for them to endure. For example, think of returning to the society after they finish a term of sentence. People around them maybe behave more coolly than before, and also they won't try to contact with the ex-criminals positively. It is, I think, because people are afraid if the ex-criminals would do the same thing again or they would hurt the neighbors as they did before. Which results in the ex-criminals' isolation from the society. I think it is harder for them than being put to death. What is really hard is being isolated, being mentally damaged. Consequently, I don't believe that the death penalty is necessary to suffer the criminals .\nFinally, the death penalty doesn't always make the victim's family satisfied. When we give a thought to the victim's family, we take it for granted that the family wants the death penalty to revenge the offender. Nevertheless, it is not always true. I once watched a TV program, in which a man whose brother had been killed several years before, at first strongly wanted the murder to die. However, after having thought thoroughly, he concluded that the death penalty wasn't necessary for the murder and even for him. Because if the murder would be killed, the case of his brother would come to an end, and people in the society would forget about his killed brother. Furthermore, the fact that he was suffered from the case would also be forgot forever. At this point, if we really think of left families, the death penalty can't be the solution .\nIn conclusion, the death penalty cannot be the means to stop brutal crimes or satisfy the victim's family. Moreover, we should not be able to judge whether a person lives or dies, even though the country backs us up. In the future, there will be various crimes and the number of them may even increase. Nonetheless, we should choose the alternative that gives us not the right to kill criminals but the wisdom to help them start their lives afresh. We should make much of a person's life in any situation. For these reasons, I disagree with the death penalty .\n" + }, + { + "title": "262_JPTF1034.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Death Penalty \n \nShould the death penalty be maintained? For many years, this question has been argued about all over the world. Though recently, opinions about the death penalty in the world are moving toward abolishing it, Japan still continues to execute it. In my opinion, the death penalty should be abolished. The death penalty seems to be the easiest and the permanent solution for the criminal problems, but it is no more than to erase all. Even if it eases the victim's family for a while, it doesn't make any profit. There are some reasons why the death penalty doesn't make sense .\nFirst, the death penalty doesn't have the effect of restraining latest criminals from killing people. People who believe in having the death penalty say that it will make people think twice before committing a crime and that it is useful for the deterrent of a felony. In fact, however, the murder rate has actually gone up instead of down in the past 23 years since execution has become legal. When a murderer commits a crime, he or she must be too excited to think twice or they can't kill people!\nSecondly, the death penalty is not necessarily being the hardest punishment for murderers. People who are in favor of the death penalty insist that murderers should be punished by the hardest penalty. In this competitive time, however, many people kill themselves to escape form life's hardships, so death penalty can be, for some murderers, means of escape. Ending the life of the victim also means ending of feeling remorse for his crime. I think murderers must pay for their actions by thinking a great deal of what they did and suffering much remorse, not by being executed .\nThirdly, the death penalty only makes nothing but another sorrow. The life of the victim never be able to be back again even if the hateful murderer is also be killed. It only makes another body die. Let's not forget that the philosophy of \"an eye for an eye.\" only makes another blindness after all .\nFinally, there is a possibility of courts passing a false sentence. Innocent people have been and will be convicted and condemned to death as long as the death penalty exists. And of course, if never be able to be reversed once it is completed even if it reveals that the conviction is false. The possibility may be so small compared to the number of passing a correct sentence, but there surely is. Can you imagine what it feels like for families of criminals who are condemned to death on a false charge? Even if the possibility is much less than 0.000001%, as long as it exists, the death penalty shouldn't be maintained .\nHowever, there is a problem if the death penalty is abolished. There is a system of parole and life imprisonment in Japan, that means a murderer could be free someday and commit another murder if there was not the death penalty. In that case, the family and friends of the victim won't be relieved forever. Thus, I propose abolishing those two systems as well as the death penalty. This is the conclusion I thought that would be thest, all things considered .\n" + }, + { + "title": "263_JPTF1039.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "A2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Death Penalty \n \nOn July the nineteenth, we had a discussion which is about death penalty. In the discussion, I was a supporter of death penalty. After hearing each person's opinion, though, my feeling didn't change at all. From this discussion, I learned how difficult to talk about a issue in English. And I will to try to explain what I thought to improve our discussion in the following section. And after that, I would like to show my position and show some reasons .\nFirst, we have to deside more detailed things about the share before the discussion. If we didn't make it in the advance, a small confusion is sometimes supported to occur. To put the member in each role of saying useful statement in the discussion means good teamwork, which leads to better discussion .\nSecond, to know about the issue is necessary. Persons in the group have each sense of values, which often is influenced by his or her surroundings. So we need to know concrete information in the advance of the discussion. Gathering much info is ideal. And a lot of useful datum can be a good tool to support our opinion .\nThe last important point is that we should join the discussion more aggressively. If your colleague in need, you should jamp in to support his or her suggestion any time during the discussion. If it is possible, everyday should enjoy their discussion like this. To enjoy the discussion, we at first enjoy speaking English anyway. Feeling that it's not special to talk in English is really good for us, English learner. And It's our essential personal homework for everyday, I think .\nOn this day, I though over these things, especially the last point, to enjoy speaking English is my next goal of English study. I learned so many English words, easy to difficult, which was washed away after the entrance exam was over. Pathtic. I even now forgetting some words, perhaps. To cope with these problems, we should be always curious about the everything around the English. English TV, radio English program, and so forth. Approaching oneself to English world makes you more interested English speaking .\nAnd this following phase, I am going to explain why I support death penalty. The most important reason is that the person do not have the right to argue his own right to live like normal person. And given such a penalty, a criminal would be checked by us. Thinking another way to do with criminal, there is a life sentence. Some people syas that what the difference of \"death penalty\" and \"life sentence.\" Absolutely there is, I think. The person who committed a murder or like that should take on the responsibility. Its responsibility is quite equal to death penalty .\nI suppose most people who is against death penalty say this, judgement's dangerous to be a false charge. If we have to do away with a thing which can kill a person by mistake, then we need to do away with car, (there are so many car accidents since it was made by human being.) pistol, (But so many pistols are in America and many countries all over the world.) So it is not right to talk about the possibility of killing a accused person by false charge. That is why I support death penalty more than life sentence .\n" + }, + { + "title": "264_JPTF1041.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Death Penalty \n \nIn my point of view, we should not abolish the death penalty in Japan, though other countries abolish it. It seems to take an important role in restricting the crime. Without this system, criminals will feel too easy for committing crime. The number of criminals killed are very small, but the existence of the death penalty itself has the power to stop crimes. Our world do not consist of only good humans, so we absolutely need heavy punishment to keep the society safe .\nFirst of all, the death penalty not only stop future crime but also decreases the degree of the crime. Potential criminals will hesitate and reconsider the actions they're going to take, when they are reminded of the existence of the death penalty. Recently I heard that young criminals commit crime because they knew they won't have heavy punishment because they are under legal age. It means if they know it before, some of them won't take action. So, the existence of the death penalty itself is effective to change the thoughts of criminals .\nAnother reason is that I've heard some criminals repeat crimes after leaving prison. Such people seem not to be able to reform themselves after a long years in prison. Therefore, it might not be wrong that criminals who repeat crimes over and over will get the death penalty. Because putting them in prison doesn't bring good result, and our tax money is used to keep them in prison. Unfortunately, there are some criminals who can't become good though our or society's help. Of course, some criminals can or want to reform themselves and compensate for their crimes, but I think the death penalty will be also effective to prevent their another crime. If they become good, we shouldn't discriminate them. But the existence of the death penalty can protect them by giving them additional warning .\nSome people say that the death penalty is cruel and inhuman. But it's just a penalty or punishment and it is criminals that are cruel and inhuman. If we think about the case of Ikeda Elementary School that a criminal killed many children for no reason, I'm sure we all want to feel like killing him. Bad and cruel crimes are increasing and our society is becoming more and more dangerous. Worst crimes can't avoid the death penalty because lighter punishment won't satisfy both victims' family and general public. If I am victim's family, my soul doesn't recover by long imprisonment of the criminal (and actually, we don't have lifetime imprisonment in Japan). And the crime like Ikeda Elementary School is just unforgivable. We need a very heavy punishment, the death penalty to be equal to the worst crime .\nIn crimes, there are various cases and degrees, so it is reasonable that various penalties are applied according to how the crime is committed. If we have light punishment for light crimes, we should have heavy punishment for the worst one. The theory seems very natural to me. Therefore, the critical penalty is needed to make the system complete .\n" + }, + { + "title": "265_JPTF1042.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Death Penalty \n \nI am in support of the death penalty. I'll state three reasons why I assent to the death penalty .\nFirst, it'll help to reduce vicious crimes because of the dread of death. We couldn't understand how fearful the person who is passed a sentence of death. It might be very cruelty that you don't know when the end comes to. However, I think it cannot helped abolishing the death penalty . \"The law of death penalty is very cruelty, so that we have to abolish it.\" Isn't be a fair cause. What offender did deserve ill of. The appropriate punishment for such a serious offence is the death penalty .\nSecondly, there are some doubt whether the families' wound be heated without the death penalty. It might be extreme grief for rest of families. They might need the treatment of mental health disorders. Their rest of life might be full of tragedy .\nIf their sorrows and anger become larger and larger, they will not control their promotion. It might raise up next crime. In addition to this, A person who commit a crime betray and hurt his friends and family doesn't deserve compassion. Regrettably, in the present state of affairs, the Ministry of Justice fear losing it's prestige rather than emotion of survivers .\nFinally, the death penalty is very suitable and natural disfavor for the evil offenders. In this world, there are many offenders who can't help returning society and we don't permit like that person let a lone in the society. And in addition to this, the taxes should not be used for them. If they are in first chance to back to the society, we have to back up, but some cases are different. There are some offender who repeat same mistake. We have to use that money for different thing, like institution for the elderly person and the disabled, or changing education system. For example, Juvenile crimes are getting more heinous and are increasingly committed by groups rather than individual. Out of the total cases of murder and attempeted murder by youths tried in criminal courts over the last 10 years, 85% involved the use of weapons. We have to think about their future more stressly, and use money for them .\nIn these days, vicious crime is increasing. The world, even in safety Japan, the number of evil accident grows. The death penalty is the very lows we need to control our dangerous future of society. Specially saying about Japanese low system, there is no life imprisonment. The term in prison finish only 10 years. It's unfair .\nConclution, I think the death penalty need for some cases, and we don't have to abolish it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "266_JPTM1024.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Death Penalty \n \nWe still have death penalty in Japan. I don't think no one in the world have a right to decide to kill anyone. I'm against the idea of death penalty .\nI watched a TV program reporting death penalty in the world. There are quite a few countries where they still have death penalty. I wonder why people can decide to kill any other people. It's just like a war. The scenes on the TV report were very miserable and I'd like to write my opinion against death penalty in this essay .\nFirst reason against the death penalty is that usually in the countries where they still have death penalty, the justice system is not arranged correctly. The government in those countries usually has a leader like Hitler. The people in the high position in those countries can decide whether the person in judge should reserve death penalty or not. Because of the poor govermental system, we can say they still have death penalty .\nSecondly, death penalty does not lesson the number of crimes in that country. One of the purpose of death penalty is to show other people that if you do something wrong and something against the government, you'll be killed. Is there any country where they have less crimes because of having death penalty? I don't think so. Death penalty only give fear to people in the country. There is no effect of lesson the number of crimes .\nThirdly, how can you give death to a person who had crime? Do you think you can kill the person by your hand? In some countries, electric chair is used. However, there is no difference. Think that you push the button of the chair. How can you do that? What would you think if the judge was not right. Can you make the dead alive? Never. Thus, I think putting in jail for life is much better than death penalty .\nFourthly, the criminal may have a chance to follow a normal life. If he had a chance to think, to apologize, to plan ahead, he may be able to go back to the society later. Can we take his change away? In case of homicides, of course we can understand how the family of the killed feel. They are eager to kill the criminal, I'm sure. Still some of the family members sometimes want the criminals come back to the society so that they can work for the other people. That actually happens. The TV program showed how a person who was supposed to sentenced to death relived from it and have a social life. He worked hard in jail and apologized to the family of the killed and the family forge him. Thus, there is a way for the criminal to come back to the society. If you think people's life important, then you need to forgive the criminals, too .\nLastly, I think we are all humans. I wonder how we can decide to kill some one on the earth. We don't have the right to do so. Of course the same thing can be said from the family of the killed. We need to ask them to be patient and kind. By forgiving even the criminals, we can really live together on the mother earth .\n" + }, + { + "title": "267_KRBF1014.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \n\tThere are many common things between mass media and religion. Mainly they both have addictive power on people, ability of binding people in one very intimate, and close group, however the most powerful influence they have is their controlling power. Their one word will affect on millions of people in every aspects, for example their life path, decision, life style, morality recklessly. So, where are the power is coming from? The power is coming from the fear of not being a part of the group, being a outcast, and being responsible fully for their action, and decisions. Therefore believing religion, and mass media can be seen as imputation of responsibility, reflection of human's major fear of loneliness, and the most effective way to control thousands of million of people. In this regards we can say mass media is new 20 century's religion .\n\tFirst, once mother Teressa said, [Quotation] . One of the most fatal reasons of human's death from ancient time to modern society is the depression coming from the loneliness. So hundreds decades ago, the easiest way to gather people in one group, and let them forget about the fact that we are all alone would be creating what people now call \"religion\". Likewise, these days if you don't watch TV, or read newspapers you can't really be part of the conversation with people. so now you ought to keep in touch with all kinds of mass media, to keep with people, and not to be a loner or a outcast .\n\tSecond, religion and mass media are the most effective mechanism when it comes to control the people's behaviour. For example, people who believe in the bible, try their best not to go against what the book say. Rather than following their instinct, they go along with the path what the bible made. In this manner, if a magazine says that one certain fashion style will be a trend of this year, it will affect on millions of people's consuming tendency for the year. We are living in the era where one celebrity or news broadcaster's word can shake the coutry or whole world like Jesus did thousand years ago .\n\tThird, religion and mass media are the best things that we can impute our responsibilities, and sins. These days, most of new informations and ideas come from mass media which mean whatever we decide or think is mostly coming from mass media, so if something goes wrong because of my poor judgement or decision, we can alway blame media. Likewise, for example, in the middle age, people created a crusade war with, god's name. They justified their cruel murder with they god's name .\n\tIn conclusion, religion, and media have so many similar aspects. They bond people into a group and give them an illusion that they are not alone, and they have enormous power on people, when it comes to control them, and brain-washing them, at last they also become excuses for human's poor behaviour. So basically, we can't live without them, but on the other hand, we shouldn't depend on them fully." + }, + { + "title": "268_KRBF1017.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \n\tSome people say that in our modern world, dominated by science technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination what is your opinion?\n\tWe are living in a society which has TVs understanding human's orders and robots made for military. So it is true that science's remarkable development made this world. About these technology and industrialisation, some people say it destroyed places to dream and imagine. Although some people think there is no longer place for dreaming and imagination, I think technology and industiralisation make people be creative .\n\tFirst of all, scientific technology and industrialisation broke the occupations into parts so that more artists could think more creative. In the president, there are so many detail jobs that common people even cannot recognize them. And those subdivided vocations make the workers think more creative. For example, In past there were not various painter. They all used same dyestuffs and canvasses. However, artists' tools are very various like : sand, water, clothes, phones, TVs and etcetera. As the jobs are going to be more detailed, workers have to think in detail too. And \"in detail\" means \"more creative\". For instance, cartoonists in the past just draw the characters in line because their serial stories were published by books but now, cartoonists publish their works on the website. So they attach some photos and book ground musics to their comics. It let the writers think more creative and original when they draw the cartoons .\n\tSecond, magnificent development of technology and industrialization provide people to experience more vivid world. Recently, many movies are put on the screen in 3D. Moreover several movies screen only in 3D. Furthermore, There are 4D theater. At there, people can watch a 3D movie sitting at chairs which vibrate during the action scene. Also water, wind, snow, even bubbles are coming out from the behind of the chair! Children's toys are developed to make them creative, too. For instance, There is a 3D carpet forming football ground, farm, village and so on. Children can see feel those places on the carpet in the house. They do not need to find pictures in books or internet. How do you think about this? What do you think it is more creative? Normal movie or 4D movie?, Normal carpet or 3D carpet?\n\tIn conclusion, I believe that industiralisation and technology make more detailed occupations and it also makes the employees to think more unique and creative in the result. And products of science techonology make it more easily. Also technology and industrialisation provide places and equipment which people feel the world they neve have seen before . 4D movies take watchers to the sky, space and sea in a minute and more three-dimensional supplies for baby and children let them experience other world vividly. So I think it is non-arguable that the development of technology brings us to the place we can dream and imagine." + }, + { + "title": "269_KRBF1020.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \n\tFrom 19th century feminism is becoming more and more popular as a tool for women to be freedom and equal on every aspect. We all know that women had very little rights and their social status was also lower than men before. So many feminists or organizations for women appeared to help women to get rights and improve their social status. However, nowadays there are more about whether feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good or not. Some people hold on their opinions that feminists have done more good to the cause of women than bad because feminists work for women and have achieved succeed in some aspects. However, I think feminists have done more to the cause of women than good because they receive much stress than before on several aspects .\n\tFirst of all, on the aspect family, feminists have help women improve their status, but they feel stressful with their families. With the encourage of feminists women can go out from their home to get a job, and they get rid of the household jobs. However, problems also occur followed with freedom. They begin to busy with their jobs and have no or little time to accompany with their children and husbands. They want to show themselves they are also very outstanding as men so they should work much harder than men. Their children begin rely on their fathers and women will feel lonely because their jobs estrange them from families. Furthermore, they can not stay at home everyday to enjoy life no longer because have to work. Women feel much stressful with their families .\n\tSecondly, on the aspect of politics, women get much more right than before which means that they also receive stress from it. Even though women's political status is improved, they should also do much things for politics or society. Many women devote themselves to politics, for example, they want to work at political office and are active at winning one election. There was no worries for women about how to win one election and how to use their rights correctly before, but now they have to worry about these things because feminists have made them own such rights. Furthermore, if they can not use their rights correctly their people will endure much painess. For such reasons women are more stressful than before .\n\tFinally, women are very stressful on the aspect of family economy. Feminists have have women to be equal in their families so that they should also work to earn half of their family spend as men do. We all know that women and men have much difference in physical aspect,. But now women should do the same things as men, so women will feel stressful. However, before feminists work for women to get rights and to be equal with men, there is no necessary for women to worry about how to earn money for their families and work out everyday. For this family economy women are stressful .\n\tIn conclusion, even though feminist have help women and they are behalf women, one the contrary, they are much more stressful than before on several aspects. So I hold the opinion that feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good." + }, + { + "title": "272_KRBF1053.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song \"Money is the root of all evil\". \n \n\tIn these days, people think that the most important thing in the world is money. And this is also applied when they get a job. People want to work at a company that would be able to earn lots of money. However, I don't agree with that idea. The most important thing when we get a job is definitely not money. One of my friends is working in the Samsung. I have known him since I was 13 years gold. He used to say to me that he would be a social worker and help the people who were in the hard situation. However, he chose to be an officer worker instead of social worker. He said if he would be a social worker, he would always worry about his life because of the low salary of social workers. And he also said that I should think of my future carefully. I was able to understand what he chose and what he was saying. I just felt so sorry about him. A few months before, he told me that he was considering whether he would stop working or not. He said to me that he had a little difficulty working and felt stressful very much even though he was getting lots of money. Let's think of the possibility. If he chose to be a social worker he really wanted to be, could he have worked happily? What is the important thing living in this world worthy do you think? Money? Or the loyalty of your work? What else? What do you think? I have a friend who wants to be a teacher. Teacher is her dream since she was very young. She studied so hard to go to the university for teachers, and she was able to get a very good score at the test. But after the result of the test had arrived, her parents wanted her to go to the law school. Because that's enough scores to go to the law school so her parents thought if she went there, it would be helpful to her life. They tried to persuade her to go to the law school, but she did not give up her dream. At last, she went to the university she wanted and she said to me that she would never regret her choice. I was very impressed. As you know, if she went to the law school and would be a lawyer, she must have earned lots of money and been able to get a great loyalty in her life. However, why did she not go? Maybe she has something more valuable than money in her life. If so, what is that? We must remember that money does not make us happy. Money is not the way to be happy. Even if you are earning lots of money, we could not say that you are success in life. Whatever we choose, we should not be shaken in our belief cause of money. I hope you realize what is the best thing in your life soon." + }, + { + "title": "274_KRBF1062.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \n\tIn the 20th century, TV must be one of the most affective devices which human beings developed. I was also watching TV everyday, and now I'm watching TV as well. For this reason, some people named it as an \"idiot box\". When people watch TV, they do not think or talk with their friends or family numbers. Even though there are a lot of positive aspects of TV, this kind of negative aspects seems to make TV one of the useless devices instead of a marvellous invention. Moreover, some psychologists insist that watching TV is one of the causes to get down emotional quotient which is the scale of human feeling in terms of outside stimulation. In some sense, this is very reasonable, but I would like to point out positive aspects of TV in human life .\n\tFirst, TV plays an important role of entertainers. At the moment, other media such as movie, music, and DVD are also popular for this purpose, but TV is the most popular one in human life. For this reason, TV has become the closest friend among other media in low cost. Particularly, among people who do not have enough time to enjoy various entertainments, TV is quite convenient in this point of view. Furthermore, TV can provide a variety of genres of entertainment such as sports, comedy shows, and so on. For example, Sky, satellite TV channel, presents all kinds of movies and sports in the world for 24 hours. Even though this 24 hour channel would provoke some problems in the educational perspective, it seems to be true that TV is full of excitement. Another role of TV in terms of entertainment is to combine all people in the world. For instance, Euro 2004 Football Championships is one of the biggest sports game attracting all people even in different continents such as Asia, South America, or Africa. Through TV, they are able to enjoy the best football games. This is not a sports game, but a festival for the world. In this perspective, TV must be perfect medium to deliver human feelings .\n\tSecond, TV has an economic role because the majority of people watch it everyday. In the economic perspective, TV is a good tool of advertisement. Comparing with other media, TV has the most audience, so the market of TV advertisement is bigger than others. Like this kind of example, TV occupies a significant part of world economy. Another example in the economic point of view is \"TV Home Shopping\" which is a shop in TV. Since there are not actual shops, the price of goods is very cheap. For example, \"TV Home Shopping\" is one of the fast growing businesses in Korea. Moreover, this TV shopping is related to other businesses such as home-delivery service. Although TV has various roles in human society positively, there are some problems such as some people are addicted to watch it for shopping for a long time. However, it seems to be impossible to get rid of TV because of this kind of side effect in my opinion .\n\tIn conclusion, the nickname of TV, \"idiot box\", could be accurate indication in some aspects. At the moment, many people are watching TV without thoughts, and they are changing channels as well. In some sense, this aspect of TV may affect human beings negatively, and break out the worst side effect they don't know. I don't want to deny this point of view, but TV also has useful aspects such as entertainment and economy. The question of if Marx were alive at the end of the 20th century, he would replace religion with television seems to point out one side of TV which has various sides in human life." + }, + { + "title": "275_KRBF2010.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "NA", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \n Have you ever thought about dreaming and imaginating? everyone wants to be imaginating regardless of age, sex and state of life. However, they also think it is hard to reach to the imaginating and dreaming. because there is not a place of imagination and dreaming. it might be, but it might be but it is not for me .\n first of all, Justice of scientific technique and industrialization is important here. as first action scientific technique is a special skill or way of doing scientific. as second action industrialization is an industrialized country or area has a lot of industry . \"How have scientific technique changed our lives?\" The advancement of scientific technique brings a lot of in our lives. but Anybody may not deny using a word, 'scientific technique ' and ' industrialization ' in negative mean frequently, because the word 'scientific technique ' and ' industrialization ' contains meaning of literal-minded and not dreaming. and We can usually have seen the statistics that proves percentage of industrialization. so, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. some people agree to the statement in the topic. However, my opinion is strongly disagree with the opinion. there is many a place for dreaming and imagination. In my personal opinion, there is a place in the book. Although it can not be invisible to the naked eye. but it has an effect on people in many respects. The reasons are as in the following. we have gotten a experience and we also can get special experience that we could not experience directly. There are many books that have various story, so we can choose what we want to take on a role and various a world. For example, we can know the life of medieval people and how different they are with our modern life, if we choose the book about medieval life. as well as we can imagine. Maybe, most people like watching fruit of scientific technique TV rather than reading a book because it dominated by science technology and industrialization is easy to see screen of TV and we don't need to think what situation is. However, when we read a book, we can imagine. Suppose that we read \"Harry potter\" we can imagine the appearance of harry potter, his scar and his magic. For these two reasons above, book is a place for dreaming and imagination. as well as travel also can be a place of imagination. but travel is not place. but it is Abstract place . ' Travel more, you can see more'. travelling makes me fancy. people like traveling for many reasons. it is helpful for dreaming. above all things alone travel have been thinking about dreaming, so we have been dreaming about future. and we can many think time because the travel have used anologue more than a scientific technique. For example internet web surfing and cell phone using. scientific technique have double-sideness. therefore we should be aware double-sideness. If so, we are not dominated to the scientific technique . \n By the book and travel, we can improve the imaginative power." + }, + { + "title": "276_KRBF2022.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \n\tTelevision can be said that opium of modern society. Opium is addictive. That means when trying to give up their dependence, addicts often suffer withdrawal symptoms. Like opium, TV has same characteristics. Recently, scientific American, the American science magazine, runs a special feature on the TV addict. According to the magazine, average TV watching time of Korea is 193 minutes on weekdays and 263 minutes on weekends. Assuming the average lifespan of 75 years, we spend 11 years in front of TV. Even worse thing is more and more people think themselves as TV addicts. A Gallup Poll shows, 40% of adults and 70% of teenagers give an answer they are watching too much TV. And it seems to be true considering some kids are glued to the TV set all day long. Then why they are addicted? TV is audio ? visual mass media. It provides all sorts of information from all over the world. And its auditory and visual characteristics enable viewers to easily understand information. Above all, viewers are fascinated as the live and spectacle pictures appear. Then they are deeply engrossed by stimulating screen. That's why people addict to TV.\n\tHowever, Media scholars said TV not just gets people in front of TV, but has been bad impact on forming social relationship by reducing family conversation time and the chance to meet with friends. Take a closer look. First, family disharmony occurs because of a lack of communication among its members. Each person has a skeleton in the closet. But it can be very hard keeping and solving the matter alone. We need someone to tell. But as weakened relationship, there's no one behind us. We just feel all alone in the world. Furthermore, friend relationship is based on the weak connection because there's little chance to meet. Even the time they gather together, they talk about just TV program not their things. There's an old saying \"Friends in need, friends indeed.\", but it looks like almost all of the people don't get true friends .\n\tAnd there're more negative effects of TV. First, TV makes people not thinking matters they face. They just watch TV and want to forget things they have to handle. So they just sit in front of TV without any criticism like sponge absorbing anything without distinguishing good from bad. That's because it's easy not judging anything. This causes people's thinking ability to fall down. That is serious problem since thinking ability is essential to survive modern society .\n\tSecond, we live in an appearance-oriented society due to TV. Most people on TV have good looking. In reality, there're very few people have gorgeous and nice appearance. But too many people watch TV so long time, they think stunning appearance is significant to live or even think it ' all we have to need. That is, TV brings about tendency only think appearance-oriented views .\n\tThird, TV producers make sensational program for high ratings. Problem is that violent, sexual programs affect adversely children and adults. More people tend to act on impulse with these programs. Impulse acts are associated with crime act. So TV is one of the reasons of rising crime rate .\n\tThere would be other negative effects. But it's enough to find out TV is harmful to users. Addictive substance, too, are very hard to quit and have negative effects on users. So in conclude, TV can be said addictive substance like opium" + }, + { + "title": "277_KRBF2032.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "NA", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \n\tMarx said that religion was the opium of the masses. At the time, even more oppressive to the poor people live, who knows what else was being exploited. The state of the people were ignoring their tears and petition. So folks are not depended on the state. The state has been replaced a religion as a solace to the people. Though a religion may be thought of as a device to justify oppression, but it was a refuge from repression. Opium forget the pain of reality, and as a religion, it represents symbolic meaning. In other words, the religion of the people had a role to relieve the pain. If Marx says religion should be replaced by the television, a television to the public means that can give you consolation. But television could really give stability to the people? Of course, a variety entertainment program on television, the broadcast will be watching it, and a people can take to stabilize. In other respects, television is the idiot box. So just to show images only. If citizens accept as being shown on television, the broadcast media will try to control the people by manipulating. The majority of the world population of the world is watching television. We can be brainwashed by television. Therefore, citizens possess critical thinking and information appearing on television need to adapt properly. A television provides the pleasure and ease, but a negative perspective, is likely to be used politically. Looking at history, many rulers have been used as a political religion. Some religious leaders had to fill in the self-interest, they were asking for money for believers. Thus are many similarities between television and religion. Whatever, we should not blind faith. Science experiments and demonstrations via the process of paradigm is completed. However, even this can not necessarily be true. Most people trust the science that can not necessarily be true. Therefore, anything else will be judged well. In the past, shown on television was in fact irrefutable truth. To get information, because the television and newspaper media, the magazine was only. Most of these people have seen television. Currently the 21st century, a television at home has become the necessities of life. Turn the television out to watch it come back naturally has become routine. Now the impact of television, we choice but to do a terrific. The media can not imagine the wavelength gets large enough. Negative impact For example, a strong visual stimulation of television is so intense they are not good for brain development. If only to just sit at home in front of the television can be fatal to children. Especially for younger viewers may have the wrong job or world outlook. In addition, television will lead to disconnection of the family conversation. Only when you get home you look at television, conversation breakdowns can occur. In conclusion, religion should not be replaced by television. Atheists also see television. When watching television excessively, our health is deteriorating. Therefore, whatever should be moderately." + }, + { + "title": "278_KRHY1090.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nFeminism would aim to liberation of women. It starts for women who was restrained from the central force such as men and get rid of women species just pursuit equal human beings. but many events undergo and it's meaning varies gradually. Then it degenerate and bring side effects and confusion. So what are the reasons of feminism distort?\n Because first of all, Feminism misguides that women are fragile and inferior beings unconsciously. But the role of mother and wife is very important in society too. They form a family which is the foundation of society. However, in modern society, many people think that the housewife means the women who has nothing to do and the working mom means who has a capability. So women have obsession of perfect women. That cause depression and undergo hard married life extremely .\n Second, it fall from original purpose. Originally they want to get rid of women species and insist equality between men and women. It ignoreS the difference intrinsic attribute between men and women such as their culture or sexual trait. For example, men have a military duty in korea. But Israel women who are over eighteen has a military duty for two years because of religious faith. It looks equal. But in reality, women attribute little about military power because they are weaker than men by nature. In addition, according to some investigation, a quarter of women soldiers pregnant the period of service. So it really hard to mom and baby. Therefore military duty for women is unreasonable by any measure. it doesn't consider about different characteristic between men and women .\n Third, Feminism pursuit the result of equality superficially. It insists chance of equality between men and women originally. But it is distorted and makes distorted stereotyped image of women. So, it makes image of super women who has versatile person. for that reason, many modern women suffer from obsession of super mom image who are capable employee and good mother. So they have to take charge of the raising children and household problem. men works too. But they don't take charge of any other household. It starts from distorted feminism. and it follow the patriarchy that feminism exclude. It has a contradiction . \n Third, someone misuse Feminism. For example, there is a menstrual leave. It's for women because their physiological trait. but it has a trouble with proof. someone misuse it. Hence, it rise reverse discrimination. Because men have to work more for woman who take menstrual leave. And other women are suspected of abuse. Hence, from the point of view of company, they prefer men to women. finally. Because the boss have to pay their women employee so employing men who don't have menstrual leave is more benefit. Finally, men and other women become victims . \n But I think that women has a only inherent character like sight of delicacy or attitude of soft. So, we find and recognize those trait and develop them. Above all, meaning of Feminism have to rearrange. Not just for distorted women's rights but for equal human beings. Feminism have to go a appropriate purpose for respect of individual human beings . \n" + }, + { + "title": "279_KRHY1091.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should the death penalty be mandatory for people that kill other people? \n \n Whether capital punishment has to be abolished or not has been argued for a long time. In fact, No matter who it is, human don't have right to kill one's life. People made a law to exist social structure orderly from ancient society. Among that capital punishment is the highest penalty. However, since modern time, democracy emerging and dignity of human being becoming the most important ideology, argument about capital punishment has existed. In some ways, it is a system that works largely from the viewpoint of maintenance of society order and prevention of crime. But anybody doesn't have right to kill human. So group and nation as well as human do. Capital punishment is unjust and has to be scrapped due to these . \n First, Human right to live is specified in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No matter who it is, Human has God-given rights. Capital punishment is activity that infringes in human rights to live. Also, in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, anybody can't receive cruel, inhuman and insulting treatment or punishment. However, If executing a criminal, any government doesn't guarantee it. Capital punishment is cruel and inhuman punishment .\n Second, supporters of capital punishment says what it has effect about the prevention of crime, but it is groundless. Any study doesn't find relationship capital punishment between crime. Rather in Netherlands, as soon as they abolished capital punishment, heinous crime decreased. If the number of atrocious crimes are compared in the states in America with the death penalty system and the states that have abolished the system, atrocious crimes decreased in the states that abolished the system. In the Korea, however capital punishment exists, heinous crime like Yu Yeongcheol case occurs. That is, it isn't found that retention of capital punishment affects decrease of the crime rate . \n Third, capital punishment refuses possibility that human can change. Without trying criminal to change, the capital sentence violates human rights. Condemn the offense and not its perpetrator. Actually, in study, majority of condemned criminal who commits heinous crime belong to the social vulnerable and don't have a happy childhood at all. In some ways, they are social victims. If due to effects of social environment they committed crime, on the other hand, due to effects of social environment they'll be enlightened. Human oneself has possibility of change. Because condemned criminal is also human, we have to acknowledge possibility if enlightenment and try to enlighten them . \n Forth, If government executes death penalty, and it is turned out misjudgement, it'll be impossible to undo that. However A case seems to be clear and distinct, dangerousness of misjudgement surely exists. Actually, due to misjudgement, wrongful deaths has been. To prevent wrongful death of just one person, Capital punishment has to be abolished . \n In conclusion, Nation commits murder against criminal by executing death penalty. Nation who protects dignity of ever human life must not be the subject of institutional murder. Also whether capital punishment is executed or not is the indicator of human rights which divide South Korea and North Korea. To criticize human rights problem like public execution of North Korea, We maintains leading superiority by not executing death penalty. Above of all, because capital punishment itself is against religious and humanistic value, it is a system that must disappear . \n" + }, + { + "title": "280_KRHY1115.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should the death penalty be mandatory for people that kill other people? \n \nRecently in Korea, a corpse of a 14 year-old girl was found in her neighborhood. Her body was raped, murdered, and left in a water tank on top of a building. The criminal was finally caught but no one could do anything to bring the pitiful girl back home. The legitimacy of the existence of the capital punishment is always debated after such a terrible incident. Although it is often asserted that death penalty should be vanished for the good of the humanity, I am an advocate of the capital punishment for it has more merits than demerits .\nTo begin with, people don't have the obligation to respect an individual who refuses to respect others. The most controversial aspect of the capital punishment is whether or not the death penalty infringes up on the rights of the human being. People question the validity of the legal \"murder\" of a human being by another. What I want to ask is this; do we need to respect the right of an individual who has, with full intent, destroyed the life of a vulnerable victim? I believe it is implied that when the criminal has decided to commit the terrible crime, one has decided to give up the right to be deserved as a respectful human being in our society. Thus, the capital punishment is absolutely legal to be in operation. When we examine the capital punishment, we should put more emphasis on the reason and the purpose of the act ?to discipline the criminal for the brutal crime? rather than focusing on the inevitable result ?death of an individual? of the operation .\nOne ironic fact also makes the operation of the death penalty plausible; the taxes paid by the family of the victim will be used for the imprisoned criminal if capital punishment is not available. Who could possibly imagine the grief and loss of the victim's loved ones? Their precious family member or friend will now have to be cherished only through photographs and memories. Using the taxes paid by these people for the imprisoned criminal is not only a financial waste for them but also a tremendous psychological pain. Also, the money paid by the normal citizens should be used to promote improvements in our society such as reconstructions of old buildings or social help for the needed. It shouldn't be frittered away on the things that are more of a waste than good, such as providing food, clothes, and medical care for the criminals that refused to live among the people as part of our society . \nOn top of that, we can have the positive effect of lowering the crime rate with the existence of the capital punishment. It has been once reported that most of the major offenses are usually committed by the criminals who have already been imprisoned for a similar crime in the past. The murderer of the 14 year-old girl, mentioned in the first paragraph, was also an ex-convict who had served in jail for a similar sex offending charge before he committed the recent crime. By sentencing vicious, habitual criminals to death, we can prevent any possible occurrence of second-crimes by ex-convicts. Also, the existence of the penalty itself could bring alertness to potential criminals. Although some might insist long-time imprisonments, vicious criminals usually have psychological disorders, making it almost impossible to reform them to rejoin the society and also the economic waste for our society would be considerable .\nIn conclusion, I definitely believe the capital punishment should be carried out for it has the validity to exist and brings positive effects to our society. Sentencing an individual ?even if that individual is an unforgivable criminal? to death may not be the happiest way to maintain a safe society. However, I certainly believe that it is the most efficient method to prevent future occurrence of severe crimes and to make our world a safer place to live. I just hope that there are no more terrible crimes in our society that would lead us to take away one's life by compulsion .\n" + }, + { + "title": "281_KRMJ1010.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \n\tToday's high school students constantly study to enter a good university. Most of them do their best to study for their future. By the way, after the competitive sequences, another barrier is waiting for them. It is the very getting a job. The employees working in different field from their original major is occupying considerable amount in Korean companies. That is, Korean universities' educational system does not have efficiency in respect of practicality as many students effort and study for a long period. If so, what benefit does it have to enter a university? Also, does it have the significant pass or fail-deciding points in entering company to have a university diploma? And, is it so important for universities they graduated from to have a good reputation? This writing has been written to think over that point. The ways for this are as follows. First, we will look at the annual income's height comparisons depending on the academic ability's differences. Next, we will see the university diploma's importance when people apply for companies. Finally, we are going to see the importance of the university's name of someone's having about trust in society. And, I will summary this with one utterance .\n\tEntering a university has many diverse benefits and the one of the things is the very salary differences. According to the \"Payopen\", one of the salary survey sites of Korea, the field having the biggest salary gap between university graduate and high school graduate was finance part, which gap was about 17million won. Also, according to the Korean national statistical office's second quarter survey this year, that kind of gap was investigated as many as almost double. Thus, we can confirm that university graduate earn more than high school graduate like above .\n\tIn addition, having a university diploma can help us apply for companies. For example, suppose there are person A and B who apply for a company. If they have the same condition but A is university graduate and B is high school graduate, the company would choose the person A because it is natural the society give the person who leaned and invested more to the society the advantages for their effort. Also, the number of employees needed is getting be diminished because of the economic depression. Thus, competition rate is rising and companies are naturally choosing their new employees by academic ability. Therefore, it is no wonder university diploma is a very important factor of getting a job in a current society .\n\tFurthermore, the university reputation of each one's having is considered significant between people. Paul Herbig, assistant professor at Texas A&M international university, and John Milewicz, Professor at Marketing Jacksonville State University, insisted that the favorable reputation elevates the trust of the organizations between people. In fact, reputation is very important for deciding the person's impression in society as yet, so this is directly connected to an individual confidence. If a person graduated from a university which has a good reputation, people would see the person as a good way, so he or she would have a confidence. On the other hand, if a person graduated from an unknown university, the person could have a complex about the fact. Like this, the university name each person has would follow them for their whole life wherever they go and tends to be connected with trust and confidence. Thus, entering a good university would be worth investing our time and energy .\n\tAs mentioned above, we have thought over the necessity of entering a university. First, we looked at the benefit of entering a university through the several surveys. Second, we saw the significance of university diploma when people apply for companies. Finally, we have thought about the importance of the university name of each person's having. To brief these to one sentence, entering a university, especially a good university, could be one of the steps occupying an advantageous location in our current competitive social structure." + }, + { + "title": "283_KRSA1001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should the death penalty be mandatory for people that kill other people? \n \n\tThese days, our society has lots of unsolved severe problems. One of that is a capital crime. Many hideous crimes are being committed. Therefore now there is a sharp division of opinion about death penalty abolition. Which one is the best way for our society? Should the death penalty be mandatory for people that kill other people? In my opinion, I am in favor of the death penalty and I would like to explain why I think like that .\n\tFirst of all, death penalty prevents crime. It is a heaviest penalty so criminals are forewarned for that. It will be very powerful warning for them. For instance, in our country, capital punishment has not taken place for eighteen year. So in that time, the ratio of murder has increased about thirty percent. On the other hand, in Singapore, There were more than ten known executions in recent ten years. So there is no rapid rise in ratio of murder. It can be told that death penalty is effective for decrease of bad crime. It also shows we should execute it for keeping safety and maintaining peace in our society .\n\tSecond, most of citizen in our country think that we need death penalty. Lots of people think that murderers violate the dignity of life so they have no right of the dignity of man. Therefore they agree to take place death penalty. They insist that we do not need to assure and protect about murderers because they break the law. Statistically, there are more than agreements than oppositions of this punishment. In addition, people are always worried about their safety, so they want to be protected. Death penalty will be at ease and they feel more comfortable. Therefore people insist it strongly .\n\tThird, there is a great economical loss. In Korea, a judge has sentenced criminal to death but has not executed a criminal for eighteen years. Therefore people who are sentenced the capital punishment become prisoners on trial. They are condemned criminals but serve a life sentence. The problem is citizen have to pay tax for the cost of maintaining criminals in prison. It is a waste of tax. Taxing is our duty and we can lead a well-being because of that. However our tax is wasted for useless thing. For our satisfied life, death penalty should be executed .\n\tAll in all, I explained my opinion about death penalty. should it be mandatory for people that kill other people? I think we need to execute it for criminals who murder someone. First, this punishment is able to prevent the bad crime because it is a kind of warning for them. Second, many people who are living in our country want to take place death penalty. They recognize the necessity and start to insist it. Lastly, we need to execute capital punishment because there is a waste of tax for maintaining criminals in prison. The pros and cons of death penalty is still equally divided and discussed. It is very important problem that should be solved for our society." + }, + { + "title": "284_KRSA1011.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should the death penalty be mandatory for people that kill other people? \n \n\tThe death penalty should be abolished. In many countries, death penalty is the still subject of controversy. Also in South Korea, the matter of death penalty is an endless subject between politicians, experts and the public. Korea has a death penalty by law but there was not execution in real since 1998. Many countries abolished the death penalty for the reason of human right between early 1990s and 2000. I think Korea has also followed the stream .\n\tThere are people who claim the death penalty should be banned because killing someone deliberately, even if that was a law, is inhuman and it is against the article 10 of constitution; All citizens shall be assured of human dignity and worth and have the right to pursue happiness. It shall be the duty of the State to confirm and guarantee the fundamental and inviolable human rights of individuals. But, at the same time, many people support the death penalty, saying death penalty is an only way to compensate for the loss of one's life or most effective way to get rid of the heinous crime .\n\tI agree with both opinions in some degree but my opinion is that the death penalty should be abolished after all. The biggest reason of I don't agree with the death penalty is ' the possibility of miscarriage of justice . ' Death cannot be undone. If the real fact which opposite the earlier ruling is revealed after the execution, there is no way to bring back to his or her life. There is always possibility of miscarriage of justice because the judge is not a god and other evidence or fact can be revealed late. In addition, many statistics of various country show there isn't clear correlation between the existence of death penalty and crime rate. For example, in Canada, the rate of violent crimes is decreased after the abolition of death penalty. And in the United States, rather the crime rate of the state which has a death penalty is higher than other state which has no death penalty. Therefore, the idea that death penalty will prevent or can decrease the rate of crime is a just hypothesis. Some people also say death penalty can be used in politically .\n\tActually, in the Korea, the reason many people support the death penalty is our sentence is relatively short compared to other countries. In the case of the crime that occur particular serious victim, victim or their family's worry, sadness and their anger at the assailant have to be resolved in the other way not a death penalty. Nation has to have a way to relive their life and to try to make or change the law .\n\tThe debate about the death penalty will not end soon. But considering flows of the world, it will be abolished eventually and I think that is right. For the more democratic country, for preventing another unfair death." + }, + { + "title": "285_KRSA1021.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should the death penalty be mandatory for people that kill other people? \n \n\tAre you capable of killing somebody? I guess, Of course not. That is why I have a disagreement about mandatory of a death penalty for that kill other people even by law. we should be clear that Nobody can have right to judge other people's living and death. Everybody only have the human rights equally so, each person must respect the human rights of others. Have you ever watched 「Our Happy time」 featured by Dong-Won Kang? This is a story about a man who was charged with unintended murder and put to death. He committed a murder to protect his brother and regretted his mistake on the verge of death and wanted to live. but the end of the movie, he suffered the last sanction of the law. If you saw this movie, you could feel sorry for this and want to have a debate on the abolition of the death penalty. You must die because people killed. Is this fair? No it is not .\n\tOn the other hands, we can see some people who are against the abolition of the death penalty. they insist that the murderer have to pay for their crimes in order to express the condolences to the grieving family. but we need to think who are going to judge their living and death. it will be a judge who is same as human. The most dangerous thing is a point that there is a possibility to take a innocent human life by a misjudgment of the judge who is a imperfected human. Also there is no a obvious basis that crimes are disappeared through keeping the death penalty. According to this, unfounded claims of Supporters of the death penalty are not reasonable because they haven't presented the fact to reduce the crime clearly. I want to give you one question. If you believe that the death penalty works to reduce the crime, you mean, can you hold public execution? we should think more carefully .\n\tAs the Korean proverb says, \"You can hate guilty of criminal but don't hate the existence of human.\" following this expression, we try to figure an alternative way out under certain humanitarian circumstances to respect the human rights. I feel the death penalty is inhumane and need to be stopped. There are a lot of countries where use of capital punishment, but recently?nothing?is?happening?which people are executed. Formal law is unuseful in our societies with many ways of punishment. I know that it is not easy to forgive an murderer but I want to remind you to ban on the death penalty with one proverb from the West . \"To err is human, to forgive divine.\" Always you have to think who can have the right to kill some body." + }, + { + "title": "286_KRSA1056.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should the death penalty be mandatory for people that kill other people? \n \n\tA research concerning the repeal of the death penalty showed that 86 percent people of Korea did not agree on repealing capital punishment. It is still arguable whether it is right to abolish capital punishment. In fact, there have been no executions in Korea since December 31, 1997. Even though the death penalty has not been actively practiced for more than 10 years, most people believe that it is not necessarily needed to abolish capital punishment .\n\tWhy do they think like that? There are some reasons why we should not yet remove the system of capital punishment: First, the rights of those who have been murdered should be respected. Some people insisting the repeal of capital punishment say that all men are equal before the law and the human rights of criminals also should be protected. I do not deny the equality of human rights. However, it does not mean that the death penalty should be banned for the rights of criminals. If the human rights of criminals who committed merciless crimes should be protected, then what of those who have lost their innocent lives and family with indelible scars?\n\tSecond, this system can have an effect on prevention of crime. People who agree on abolishing the death penalty claim that crime rate will not rise even it is repealed. However, I think there are more possibilities that criminals could commit violent crimes when they know their acts will not result in their death. Therefore, keeping the system of capital punishment may help not only decreasing the crime rate, but also preserving the order of our society .\n\tThe third is the perspectives of people on capital punishment. As I stated above, capital punishment has not been practiced for a long time in about 35 countries including Korea. In addition, the United Nations (UN) announced the moratorium on the death penalty in 2007. Nevertheless, why do a lot of people want to keep this system? Although we adopt the system of capital punishment, it is true that we have not actually hung criminal in effigy even they committed a heinous crime. It means that people think it is not necessarily needed to remove capital punishment if we are able to use this system properly for preventing a crime. The UN Moratorium on the death penalty also is about suspension, not through abolishment, of capital punishment around the world .\n\tRecently, it is true that a lot of countries have started to view the death penalty negative and agree on the proposal for a universal moratorium on the death penalty. Everyone knows that all men are equal and the human rights are important than anything else. In reality, however, it is difficult to solve this problem because we have to consider both victims' lives, their families', and criminals' at the same time. I think we are trying to respect their lives through maintaining the system of capital punishment, but not carrying out the system for a long time. For these reasons, I strongly believe that the time is not yet ripe for repeal of the death penalty." + }, + { + "title": "287_LTVI2074.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Is everyone really equal? \n\nThere is really popular these days to talk about equality issues. There are an immense amount of projects that suggest the society that people are born equal and the equality should be followed in every sphere of our life. Women are proposed to be equal to men, black equal to white, poor equal to rich, disabled to healthy, etc. There can be no way we can distinguish ourselves or others as better than somebody else. However, is it really possible to demand equality while we all are so different, or too different to be equal .\n\nOn the one hand, the idea of equality is really important in modern society. This dose not depent on a country or continent. Everywhere on Earth people are equal no matter whoever they do or whoever they are. What are the arguments to prove that Black people are better than White or vice versa? Moreover, why do we need such distinction at all? Who said that we should devide all the people in one class or another? By this division unequality is followed . If you separate something from something you naturally distinguish one better than another (otherwise you wouldn't need to separate). Our entire perception of the world is based on the idea that one is better or worse that the other. However, everything we believe to be better is just the matter of our stereotypes, it is just the framework we are living in, it is just the truth somebody sais to be truth. For example, once I met a British women that was (and still is) working with mentally handycapt people. She has mentally disabled brother as well. But when I asked her isn't she afraid that her children can be born with mental disabilities that could cause some major problem with having a baby and rising it, she said she would be really happy if her child could be born like that. According to Davida, she would be have her own baby no matter what anykinds of disabilities he or she would have, and she would be very happy becouse she knows how to talk to these people, how to communicate, she understands them, etc. This fact really collapsed all my understanding of the disability as such, as a phenomena. This really gave me an idea that all the normalities are \"normal\" only becouse somebody claims them to be normal. And everybody is equal or should be treated equal becouse that is what we are: equal .\n\nBut on the othe hand, the only possibility for the things to be equal is to be identical wich is totally impossible in our society. There no identical phenomena as well as people. Therefore, by identifying their differnces we give our opinion about them wich leads us to the conclusion that something is just better than the other. Even if we do so unintentionally we are still identifying something to be better. The equality phenomenon explained in such perspective gives us no doult that there can be no equality at all, equality is impossible to happen. Moreover, we can illustarte this phenomena in any kind sphere of life. Taking into consideration simple company of friends (or even a family) and business enterprise. It is obvious that in buisiness hierarchy there is only moral equality among people as any communication is based on the issues of the hierarchy. This is the best ilustration for my title of the paper: \"All men are equal: but some are more equal than others\". Some workers are really more equal than others only becouse of their position and we cannot avoid that. Being (or trying to be equal) and reaching for equality would ruin all the company and buisiness. Even in the family affairs or our everyday we cannot be equal. If we take any friends' company where everybody is equal, in time some people would become closer friends and some would separate as it is the natural process of communication. Finally people would distinguish the others that thay like more and give them more privileges that other making them more equal. We can clearly see that there is no way of equality in our life .\n\nTo conclude, the idea of equality is very important in our everyday life. Everybody should be treated as equal no matter what they do or who they are. However, it is obvious that there is not such phenomena as equality. In todays world everything is based in your status in society. The degree of you, equality to others' depends on yor position in the world's hierarchy .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "288_LTVI2081.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n\nDuring the past 50 years feminist movements have flourished in many countries and reached the peak of their power. Lots of improvements concerning women rights and freedoms have been made. It seems that feminists having eliminated difficulties in all spheres of life and reached their goals, now live a perfect life. But, I would argue against this wrong assumption .\n\nFirstly, women who fought for the right to get a top education, to make career equally with men, to be elected for high positions and to put on weight of great responsibilities, also had to devote themselves to sticking to high standards. Pscyhologically it is very hard and requires a lot of effort from a person. This leads a lot of women to emotional instability, nervuous diseases, addciton to smoking or even alcoholism .\n\nSecondly, feminists who are associated with making their social life better and ignore men, often diminsh male role not only in their public activities, but also in their own families. Surveys show that these women tend to live without men and cope with all household duties alone and those who have husbands are said to argue for their rights at home a lot. This leads to an increasing number of divorces .\n\nMoreover, feminists tend not to have children. They devote themselves to career making, traveling and self-improvement and many of them say that a child would spoil their life and prevent them from reaching their goals. The consequences of such reasoning are really sad. These career women stay absolutely alone and have no one to take care of them when they become old .\n\nFurthermore, those feminists who have children usually bring up them alone. It means that they make their lifes really exhausting: they have to earn money and give education without any help. Working all day long these mothers have very little time to communicate with their children. This results in a loneliness of a child and cold relationships .\n\nWhat is more, feminists change men attitude towards them because of their harsh activities. Polls show that men tend to be afraid of such women and would never mary one of them. Feminists are said to have gained a lot of male traits (speaking loudly, acting agressively, wearing trousers all the time) and in this way lost their femininity .\n\nThus even though women had reached a lot in fighting for their rights, it is not without a great harm that followed .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "289_LTVY1002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Is everyone really equal? \n\n A famous saying by G. Orwell claims that \"All men are equal but some are more equal than others\". In my opinion this is true, especially nowadays when so many countries in the world declare that they are democratic, and this democracy is based on the human rights. It is very easy to say but hard to do, and everyone understands why it is like this .\n First of all, where there is democracy, there are certain classes of people. The classes of people lead to inequality as some of the people are well-off, they are so called, \"the cream of the society\". There is a middle class, people whose expenses are almost equal to their income, and there are the poor who may not even have money to buy a loaf of bread .\n The poor are always found in a democratic society which declares that people are equal according to all the laws. Even in the most modern and advanced countries the poor make a part of the society. It is enought o visit New York at night, and see how many people spend their nights on the benches, usually drunk or drugged. And, on the contrary, a visit to Moscow's street twenty years ago would prove the opposite. The ex USSR was a so called, union of countries, the citizens of which had no rights, who were dependant on the government and its decisions. Despite that, all the people had homes where they could sleep, and the had bread to eat. These two different countries represent absolutely different lifestyles, the politics, and the people .\n One more example could prove the inequality of people in the same country. It is not difficult to imagine two cars going on a highway. Let them be the same model cars but the drivers be the representatives of different social classes of the same society. If these two cars make two accidents, and both of the drivers are the perpetrators, it is easy to guess which driver will have more problems with the police. If the first driver is an ordinary amn working somewhere in an office, a so called representaitve of the middle class, he will have a lot of problems with the police explaining how everything has happened. And if the second driver is, for example, a famous politician, he will quickly talk with the police, give them some money may be, and go his way further on .\n In a way people can change their social status but it is a hard work, even if there is a strong will. Knowledge changes a lot. It enriches person's inner world, and may even help him to get a better rank. This way requires much attempt, of course, and time. Even in such a way it is impossible to amke all the men equal as not everyone has the needed possibilities and oppportunities .\n Thus it would be possible to conclude and to agree with the saying \"All men are equal: but some are more equal than others\". Whatever the structure of the society is, whatever classes it has, it will never be possible to establish absolute equality among the people .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "290_LTVY1005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n\n In the days of old it was exclusively religion that was the source of solace for all the nations. Nowadays more and more people devote their free time to television instead of religion. The process could be named as a natural inevitability, as people have always been searching for new discoveries that, as a rule, eventually cast into the shade older ones, even those that existed from the very beginning. However, in this case there cannot be any question about an absolute substitution of religion for some better equivalent .\n Nevertheless, at least in one case, namely the one of disabled people, television can be that substitute that could help a person to live. Here we can talk not only about watching TV serials that without any doubt provide light relief as well, but also about live broadcasts of Mass, and interviews and speeches of churchpersons that provide an unquestionable comfort for disabled religious people .\n However, there are some more characteristics of television that make it more attractive than religion. To begin with, a TV set is always at hand when you need it, while you need some time to reach a church. Moreover, there comes into account other virtues of television, namely person's privacy and security, the bigger part of which one looses being in a public place .\n Another virtue of television that must be considered is that you have a huge choice of channels you have a possibility to watch; in the case of religion there are maybe few possible variants that you can choose from, as in my country, Lithuania, for example, you can choose among Catholic, Lutheran, Judaic and Protestant churches. Of course, there is another kind of religion that has not the best reputation on the whole, namely a religious sect. If we would count in a huge variety of sects alongside the basic kinds of religion, this tot most probably outnumber the quantity of channels .\n An indirect inducement to sacrifice or to buy something is another inherent feature of both religion and television. Though in both cases you are the one who has the right to choose what to do, in case you are in a church it is possible you will feel awkwardly if you cannot make a sacrifice, while in case you watch TV there is usually no moral pressure about some sacrifice, contribution or buying. This pressure is even more strongly felt if you are a member of some sect. Thus immediacy and correlation with the members of the group are the main factors that come into account in this situation .\n Another inconvenience is that it isn't considered to be a proper behaviour if you will stand up in the middle of Mass and leave the room without any reasonable ground, while television does not put on you any moral obligations - you can switch off your TV set at any moment without the slightest compunction .\n One more convenience that offers television is that you can do other things when watching TV, for example eat, talk with someone, be on the phone, etc. Participating in Mass you cannot do any of the things mentioned out of the merest respect for God and people around. Of course, you maybe will not be on the phone in the same room where other people are watching television together with you, and out of the same respect for others you will leave the room, but on the other hand, you cannot expect Mass being celebrated for you alone .\n In conclusion it must be said that there was held an argument for only a small number of conveniences of television, however, they make that basis of magnetism that attracts the masses .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "291_LTVY2001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and they do not prepare students for the real world \n\nMost university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. Imagine, for example, an employer who is looking for a young perspective person to work in his firm. Most probably, the employer would like his employee to have some experience in the chosen field. But how is this possible if during the studies the young person had to learn only theory and had very little or any practice at all. Most probably, the employer would choose the person who has had practice and is an expert in the field. Not many very employers would like to engage a person without any practice simple for the reason that a non-expert can make mistakes, will not work sufficiently. So consequently, a question can be raised: how a university graduate can gain practice and is the university diploma so valuable .\n Most universities do not prepare students for their future work. Nevertheless, universities are very popular in our country, and it is a prestige to have a university diploma. However, our little country cannot offer enough workplaces for every graduate student. Lets consider the other question, that is, what about the quality of the knowledge that we gain at the university. Most probably, the American educational system does not provide students with sufficient knowledge. Most people think that Russian type universities are the universities that prepare good future specialists. They provide students with a great quantity of knowledge. However, some of people say that knowledge that students gain are more theoretician not practical. On the one hand, theory without practice is worth nothing. On the other hand, theory is obligatory for every educated person. And without knowing theory a student will never become a perfect specialist. As you can see, theory and practice are two inseparable things. Moreover, most students complain, that when they begin to work it is very hard to adopt, because theory and practice differ greatly .\n If universities provide students only with theoretical knowledge and do not teach any practice why at all, go to university and study. You can go to any library, get the same information, and not spend money for university degree. There, however, you cannot get a university diploma which is a certificate proving that you have a required quantity of knowledge. On the other hand, it is paradoxical, because the diploma cannot prove that you are a good specialist .\n As you can see, problem is great and I do not believe that it will be solved very soon. Probably the employers who test their future workers are right. They want to have only the best employees. And that is good. The world is cruel and when there are so many university graduates the less chances we have to gain good work .\n The educational system still needs to be perfected, as the requirements for a job are greater and greater. Universities should learn somehow to adapt to the requirements of the employers and to provide the country only wit the best experts. Otherwise, universities diplomas will not have any value .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "292_LTVY2005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n\n First of all, it is necessary to indicate that television nowadays is one of the main mass media. TV became an ordinary domestic appliance, which is purchased even by the poorest families. It might be even strange that some families have TV but they do not have a washing machine. Television already became a part of any apartment like electricity, heating and other services .\n Moreover, a little emphasis is put on the fact that people would not be able to watch various films on TV, without paying some additional taxes. That is any film or program is constantly interrupted by advertisements. The key is that lots of companies try to make people buy their products using TV advertisements. They are making money on advertising. The audience is almost hypnotized with endless row of attractive and colorful images. Finally, they are not able to avoid watching advertisements, because they are simply overpowered by the driving force of a film or discussion program. The images stuck in people's mind and when going to a supermarket they subconsciously choose the good as definitely the best .\n Eventually, television influences human's thoughts, attitude and even behavior. For example television presents various ideals to be followed. Women are constantly reminded that successful relationship with men is based on a beautiful thin body of a woman. So women are persuaded that they will manage to establish successful relationship only being fit and eating less. Children are fed up with images of self confident, clever and able to fight people. Men are given some information about political processes in the land. They do not think that a camera of a reporter might present information from different angles. Truth is often controversial. One could argue to death whether it is good or bad influence that television makes, but it is really obvious that people are controlled by television. A lot of people spend their leisure time in front of TV set. Children may watch cartoons endless hours. It is very often that people are not able to plan and control the time they are going to spend for this activity .\n To tell the truth, it was already accepted fact that cinema theatres were the only place both for poor and for rich, as well as for men and women where one could get rid of reality and daily problems. Various television companies were able to purchase expensive movies and to show them to people staying at home thanks to advertising industry. Movies, cartoons, discussion programs, concerts and other programs formed a great cluster of choices. Any representative of social, age or educational class could find the things he or she was interested in. Poor people were able to see the materialization of their dream of becoming rich. Disobeying, revolutionary ands restless teenagers saw their dream images of risking, witty, physically strong and attractive heroes. Ordinary housewives depressed by daily routine were able to see romantic men of their dreams .\n All in all, television became a tool of magic. People unconsciously became controlled by television. It seems they forgot that ordinary people create any television channel. Definitely they have some particular intentions and hidden ideas under the fibula of any visual product .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "293_LTVY2011.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Money is the root of all evil \n\n Nowadays it is difficult to do something without money. It is important to assume that whatever one is eager to do he must usually pay for it. The way one decides to invest their money depends on the man's ability to control himself and not to waste money vainly. There are two different worlds created by money, positive and negative. It is interesting that we live in both of them incorporated into one having virtues and vices. Many people say that all their problems are because of the lack of money. They think of them as the main salvation of the shortage. Notwithstanding, people who are rich do not fell happy as well. The problem is the way people use their money, not the social status one represents. Sometimes money brings joy and laughter, sometimes it causes only pain .\n First of all, the amount of money influences the quality of activities man is occupied with. For example, if you intend to have a good and active weekend, money plays the essential part, because it is necessary to pay for various gaieties, facilities. Furthermore, the basic role of money is to guarantee the most essential background for living. Similarly, people behave generously giving money for the poor. As it is obvious, money serves for high purpose which proves the positive side of the discussed topic .\n On the other hand, the world of crimes is ruled by the money as well. There are a lot of instances of such phenomena around us: people kill each other, steal from each other; moreover, envy is a very common characteristic feature among human beings. The creation of this evil is stimulated for the sake of money. In other words, evil is created of the desire to have more. A very common situation appears when rich people, already having everything, do not really feel any other necessities and plunge in negative habits. They buy expensive drinks, have drug addictions and do other money driven harmful things. Therefore, most people agree with the words of old song \"Money is the root of all evil\". Probably there is some sense in these words. Despite all the noble actions, some negative aspects are present that can not be denied as harm of money .\n Generally speaking, money should not be considered as the motivator of all the evil because someone has created them. It is indisputable that man did it. What for? Of course, he did it not necessarily for causing the harm but for the better function mostly. Thus, it is unfair to blame something else rather than human being himself. Here the misinterpretation appears because man is inclined to accuse everything except himself. Surely, the more just appropriate statement would be \"Man is the root of all evil\" or \"Money is the root of evil as well as good\". This affirmation sounds too strong but still such an argument is very fair in this context. After all, one spends money for worthy things as education, food, different house equipment, etc .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "294_LTVY2014.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and they do not prepare students for the real world \n\n It is very important for everyone to have a good job and earn enough money for a reasonably well-supported life. People go to universities to get a degree so that they could get a better job. They believe that a degree of a good university guarantees their good future. Personally I think that a university degree is just a proof that one has a high education but it does not proof that a person is a specialist of some kind. It takes more than just to graduate from a university. Studies are only theoretical part of your education and I think that a degree without experience means almost nothing .\n People go to universities because they want to get knowledge and become specialists but very often they do not get what they have expected. A lot of things taught in universities are only theoretical and there is no way one could use them in real life. Furthermore, very often students do not have a chance to show what they know because they are given a lot of theory and there is no time left for practice. The only way to check the knowledge is exams. As a consequence of a too big amount of theory comes cheating. It is a very sad situation but a lot of students get a degree for cheating and not for what they know and learnt at the university. Of course, not all students cheat in universities. There are many of them who are honest and want to learn everything they are offered not thinking if there comes a time when they will be able to use what they have learnt. When graduating from university they know a lot of things but not necessarily they are able to use everything in life. In this case it very difficult to find a job because every employer asks if a person has any experience on a particular job. In other words, a university degree does not show if one can really do the job and many employers do not want to take a risk. It goes without saying that the best way to become a specialist and get a job after graduating is to combine studies with work. For many students this might seem impossible because studies take a lot of time but there is no any other way if they want to do the job they have been preparing for .\n Finally, I have to say that one's future depends on a person himself. A university degree can only help to build up the future but it does not give any guarantees in life. A student in a university gets a lot of information but not all of it is necessary. I do not say that it is not worth studying in a university. After all theory given in a university is the base of certain speciality. What I mean is that a university degree does not have so much value if a person does not have any experience on a particular job .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "295_LTVY3003.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n\nAs political movement feminism began between the late 18th and early 20th century in Europe and in the United States. It was always based on the idea that women must have equal rights and opportunities as men. Several disadvantages and advantages of feministic struggle can be listed .\n One of the main disadvantages of feminism is the fact that it usually has a negative meaning to most people. This is a sequence of the tendency for feminism to occur in waves when each of it represents different kinds of feminists who often disagree among themselves on certain issues. For example, the members of earlier generation are being criticised by the later ones, who claim that there is still too little of attention being paid to women's problems. Consequently, another disadvantage appears as the cause of these disagreements. For instance, feminists of later generation believe that the society is still very patriarchal, and women are oppressed by it. For this reason, their attempt to make women dominate in society cannot lead to equality between the two sexes .\n But I think that there are more advantages that women gained from feminism than disadvantages. First, for women in many countries, the area of politics was forbidden for a long period of time. Until it was an exceptionally male activity, women neither could vote in the elections, nor took their part in ruling the country. As a matter of fact, feminists were the first ice breakers that changed the situation radically. Now women have equal rights as men to control the machinery of government and express their political opinion by voting. Second, notwithstanding sex, everyone today has a right to study and get a desirable profession. For example, feminists have proved that women may also achieve high results in studying science as well in the faculties of arts or women as well as men are good physics, doctors, and even astronauts. Finally, sexism is always a thorny question in feministic discussions because it occurs in different situations of life and causes many problems for women. Trying to get a particular type of job is one of the cases when women may confront with an unfair treatment of them because of their sex. For many years feminists struggled against this kind of phenomenon trying to stop it. Actually, they have already represented noticeable achievements. As a result, in most of well developed countries in Europe and in the United States women have equal opportunities as men to get a job. The great majority of employers organises competitions to choose one of the candidates not according to their sex but according to their skills and experience which is necessary in that job .\n To sum up, no matter what was achieved feminists believe that women are still oppressed in comparison with men, and that their oppression is unjustified. However, their struggle has done more good than harm to the cause of women because the attitude towards women has changed in many positive ways. Nowadays women are treated equally to men in politics, education, and workplace .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "296_LTVY3004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n\nAlthough feminism has many forms and shapes, the main goal of it is to liberate women. Feminist movements started in the nineteenth century in the United States. However, the first feminists who joined the movement were treated more as individualists. Since then the strategies how to achieve and maintain equal rights in a masculine society have changed and developed. Most feminists are especially concerned with social, political and economic inequality between men and women. The majority of modern feminists believe that discrimination of women still exists wordwide. This essay is concerned with the the positive and negative causes of feminist movement. Since there are several points in favour to feminists, there are more things to be said to criticize modern feminism .\n The main advantage of the movement is that it has shown women's ability to fight for their rights in the society. First of all, women achieved the right to university education. After achieving this, they proved that women are better learners than men. The fact is that women now outnumber men in both high school graduation rates and university enrollment. Secondly, women are now free to participate in any sphere. This means that a woman can choose whether to sit at home with children or to run a bussiness, become a polititian and etc. If following, women are now free to initiate divorce proceedings. Feminist movements help women feel equal to men in the spheres of education, job and family .\n However, feminists are said to have done more harm to the cause of women. Firstly, after getting equal rights, women became in many ways similar to men. For example, it is now natural for women to demonstrate aggressiveness, dominance and even to dress like men. To continue, modern society puts a psychological pressure on every woman. This means that if a woman does not have a career, she might be treated as weak. Similarly, a woman who has a carrier cannot be equally devoted to her family. As a result, there are much more divorces than ever before. The growing numbers of children who rarely see their careerist mothers seem scary. What is more, there is a tension between men and women who want to dominate in the social sphere. Present situation shows that women compete among themselves more often than before. Moreover, men are now afraid of women's wish to become even more powerful in the society. By entering the social sphere, women not only become strong competitors but also act similarly to men .\n To sum up, feminism ideas can be viewed as positive for women because they encouraged them. Because of feminist movement, women have more or less the same rights in the society as men. However, the feminism movement have lost its positive values especially in the past ten years. Women entering from domestic to social sphere caused confusion in the society. By extension, more and more women forget their domestic roles and become career women. Seeking for career is seen as an advantage, but then someone has to be concerned with domestic matters as well .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "297_LTVY3007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and they do not prepare students for the real world \n\n Nowadays more and more people argue that most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. Most probably they talk so from their own experience. Nevertheless, I think that studies at a university are still very valuable and give a lot of useful skills and theoretical background for students. However, very often students themselves claim that universities give them diplomas but not the skills .\n First of all, a lot of people think that after finishing universities students are not ready enough for the real world. Students at secondary schools study hard because they think they need good knowledge to enter universities, and this is true, and they also believe that this step will be almost the most important in their lives. They hear every day that an university is a place where students are taught a lot of interesting things, where they are able to get useful information in their field and learn various skills. However, after finishing universities most of them remain dissatisfied, because they think that they are not ready enough for the real life. At the end of their studies they, of course, have theoretical knowledge, but it is of very little value, because they have never used it in practice and, therefore, they do not know how to use it in the real world. In other words, due to lack practice young people do not know how to behave when they face the real difficulties .\n Secondly, university degrees are really theoretical and therefore many students have problems in finding good jobs later. Theoretical material which students get at universities can give important knowledge but it gives only basis of understanding what one can encounter in his/her workplace. At many universities, while studying the emphasis is put on broad understanding of many unrelated subjects rather than teaching job skills and giving practise. Therefore, nowadays many students think that there should be more practical work done in the field that one is studying. More and more students every year find that most of the courses they have taken are very theoretical and not very realistic and useful. Thus, because of that, later many students find out that their education has no correlation to the work they are performing .\n To summarize, there are a lot of different oppinions concerning university degrees. It is clear that a university degree is necessary to get better jobs. But there are people who say that university degrees are very theoretical and do not help students to prepare to live real life and find good jobs. Another claim is that a four-year university program cannot produce graduates who will require no additional training, because most universities teach the basic skills and try to lay a broad foundation of concepts that will support the graduates in whatever direction they decide to go professionally. However, every university teach students how to write and think, but to figure the rest of the real world out they have on their own. They have the whole life for that .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "298_LTVY3017.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n\nFeminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good - this is an opinion that is shared by many people nowadays, at least in Lithuania. Nowadays the feminist movement in the world carries different connotations compared to what was when a movement started and most of their ideas are viewed negatively. However, one should not forget that the feminism has produced the significant effects on the women's rights and their position in the society. The feminism may be defined as a radical movement that tries to increase women's rights in the male dominant world, and I think it is a good cause to fight for. Therefore, the feminism is often viewed by those who do not like it as a hatred of the males. But of course feminist movement has achieved good results for many women in the whole world .\n To start with, the movement has positive consequences for the females because it encourages women to receive the education that enables them to look for the worthwhile and highly-paid jobs. In addition, when their self-esteem is achieved females prove that they may cope with the tasks as well as men do and, to be quite frank, in some cases even better .\n Second, women are no longer viewed as Victorian \"angels in the house\" as it was the case during the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries when the only and the main women's activities were related to the household tasks and children's care. Presently women are not expected to be only the mothers and the wives. Accordingly, the women may take part in different activities, such as politics or sciences. Before the feminist movement females have not been allowed to vote and in nowadays society women are elected in the parliaments or other institutions. And they work there very well, not worse than men .\n Furthermore, a tendency appears in the modern society that the women and men begin to share their household tasks and this is also a result of feminist movement. Men understand that wives are not the only ones who are expected to go shopping or being responsible for the washing of dishes or doing other household jobs. In addition, the new phenomenon, such as a paternity leave occurs in the society. This is a very important change in raising children when finally men understood that sometimes it is better for them to stay home and let wives to work. It is evident that the situation has essentially changed. Males agree to stay at home and take care of the children while their wives are making career. In such a case a woman and not a man becomes the financial provider of the family. Therefore, the gender roles are mixed, the females and the males behave not in a conventional way .\n To sum up, the major effects the feminist movement caused are felt in our society. Women have achieved more independence and empowerment. However, the current researches demonstrate that the men are still dominant in the positions where a leadership needs to be taken on. Thus, the females yet face the discrimination in different circumstances .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "299_LTVY3018.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Is everyone really equal? \n\n Financial compensation should be an element paid for efforts and abilities to produce as much as one can. In my opinion, a man/woman's financial reward should be commensurate with their contribution to the society they live in. The compensation one receives should be appropriate with ultimate result. The more person is paid the better production at his/her workplace could be achieved, because financial reward is an effective motivator to do a job properly .\n Fair and reasonable financial reward is relevant for good morale at a workplace. Moreover, positive effects also come from good compensation. To illustrate, sometimes a very efficient staff do not produce as much as they are capable of. The low salary tapers off their efficiency and abilities to obtain the highest effect. However, employer expects them to work hard whole time, no matter how much they are paid. Therefore, they should be paid for what they produce. The harder they work, the more they should be paid. Besides, some extra financial reward would motivate them to achieve more fecundity .\n Employers should ensure that their organizations and businesses provide financial reward to their personnel for the contribution to the production. I think this has to be understood by employers in the first place. This leads a person to bigger motivation. Everyone wants to have a well paid work, be employed for good salary. However, I think a certain level of income should be associated with the endeavor to encompass the goal. For instance, man/woman given a specific work task may be passive, unenthusiastic if work is quite monotonous and repetitious. If the financial reward is attractive the one will complete the task efficiently putting all the efforts, because people think that money is a motivator. It really has an effect .\n Wages are normally paid per hour worked and workers receive money at the end of the week. Furthermore, sometimes other system of financial reward is used, paying only two times per month. It is very simple and easy to use for businesses. However, workers may be resent being paid the same salary as their colleagues who they feel are not so productive. Thus, I am inclined to believe that, the employee should be paid per item produced. In this way everyone would receive the compensation they deserved, the working atmosphere would be pleasant and the relationships between workers would be good, avoiding complaints of inequality. This also would give reason to manufacture more in order to earn extra, because no one could imagine his/her life without money. It is our source of better life, the way to more interesting and satisfactory life .\n To sum up, this argumentative essay introduces and briefly illustrates my point of view concerning a man/woman's financial reword. I strongly agree with the statement that financial reward should be proportionate with the contribution. Nowadays we live in a society which offers a variety of works, but not all incomes matches the production. Therefore, financial reward should be appropriate with hard work to motivate the person, to keep the positive working atmosphere and to maintain good relationships of workers .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "300_LTVY4001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and they do not prepare students for the real world \n\nThe aim of this essay is to describe what kind of problems could cause the lack of practice in university. These days students can get lot of theoretical material through the lectures in university, also they have possibility to use libraries or reading-rooms, though it is not enough to get good higher education. And the main reason for that could be lack of practical part. In this essay I will describe two problems, first one would that it is easier to learn something then you combines theory with the practice. Other thing, that lot of these days employer asks for couple years practice and I think university should be the place which has to prepare students .\n First thing to be said under consideration is the description of the easier way, how to learn material. In the way, then you are studying just theoretical part without practice it is very hard to remember everything. And if you are doing that also in practical way, it is bigger possibility to remember more material. For example the course of foreign language contains lot of theoretical material, but there is not enough practice. Students need to practice language is some way, because without practice, then you need to use it, it is very difficult. Firstly because you forget lot of words, then you are not using them, secondly students are not confident in their self and thirdly one of the most important thing for foreign language learners, it is impossible to learn pronunciation without practice .\n Second thing to be mentioned is the demand of practice from the employers. Students are trying to earn money for living and it is very difficult to find job according specialty, because one of request is couple years practice. Where students can get practice if they can not get work? The practical part in university could be solution of this problem. It would better for students if they would get job after university and for employers who would get good specialist, who knows how to do job not just theoretically, but and practically .\n And the last thing is opinion about that what we now can get in university. I don not think, that degrees which we get now are little value, because it depends from specialty. Though looking to foreign language learners, it is very important to have practice if university wants to grow good specialist. And according two before mentioned things it would be much better to get practice. There were mentioned just two things, but there is lot of facts, which would tell that theory is necessary .\n To sum everything up, there are more facts for practice, than against it. And if university purpose is to prepare good specialist, they need to take into consideration these kinds of things. Therefore the same students who university is preparing will work in each kind of work and in some part of their job maybe even in bigger, everyone would see, what and how he learn in university. And I do not think that anyone needs bad specialist and that student's opinion about university would be bad, because today everyone can get work of cashier without higher education and in this way there is no need to waste four years .\n\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "301_LTVY4024.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Money is the root of all evil \n\nNowadays it seems that money is the most important thing in peoples' lives. The world became very materialistic, people seem to live to make and spend money. Madonna once said - \"We are living in a material world and I am a material girl\" and this truly reflects our society. Money means different things to different people: to some it is freedom, to others - nice things, to third - freedom, but the most important thing about money is the power, which is so desirable. The aim of this essay is to prove that words from old song \"Money is the root of all evil\" are true .\n\nFirstly, money took over peoples' feelings. The world is full of rich men and women who are lost spiritually. Often seems that for most people money are more important than friendship, love or even family. People seem to forget what true things in the world are. People betray their family and friends for money, they lie, grovel; they are ready to sell their principles and themselves for money. Often young girls dream to marry a millionaire, preferably an old one, and get all his money when he dies. This shows how materialistic people are: they can sell themselves and also desire someone to die. People betray their principles, believes for money. Probably most people would sell their votes or take a bribe if there was an opportunity. When people get rich they often forget their friends, all true values in their lives. They become arrogant, snobbish, and associate only with people of high status in society. Another problem is that the human being is boundless and greedy. When he gets rich, he wants to become even richer and when he becomes richer he wants to become richer than that .\n\nSecondly, all crimes happen because of the money. It seems that people can do anything to get money. They are ready to sell drugs, steal, sell people or even kill. Often when you want to get money, you have to take them away from someone. It is easier to get rich by stealing or selling drugs on streets than working legally all your life. Policemen and judges break laws by taking bribes. There is a problem of bribes in Lithuania in hospitals also. Money can cause such catastrophes as wars also. Wars happen most often because of the lands and profitable things like oil, gas and so on. Millions of people die just because of someone's desire to get enormously rich and powerful .\n\nOn the other hand, money cannot perform actions on itself. Money is just a tool. It is not the money, but people and their desire to be rich, get the status in society, power, is evil. That is why \"The love of the money is the root of all evil\" is the more correct form .\n\nTo conclude, the words from the old song \"Money is the root of all evil\" are true. Money causes a lot of bad things in the world nowadays. Because of the money and desire to get rich, people forget the true values: feelings like love, loyalty; their friends, family and principles, believes. People are very materialistic and they are ready to do anything in order to be rich and get some higher social status. Moreover, after they get rich they forget their friends and become greedy. What is more, all crimes, evil is being done because of the money. Money causes even such catastrophes as wars, where millions of people die. As money itself do not do harm to people, but people who wants to get rich and powerful are actually evil, more correct form of statement about money could be - \"The love of the money is the root of all evil\".\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "302_LTVY5017.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Is everyone really equal? \n\nConstitution of our country states that all men are equal and if they break the law they have to take responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately, the real life is a bit different. You can always find a loophole in our legal system and remain unpunished. Also money and \"the right friends\" can help a lot .\n Unfortunately, in Lithuania if a person is a famous politician, or a sportsman, or just a rich person, it seems that he has more rights than an ordinary person. A lot of people are breaking the law by building their own houses in those places where constructions are banned. Usually if a simple citizen builds something illegally, he has to pay a big fine or the government instances demolish his building, but everyone knows that exceptions also exist. A lot of famous and rich people are building their own houses in nature reserves, regional parks and nobody cares because they are above the law .\n Moreover, people who work in a well paid governmental positions and participate in well sponsored projects like to take bribes and even to \"wash\" big sums of money. Just remember a famous project \"Vilnius - European Capital of Culture\", how expensive this project is and how many financial resources it has. The only conclusion which comes to my head is a big scam. People are stealing money from our country with no shame. Special Investigation Service just does not care even if somebody reports about illegal actions. Justice is only a ghost if you are rich. I hate to say this but corruption exists in every step of the way .\n Furthermore, even in XXI century we still have racial inequality. From the legal point of view all citizens of a country are equal no matter what race they are. But in the real life skin colour, religion and other believes still matters. For example, in Lithuania the Romany are ignored by other people and they are viewed as unwanted. It is harder for them to find a job and to have a normal life just like other people because of old thinking that all Romany people are thieves and drug addicts. Usually people think that if a Romany person lives in your neighborhood then you can expect a trouble and because of this they stick to each other and live in small groups. The Romany people have this kind of problems not only in Lithuania - as far as I know, the same is in United Kingdom, Spain .\n To sum up, on the one hand, we can say that we are all equal but on the other hand, when we really open our eyes we see that this is only a big soap bubble. We can only dream that someday everybody will be equal and no differences will matter. As for now, I can honestly say that money rules the world and if you are different than the others, just a minority in some kind of a country, you will not feel the equality. In reality such thing does not exist .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "303_LTVY5020.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n\nMarx once said that religion was opium for the masses. If he was alive at the end of the 20th century, he would replace religion with television. And by saying this he would be absolutely right . \n The times have changed and the church has lost its power, but it didn't took very long for the society to find a new god to worship - it is the almighty silver screen. The magical box which emits pictures and sounds has long become a device which is an absolute must for every household. Just think about it - you go to your new neighbor's house to welcome him into the community and suddenly you notice one fatal flaw in his living room - on the cupboard where usually a television stands a potted plant. The first things that would pop into your head would be that he's either too poor to own a device which has become mandatory in every house or that he's plain weird. But in this case it isn't the neighbor who is the weird one, but you .\n Opinion polls say that in the past three decades watching television has become one of the most popular ways of passing ones free time. People do not read books that much anymore or spend long winter evenings socializing with each other. Now they got the ultimate time waster - television. Just with one press of a button on your remote control and you are already engulfed with entertainment. If your life lacks romance - switch on the soaps and you will be entangled in more love affairs than you can handle. If you need to add some extra realism into your daily routine - follow dozens of reality shows which are as real as a Loch ness monster. Nobody can withstand the \"greatness\" that is television .\n But I think that the entertainment comes at the high price. First of all, those who spend most of their time in front of the silver screen tend to have back problems from constantly sitting or lying in an unhealthy manner. Secondly, if you spend too much time watching TV, and furthermore if you do it in a dark, poorly lit room you soon may need to visit your eye doctor and get some glasses. Furthermore, doing nothing else and watching already given images deprives ones imagination and ability to fantasize, though this can be avoided if the from time to time spends some time with a book. And finally, some people, especially little children can get heavily addicted to it and start forgetting their own duties so they could spend more time with \"the magic box\".\n In conclusion, while TV isn't really bad itself, people started abusing it and depending on it way to much. There is no sin in watching the news, catching your favorite TV show or some movie from time to time, but when people start spending more than half of their free time lying around and letting the television do the thinking for theirselves, that is really sad .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "304_LTVY5022.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n\nTelevision is a never-ending source of different information. Through the TV set screen we are reached by different local news or worldwide news about the current major events, politics, entertainment, sports and various commercials. From the first sight television could be called a great source of knowledge and entertainment, however it could also be called an effective time consuming machine or a perfect device for psychology formation what regards children or teenagers. The main point is that television has become the opium of the masses. They get not only addicted but also influenced in different ways. According to Marx, some time ago religion took the same position in the society. Nowadays, television has taken a very important place in people's daily life and most of them cannot even imagine their lives without it. Watching TV, they become a part of consumer society, they let their children be influenced by different harmful programmes and finally even adults get tricked or also influenced in different ways .\n First of all, the commercials shown on television should be put under consideration. Everyone has experienced that annoying feeling when the favourite programme or some compelling movie is interrupted by forever-lasting commercials. Although people do not really plan to watch them, they are still being introduced to the unnecessary information. So this way they are forced to watch even what they do not want. Moreover, what is introduced in the commercials, which take an incredibly lot of time in the day programme, is different advertisement of a great range of goods, medicines, various services, concerts, etc. Basically, various commercials that are shown on television grow consumer society and increase their demands and wishes. These few minutes' presentations of some kind of goods or services give promises that usually are never fulfilled, however they still programme humans' brains to wish, buy, consume but never satiate. Thus the commercials is one of the most evil and time consuming part of the television .\n Another point to be dwelled upon is the influence of television over the children and teenagers. They get used to what they see and this way they become rather indifferent to the violence or cruelty as they watch such scenes in the movies or news reports. Human brains that cannot distinguish reality from the artificial actions and views accept everything as real and make those admissible. This way children and teenagers or even adults with minor mental disorders or those who are very ductile might be extremely touched by violent or other kind of highly emotive scenes and their psychology might be irreversibly damaged or later they might repeat the same action in reality. Thus the television becomes one of the tools that increase the rate of crimes .\n Beside the commercials that grow consumer society and the influence made upon the infants, the television makes people believe the artificial world created in the screens to be reality. Sitting at the TV people try to forget their problems and run away from their current reality. However their problems cannot be solved while they are sitting in front of the box doing nothing. What they get is addiction that is very harmful to their psychology. This way of relaxing does not prove, as watching TV brains still have to work the same as they did at work, because they cannot distinguish reality from the artificial world. By nature, brains react the same way and they do the same work as if they were experiencing the real events. Therefore, people after relaxing at the TV set feel even more exhausted. Besides, watching TV sooner or later becomes a great addiction no matter of what age the TV lover is. This way the freedom is restricted and no profit is made .\n To sum it up, television rules people and take their time. Shortly, it becomes like opium and the person that is addicted to it needs it constantly and the need to increase the doses appears. However, the main points while discussing this mischief would be commercials that contribute to the dramatic growth of the consumer society, the influence on the children and teenager's psychology which is in the process of forming and finally people begin to believe that they will escape their problems while watching TV, though addiction is the only thing they get .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "305_LTVY5024.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Money is the root of all evil \n\nIn the words of the old song \"Money is the root of evil\" the reality of today's world is revealed. As we can see from the contemporary situation there is a big difference between people who are wealthy and those who exist below the poverty line. The question is, what is better, to be wonderfully wealthy or absolutely poor? In my opinion, there are three main points why money can be called the root of evil. First of all, people who have a lot of money also have power that can be used for bad purposes. Second, people who are very rich feel a constant need for more money which can grow to obsession. Third, people who are rich have to worry about how to protect their money. Therefore, it is better to focus on a different goal in life than money .\n An important point that shows the evilness of money is that people who are rich possess the power over other people which can be used for the bad intentions. First, they may try to use their superiority for bad purposes, for example, corruption. People who have a lot of money may think that they are better than others because of their wealth. Therefore, they can use their money while trying to take a better position in politics. In Lithuania it is quite common to hear about similar cases when wealthy people try to buy themselves a better position. Moreover, there are many cases when rich people pay money to get a permit to do something that is illegal for ordinary people. Second, people who have a lot of money and therefore feel powerful may want to conquer those who have no money. For example rich countries like America or Russia possess large amounts of money and therefore they dictate the rules for the rest of the world. These countries may also want to conquer and appropriate the resources of other countries that can not fight back. Hence, money gives power that, if used for evil intentions, can cause serious problems .\n Another point that proves the words \"money is the root of evil\" is that people who already possess great wealth always seek to get more money. This obsessive need for money can lead them to some troubles. First, wealthy people usually try to increase their income. However, this may be done by violating the rules of law. That is because people who are wealthy feel almighty and think that money can save them from any situation. Second, people who have a lot of money and are always trying to get some more can never feel happy. They feel constant need to increase their income so they forget more important things in life. Such people can not feel happiness because of their obsession. They concentrate on their businesses and therefore neglect their families and friends. Although they are successful in their careers, such people end up lonely and sad because their personal lives are unfulfilled .\n The third point that shows the dark side of money and wealth is that people who are rich have to worry about how to protect their money and therefore they start to feel suspicious about everything. First, rich people may loose their friends because of their paranoia. Such people can not trust anyone and therefore they end up alone and unhappy. Second, because of constant worrying about their wealth, they get stressed and experience many health problems that can even lead to death. Third, people who have no money usually are much happier, because they have nothing to worry about. For example, people who live in the countryside are much more relaxed, because they are constantly surrounded by healthy environment which protects them from unnecessary stress. People from the countryside do not possess great wealth. However, they feel satisfied with what they have .\n In conclusion, all these examples show that money is not key to happiness. On the contrary, money is the root of evil. People who are very rich usually possess power over others that can be used for bad purposes. Moreover, constant need of increasing the amount of money can lead people to obsession and leave them alienated from their families and friends. Finally, big money makes people feel constant stress while thinking of how to protect it .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "306_LTVY5026.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Money is the root of all evil \n\nIt is an old saying that good women had vanished when money appeared. This is an ironic expression but no one will argue that it contains at least a little bit of true. Everything centres around money and it is the biggest power in the world. Moreover, it is the evil as well. Some ideas about it will be discussed in the essay, such as what influence does money on people lives and on society in general .\n\nTo begin with, it can be said that all problems start where circulates big money. It should be said that everything appears from the individuals' psychology and thinking. The two examples could be given to prove this idea: a poor family with the very low budget lives in the miserable conditions and thinks how to raise their children, let to the school and pay taxes. Of course, from the surface it could sound like a very big problem but to dig in this family individuals' inner emotions and feelings this problem decreases instantly. Why? They know how to fight for the place under the sun, their relationships with each other are stronger, and the most important thing, they know that they do not have nothing but the family. This type of people learn to appreciate little things, and to share their happiness with the others. Another example is about the rich family. They have a lot of money and can satisfy all their needs, even if they are much higher than ordinary people. This type of people loose the burden of shortage but on the other hand, they loose the moral appreciation of non material things, such as love, respect and assistance. They begin to live in disrespect, spending their days counting the money. What way of living would you choose? Here goes the question but the answer depends on each individual .\n\nTo go further, the society is very highly corrupted nowadays. Last week the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 was held in Moscow. Lithuania won the permission to perform in the final. Everybody was so eager to hear that Lithuania would be at least at big five. Unfortunately we took 23 place from 25 performers. The song was very strong and well done, so the one answer must be that the decision about the winner was taken despite the all European countries voting. This was only one example from millions. Each person have faced corruption in his life. The worst thing that the handful of bureaucrats will do everything for their own comfortable future and many people will be left to stand on their own two feet after the big deception. I am writing not to judge or to defame someone but I believe that many people would agree with me .\n\nIn conclusion, this saying \"more money more problems\" would perfectly suit in this context. There is lot of evil in the world, such as disrespect, murder, illnesses, diseases and much more. Where did it come from? When did it start? Despite all things that do not depend on human beings the rest woes lie on the shoulders of money keepers .\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "307_MDCM1163.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should criminals be imprisoned or rehabilitated? \n \n\tWe live in 21th century where the criminal acts are increasing more and more these days. We live in society where the social norms are different for all people, it depends of people character which way of life to live to be good or to be bad. The kind of life some of the people live is really dangerous for other people, because they made such terrible acts that are not normal in any society it the whole world. The most important thing is that more and more people are included in the every day fights with crtiminals and they tried to diminished the criminal acts to minimum .\n\tCriminals should be imprisoned not rehabilitated because they made such terrible acts like murders, kidnapping, they stole things that are not in their own property they sell drugs they are capable to affect and to destroy people's lives. They are the bad guys in one society which is destroyed day by day by doing bad things. The criminals acts in the whole world are really huge and they are everywere. They must be imprisoned and they should be there because their acts must be punished really bad, because being rehabilitated is a gift for them is not a punishment, no matter of their mental health they must be punished. The best punishment for them is to be faced with all bad things they made to destroy people and the society in which we live, also they should be imprisoned and to have a chance to feel all the bad things on their own skin .\n\tTo be rehabilitated means to help them to solve their mental problems and then to start doing bad things like before. There are small numbers of rehabilitated criminals that after they complete their medical tritments they stop doing the things they made before and they are transformed in completly new persons, that is not the case with most of them. Huge number of criminals in the world that are rehabilitated are making more terrible acts that are of big disadvantage for other people. They are capable of doing such terrible things that are distroying the lives of the normal people and change sometimes the norms of living in health and save society . \n\tIn conclusion, like I said it is really bad way of punishment to send some of the criminals to rehabilitation and to give them the opportunity to help them, without first to have the chance to face them with their acts. In some cases where the criminal acts are not so terrible the rehabilitation can help and can try to made good people of them, but in most cases the only punishment for such acts like murdering and selling drugs, kipnapping is facing them with the acts in the prison. If we want to have a heathy and safe society for all of us we should try to face with the criminals and to be sure that they are going to have the punishment they deserve .\n" + }, + { + "title": "308_MDCM2022.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \n\tNowadays money is a powerful \"tool\" used by people all over the world. Since forever, the lust for power and money overpowers people and makes them do things they never though they would do. However, money itself does not posses any evil characteristic, but people's inability to control their greediness does. People are given a chance to choose what they will do with their money, and they can use it to help the people in need or fund a research.\n\tFirst of all, money can be used to help people who need it most. We constantly hear \"cries for help\" by people who were hit by an earthquake, tsunami or other natural catastrophe. In such instances people collect money and goods that will be used to help the people in need to re-build their houses, or repair the damage that has been done on their property. Additionally, there are many charities that help orphans, people who battle cancer, victims of domestic violence etc. These charities are funded by wealthy people, celebrities etc. whose money is used to help the people who desperately need it. It is commonly known that chemotherapy is an expensive treatment and unfortunately not all cancer patients can afford it. That is why the existence of such charities is vital for the survival of many people battling cancer. Another example of how money can be used for good causes is the donations/scholarships given to students with low income who are intellectually smart and want to continue their education . \n\tSecond of all, researches are very important when it comes to discovering new things, and are fundamental for the development of our world. Researchers are constantly working on projects, and very often these projects are funded by influential people with \"deep pockets\". Such cases are the donations made by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt who donated to \"Global Action for Children\", \"Doctors without Borders\", \"Namibia Red Cross Action Program\" and plenty more.\n\tHowever, there are many people who blame money for people's inability to control their lust. Blinded by the power that comes along with money, they are ready to abandon their moral and ethical values. Those people believe that money can buy you everything, even happiness and love. But, if money bring the worst in people and make them lose their humanity, their ability for empathy and love, then why there are so many examples of people who used their money for good causes? That is why we cannot say that money itself is the problem, but it depends on the person, how they depict the world and how much control they have over themselves . \n\tAll in all, I believe that money itself is not causing harm, but people who are unable to control themselves and their greediness. Unfortunately, nowadays people are more and more interested in acquiring wealth, than the harm they are doing to themselves and the people around them. I believe the world would be a better place if people started to re-question their decisions and behaviour instead of blaming it all on the \"green pieces of paper\". \n" + }, + { + "title": "309_MDCM2024.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \n\tNowadays, more and more people aim towards enrolling at a university and pay a lot of money in the hopes of obtaining a degree. Everyone considers higher education essential for having a successful career. However, the question of whether this higher education actually helps students be prepared for the real world or not remains. It is not as simple to put into practice what one has learned at the university as students believe. The important thing is to learn how to adapt to a new environment. Thus, this essay will look at several concepts, such as the economic aspect of studying at a university, the importance of practice, and the skills that universities should provide the students with .\n\tAmy Gutmann, a political theorist, stresses the economic aspect of being enrolled in a university. According to her, students who graduate from a university, i.e. those who have a university diploma have higher chances of employment than those who do not. Even though most recent graduates are not convinced by this and consider universities as a waste of time and especially money, the evidence which Gutmann found proves that they are mistaken. The annual income of employed graduates is almost two times higher than that of the employees who have only finished secondary school. Thus, they will regain the money that they have invested in university. Nevertheless, Amy says that she is aware of the fact that \"few people are so economically privileged that they can afford to be motivated solely by the love of learning for its own sake\" [Reference] . Consequently, many students who want to go to higher education cannot do it because of their poor economic situation. Therefore, universities should provide more scholarships, or any kind of financial support, for people that come from families with low income .\n\tOther important concept is the practice that students should have. University degrees are, in most cases, theoretical, and the theory alone is not enough to prepare students for life after graduating. Larry Alvarado's opinion on what the focus of universities should be, is clearly seen in his statement: [Quotation] [Reference] . \n\tThe students must feel prepared for life after graduating. That is the reason why universities should strive to provide internships for students, where they can apply their knowledge of theory into practice. The idea is that, while studying, students do not feel disconnected from the real world. In spite of the fact that there is a year or two, provided by the universities, when students can put their learning outcomes into practice, that is not enough for certain professions. Unfortunately, not many universities try to bring about changes in that field. The diplomas continue being theoretical and mainly useless to students once they have graduated . \n\tThe fact that universities do not prepare students as much as they should is evident in a research that Peter D. Hart conducted on behalf of \"The Association Of American Colleges And Universities\". In this research, recent graduates stress the need for developing certain skills that will be necessary for whatever profession they decide to choose. In every profession, regardless of what university degree students have, the ability to be able to work in teams, to think critically, but also to communicate, both orally and in writing, are skills that are needed and valued the most [Reference] . This phenomenon is also present in the universities in the Republic of Macedonia, where the students have similar thoughts. Being a student, I am familiar with this, and I consider such skills as crucial for further development of each individual in the real world. These skills should serve as a supplement to theoretical knowledge, and being able to apply them will more likely lead to success. However, little attention is paid to these skills in most universities, rather the focus is just on the theory .\n\tTo sum up, despite the importance of theoretical knowledge, it should not be the only aspect on which universities focus their attention. There should be internships provided by the universities, and with them students would be provided with the opportunity to transfer their knowledge of theory into practice. The degree that students get should be relevant, and worth the time and money spent in order to get it. It will have value if universities' central point is not just on information about the specific field of studies of students, but also on certain skills, such as teamwork skills, critical thinking skills, communication skills. If all of these things mentioned above are implemented by universities, the degree will have greater value, not just to students, but also to their future employers .\n\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "310_MDCM2030.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \n\tFor hundreds of years women have aimed for women's rights. Feminism at its core is mainly about empowering women, about the belief that women and men should have equal rights and opportunities. The term feminism can be used to describe a cultural, economical as well as political movement for establishing legal protection for women. In a literal way, man rule the world, but this made sense a thousand years ago when the physical strength was the most important attribute for survival. However, today we live in a very different world . \n\tMalala Yousafzai, the youngest Nobel Peace Prize laureate, is a feminist. She is a Pakistan activist for the right of education, especially female education. Malala began writing a blog under a pseudonym because of the Taliban attacking girls' schools. After she revealed herself, she continued to speak up and took action on global education by opening a school for Syrian refugee girls in Lebanon. She shared her father's passion for learning. Malala in one of her interviews said [Quotation] [Reference] She is considered as a very influential person and Pakistani Prime Minister said that Malala is the pride of Pakistan.\n\tChimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a Nigerian novelist, who won a lot of awards, famous for her book \"We Should All Be Feminists\" influenced women including famous people such as the singer Beyonce. Parts of the speech from a TED talk are sampled in Beyonce's song, sharing a very important message . [Quotation] [Reference] .\nChimamanda calmly, consciously and convincingly encourages women. Chimamanda also encourages men to actively think about gender, arguing that society brings boys to think that way.\n\tWomen who have also done a lot in the field feminism and are considered as the most important feminist icons are Coco Chanel, whose designs helped to liberate women through fashion in pants and suits; Rosie the Riveter, representing women who have fought in the WWII and reminding us of the incredible female efforts during the 40's; Eva Peron in the 40's who founded the \"Female Peronist Party\" and helped women the right to go to university; Bell Hooks, an American author known for her works \"Ain't I a Woman?\", \"Black Women and Feminism\", \"The Feminist Theory\", in which she declared [Quotation] ; Coretta Scott King, mainly known for her marriage with Martin Luther King Jr. who also helped found NOW (National Organization for Women), Virginia Woolf, arguing that talented female writers face impediments to fully realizing their potentials: social inferiority and lack of economic independence for which she proposed five hundred pounds a year and a private room for female writers; Hillary Clinton, Oprah, Angelina Jolie, Emma Watson.\n\tAll these strong women are making changes since the beginning of the feministic movement. It is important to pay attention to the ambition behind it rather than the word itself. Both women and men are responsible for making this come true. Women should fight for equal rights for men and men should fight for equal rights for women. I do not agree that feminists have done more harm than good. On the contrary their contribution is remarkable and liberating. Thanks to them, women are able to speak and raise their daughters in a world deprived from prejudices against women.\n" + }, + { + "title": "311_MDCM2032.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \n\tEducation is one of the main sources in every person's intellectual development, affecting our lives in one way or another. Moreover, it still remains as a silent issue of discussion with less or no effort done to understand our educational system and the presenting of knowledge to young and imaginative human minds. In comparison to the past, more and more of the young people decide to dedicate themselves to their studies and intellectual improvement, believing that the money and the effort put in it will be of great importance in their future life as young educated individuals. The main issue which is going to be discussed further on is whether the university degrees are of real value, and whether they prepare people for the real world.\n\tTo begin with, all of us are aware of the purpose of the university studies. What the real question is, whether the studies succeed in realizing the purpose. The university students are forced to memorize information, but what they really need in order to be prepared for the real world is personal growth training, financial management training, communication training, emotional intelligence training, and healthy living training. Some people believe that the university is not place where life skills should be learned, but rather an educational institution which prepares students for job-careers. The problem is that statistics show that 53.6% of college graduates, under the age of 25, are out of work or underemployed, which is yet another thing to bear in mind when thinking of the real value of the university degree.\n\tDavid Ellis in his article for \"The Telegraph\" discusses the way universities teach students to fail in \"real life\". [Quotation] [Reference] He says that a degree is nothing more but a proof that you wanted to learn, can learn and will keep learning. It shows your mind has been [Quotation] [Reference] . What he tries to say is that the university degree is simply not enough. People make mistakes by encouraging too many students into university, and at the same time forcing them to believe that the purpose of the university is entirely professionally oriented.\n\tThe previous article goes hand in hand with Aliezah Hulett TED-Ed Club talk on the topic \"Preparing Students for the Real World\". She raises questions as: \"Are teenagers today prepared for life after school?\" The school system and parents should be working together to raise educated students. Schools should be accountable for instructing students to be knowledgeable about the world around them. It should be a joint effort between parent and educator to train the next generation of children to be independent and prepared for the real life. One of the topics discussed is whether university student would be able to handle the sense of responsibility and maturity that comes from having a job. When someone puts their head down to achieve their goals by themselves, as an independent adult, their outcome will reflect what they learned in both college and \"real life school\". Similarly the Northeastern University economists Paul E. Harrington and Andrew M. Sum argue the most pressing problem facing the university graduates today: overeducation on one hand and malemployment on the other. The reality is that more and more college graduates are stuck in low wage and low skilled jobs . [Quotation] [Reference] Also, this article contains an example of a certain graduate student S.F. who got a degree in Network and information-technology administration, and after he couldn't find a job, the Eastern Michigan University gave him a job as a custodian in the student center. This very example makes us consider the value of the university degree and ask ourselves whether the degree is really needed in order to become successful and financially stable in the future or it is just a way to manipulate the hard working students and make business based on their effort and hard work.\n\tAll in all, the university degree is not an infallible way for safe and great career as many people consider. When students enter the real world, besides the knowledge gained from education, they need wisdom and specific skills that are not offered in our educational system. Therefore the universities do not produce real-life prepared students and the university degree is not valuable in a way of guaranteed job or career opportunity. The world demands people who can think creatively and differently, take opportunities to compromise their true dreams and hopes, and grow a personality by breaking the boundaries of the everyday teaching.\n" + }, + { + "title": "312_MDCM2033.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \n\tUniversities that want their students to be successful should introduce practical training in their programmes. The number of students entering some of the universities in their country increases more and more every year. Students are keen on studying further what they are interested at most. They choose what their profession or vocation will be. However, things are not as simple as they seem. Most universities lack practical training. Therefore, students are engaged in studying theory only. Later on, when they finish university and look for a suitable job, students are not very skillful at what they are doing. In this essay I will show evidence that university degrees are of very little value and do not provide students with the necessary knowledge in real world.\n\tFirst of all, the professor William T. Vukowich who teaches Contracts, Bankruptcy and Commercial Law at the Georgetown University Law Centre, argues that law school graduates lack practical training. The students need more practice in regard to legal tasks and court procedures. He says that [Quotation] [Reference] . Moreover, Vukowich [Reference] says that law schools put an emphasis on theoretical studies. He states some factors that influence this lack of practice. First, he says that the physical environment in the law schools is one of the major factors that have an impact on student's lack of practical training. Most law schools have moot court rooms, unfortunately designed only for lectures and not for mock trials. Second, the intellectual environment of the university is also crucial. Vukowich suggests that [Quotation] [Reference] . He says that one of the major problems in creating conditions for practical training is that it will require a lot of individualized treatment. Teaching in large court rooms seems easier and does not require individual attention.\n\tSecond of all, Jeffrey J. Selingo is a professor of practice at Arizona State University. In his article for The Washington Post, Selingo interviewed Marie Artim, who is the vice president of talent acquisition at Enterprise. Enterprise is a company which recruits college athletes. Artim says that athletes possess transferable skills . [Quotation] [Reference] . Selingo also says that bosses have complaints in regard to colleges which do not prepare students for the global job market. He elaborates on a study which shows discrepancy between what the businesses need and the readiness of the college students. In this study, only 25% of the employers say that students were creative and innovative . [Quotation] [Reference] .\n\tThird of all, the research \"How Should Colleges Prepare Students to Succeed in Today's Global economy?\" was conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. The research included interviews with employers, graduates of a four-year college and some business executives. Some of the executives are critical of the education that is offered to the students. They say that education is theoretical and does not prepare students for real world. Some of the comments of the executives are: [Quotation] [Reference] . Yet another statement in regard to the preparation for real world that colleges offer to students is: [Quotation] [Reference] .\n\tAll in all, there are many evidences and real-life examples in which graduates lack practical skills. Their knowledge is only theoretical and do not prepare students for what is necessary at the position they apply to. Every university should prepare new programmes in which the emphasis would be on practice, not on theory. The arguments of professors Vukowich and Selingo and the research of the Peter D. Hart Association are worth considering if universities want to improve their programmes. Thus, they should focus on developing student's skills rather than offering them theory. Otherwise, the degrees would not be as valuable as they present them to be . \n" + }, + { + "title": "313_MDCM2035.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \n\tIt was back in 1844 when Karl Marx wrote his famous and most quoted statement \"religion is the opium of the masses\". Nowadays there is still controversy regarding what he really meant by it. In my opinion, he saw religion as a means of controlling the masses. Were Max alive at the end of 20th century, he would have replaced religion with television. In this essay, I will discuss why television can be seen as the opium of the masses, focusing on three main reasons: coinage and real meaning of \"couch potato\", essentiality of television for maintaining social infrastructure, and promotion of culture of violence and fear.\n\tTo begin with, it was the appearance of television that brought about the coinage of \"couch potato\". Nowadays, the image of a typical TV viewer is that of a couch potato: [Quotation] [Reference] . In most of the cases \"couch potato\" is only associated with the negative influences it has on health: weight gaining, increasing the chances of diabetes and heart diseases, alcohol and drug abuse. Nevertheless, there is more to couch potato than just negative health influence. It affects both life and mind of a person. For instance, it might cause loneliness and a change in well-established habits . [Quotation] [Reference] . Or in other words, one might be regularly skipping family dinner in order not to miss their favorite show, or preferring to stay at home and watch television rather than go out and socialize. What is more, [Quotation] [Reference] . Alarmingly, a \"couch potato\" person may be rightly called a hypnotized person. Studies have shown that while watching television, the mind is affected and alpha waves are produced by the brain, leaving the person in a light trans.\n\tSecondly, hypnotized population is what governments need in order to maintain the well established social infrastructure. A study conducted by Krugman proved that while watching television only the right hemisphere of the brain is active. With the left brain hemisphere numb, the brain [Quotation] [Reference] . In addition, another study by Thomas Mulholland shows that alpha waves are produced by the brain after only 30 seconds of watching television. Alpha brain waves are [Quotation] [Reference] . Conversely, watching television is neurologically analogous to staring at a blank wall [Reference] . Both studies imply that television brainwashes viewers' brains and acts as a kind of opium, a drug essential for maintain social infrastructure. Brainwashed viewers do not critically judge or question what is presented to them. Governments might broadcast information and as much of it, as they think the citizens should know. As an example here, I would like to mention the current situation in my country. It is a turbulent period in Macedonia and every day people are protesting on the streets. However, on the vast majority of national TV stations the protests are not mentioned, and when they are, they are referred to as \"vandalism\". \n\tLast, but not least, television can be used to promote culture of violence and fear. Television as the opium of the masses does not only make people uncritical towards what they see and hear, but also by broadcasting a lot of violence and violent-related news, it makes people afraid. This culture of violence puts the people in constant state of fear: fear of murder and assault, fear of airplane crashes, fear of violence, especially violence amongst children, and fear of cultural domination. For instance, during the time of Ronald Reagan's presidency in America, the government sponsored TV commercials that, [Quotation] [Reference] . What is more, airplanes are often presented as an unsafe mode of transport, even though [Quotation] [Reference] . Another fear that the television has produced is the fear of differences between people. Racial, ethnical, and religious stereotypes, as well as stereotypes based on sexual orientation, and occupational groups are often presented on television . [Quotation] [Reference] .\n\tTo sum up, television can be rightly regarded as the opium of the masses. From the 20th century onwards it had transformed people into \"couch potatoes\" and it has spread a culture of violence and fear among the people. Moreover, by manipulating and presenting selected information it had been used to maintain the social infrastructure. No doubt, if Marx were alive at the 20th century, he would have replaced religion with television in his famous statement.\n" + }, + { + "title": "314_MDCM2037.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \n\tMoney is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men to produce them. In the world we live in, one needs money in order to survive and be happy. Nowadays, it is impossible to live without money. Money is the key to getting most of what we need and want. People want money for various reasons, for surviving, for security, status, to be powerful etc. It is factual that money gives people power to succeed and to get what they want. However, sometimes excess power is used is a wrong way, which creates evil. In my opinion, money is not the root of all evil but human beings with their evil thoughts and actions, and in order to support my opinion I will elaborate on my ideas about how money affects society, how important it is and does it really make us happy.\n\tFirstly, it is clear that money is something very important. People need it in order to achieve their life's goals and supports, because most of the things in the world are related to money. People need money for their health care, because they can't resolve their health problems without money. They use money to buy food in order to provide nutrients to their body. People need money in order to study. For example, if a student has money, he or she can buy books, newspapers and computers to research and gain a lot of knowledge and information. So, if people have money they will feel more comfortable and confident to solve many difficult problems in their lives, especially in the areas of health, daily needs and education . \n\tSecondly, money is not everything but it's something to make our life easier. But money has its own limitations too. Some might say that money makes them happy. But is it true? Because you use money in order to buy something but can you buy everything? We use money to buy material things which might make us happy. For example, someone might buy the phone of their dreams and be happy but is it true happiness? We can buy a lot of thing with money but we can't buy love, happiness, courage, discipline, manners, morals, trust and respect . [Quotation] says Catherine Sanderson, a psychology professor at Amherst College, [Quotation] . [Quotation] notes Dan Gilbert, a psychology professor at Harvard University and the author of the book Stumbling on Happiness. Money can give us power but also can make us selfish and lonely . \n\tThirdly, money itself it's not an evil, it is harmless. In fact evil comes from money users, that are we, human beings. Money is labelled \"an evil\" because of our thoughts and actions. Because of money a lot of crimes occur as robbery, theft, burglary. People are willing to commit crimes because of their greed. They desire wealth, status and power. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins and people do many evil things in order to get rich. The Apostle Paul, in his first letter to his young disciple, Timothy, had this to say: [Quotation] [Reference] . This verse is often misquoted as saying \"Money is the root of evil\" but it's not money itself the root of all kinds of evil but \"the love of money\" which is greed. Wealth is morally neutral, there is nothing wrong with money, or the possession of money. However, when money begins to control us that's when trouble starts . \n\tTo conclude with, I think evil is not caused by money. Money looks like an evil because it is used by \"evil\" people to accomplish their \"evil\" plans. People themselves are considered as the root of all evil and money is only a \"victim\". It doesn't mean that all people are evil, I believe in humanity, that everyone is born pure and good. However, evilness is present and it is up to us, humans, to decide whether we will choose to use money for good purposes or let the money use us for the evil ones . \n" + }, + { + "title": "315_MDCM2040.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \n\tIn the past, religion was the force that controlled people's lives, thoughts, customs. They obeyed every rule and were convinced that the church has the ultimate power over them. People were blinded, and the church dominated their lives. The church, for example in medieval times, had great wealth, political power and influence over community life, art, architecture and education. The middle ages are quite often called the Age of Faith because religion was so pervasive in European society. All in all, in medieval times people didn't see things reasonably and were quite blinded. As Karl Marx put it: [Quotation] [Reference] . However, that stays in the past and another opium for the masses was discovered - television. Television replaced the religion, but it has quite the same purpose - to make masses subordinate and believe In what they see on TV.\n\tTo begin with, television is a medium that is intended for large audience recipients. People around the world are constantly in touch with the presence of the mass media. What is more, every child nowadays is born with computer and television next to it. We are totally occupied by the new technologies and new electronic gadgets, and eventually we can't think with our brains as the time comes, we would start believing in what we see, which is not always right, according to the eminent scientist that grasp this concept in their studies.\n\tSecondly, mass media, including radio, TV and newspapers, have huge influence in determining and shaping people's ideas. I personally think that mass media controls our mind simply because of the commercials, the movies, and songs we see every day. If you see a beautiful girl with nice clothes and wel shaped body, you would like to have that dress and her body! Some experts claim that hidden subliminal psychology is being used in the modern media industry to achieve the desired results with their video materials. These have changed our lives to a great degree. First, they affect peoples' views on fashion. We wear clothes that may look like what famous actors or singers had on recently. What we watch on TV, radio, what we read in newspaper and magazines affect us in a great amount. When choosing what to wear, most of us have a tendency to choose what is said or shown to be fashionable by famous people. Furthermore, it is evident that the mass media also plays an important part in our attitude towards life in general. Some people complain that the young people today tend to be more lazier and more violent and aggressive and feel they need gadgets as much as possible. This is simply the result of bad programs shown on TV all the time, websites with no control whatsoever and even the parents' carelessness. Some parents allow their children to surf the web, without noticing that on Internet there are challenges which the young have little experience how to deal with them. People, especially young adults, always have an idol and they tend to imittate what their idols do no matter if these things are good and desirable or bad.\n\tThirdly, the saddest thing that happens while we watch TV is that we become more and more subordinate, we believe in what we see and we don't develop the critical thinking. As Bill Hicks put it: [Quotation] What is more, studies suggest watching television for longer periods changes the very structure of a child's brain and decreases their verbal abilities. Even much worse effects could possibly exist: although a cause-and-effect connection is hard to prove, higher rates of obesity, antisocial behavior and mental health problems are in correlation with the hours spent in front of the TV.\n\tTo conclude, mass media (TV) is a powerful tool used to manipulate the masses by the ruling class. It defines what is normal and acceptable and shapes people's opinions and attitudes. What is not presented on the TV channels is regarded as unimportant. There are numerous events and things that happen in the world, but if TV companies don't think masses should see that, they don't broadcast that. Television definitely controls the masses, however it is our right to choose whether to watch it or not.\n" + }, + { + "title": "316_MDCM2041.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \n\tOne of the most frequently quoted and paraphrased statements of German philosopher Karl Marx is \"religion... is the opium of the masses.\" [Reference] The quotation is taken from the introduction of his posthumously published work \"A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right\". The introduction written in 1843 was published in 1844 in Marx's own journal \"Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher\". People are inclined to be somewhat religious and spiritual. Religion offers an easy escape from reality, it presents as the one good thing that makes life worth living and it definitely helps to take the pain away from the struggles of life. In this essay we will look at the thing that make television the opium of the masses in the 20th and even the 21st century .\n\tMarx understood that religion served a purpose in society, but that purpose didn't hold to be true. Religion teaches moral, values and beliefs that a society will damage. At the time, opium was seen as a painkiller, so one interpretation of his quote is that people turn to religion to ease the pain of their everyday struggles. The basis of Marx's argument is that humans ought to be led by reason and that religion masks the truth and misguides believers. He believed that when society and life are viewed through the prism of religion, they are so blinded that they cannot see the realities of life. He considered religion to be a false hope and comfort to the poor. He realized that the poor used religion as something that brings comfort in their situation, thus prolonging the process of alienation . [Quotation] [Reference] \n\tNowadays, most people spend more time watching television than going to Church or praying. Some people make heroes out of people on TV. TV obviously shows people what they want, but at the same time it teaches them nothing. It provides a perfect escape from the real world, just as religion did before. More and more people talk about soap operas, quiz shows and advertisements. Advertisements make people materialistic and at the same time unhappy about themselves and the things they have. The fact that people take TV as reality is worrying and it might be said that TV is the blind fold of the 20th and 21st century . \nOn the other hand, not all TV is bad. Television is just a medium like the radio and the internet. Every one of us enjoys a certain TV show, but we need to be very careful about the thing we expose ourselves to. Many shows present violent, inappropriate, materialistic programs and sometimes children are the main target of these programs. It is obvious that TV is the easiest way for relaxation and entertainment. Moreover, it is the biggest and the quickest source of information. There is nothing wrong with enjoying TV shows or allowing children to watch some TV, but you have to keep in mind that all of us are exposed to a certain propaganda. In his paper Perry Marshal, advertisement expert, wrote the following: [Quotation] [Reference] . \n\tIn conclusion, opiates are a form of escape for many people, much in the sense that religion and even television are. Religion offers hope to people who are in need of such assistance. Faith is something that will ultimately improve their views of a number of issues and that is why it is considered to be an opium of the masses. Television also offers some sort of consolation. People sometimes need an escape from society, but it is very important not to get stuck at some unrealistic, utopian place that only exists on the screen . \n" + }, + { + "title": "317_MDCM3037.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should criminals be imprisoned or rehabilitated? \n \n\tThe obligation of the criminal justice system in every country is to respond to an offender's wrongdoing. The primary role of the system is to arrest the person who has committed a criminal act. Committing a criminal act means that a person has violated the rules of the society and represents a potential threat to reoffend or even hurt innocent people, who must be protected. The first thing towards protecting innocent people and preventing the offenders to perpetrate another crime again is to take them away from the society. However, it is debatable whether criminals should be imprisoned or rehabilitated. Regardless of which solution we choose, we are facing several issues . \n\tEvery properly-working society needs to punish and clearly condemn criminal actions, especially severe and brutal ones. By doing so, we convey the acknowledgement that victims have been wronged and we achieve justice. In reality, it takes months, even years until criminals are being apprehended, taken to court and sentenced. In order to work, punishment must be applied to the maximum intensity. Furthermore, criminals must be sentenced immediately. Otherwise, the effects are temporary and we provide opportunities for other offences to be reinforced. Also, it is important that low-risk offenders be separated from high-risk offenders. If not, long-term contact between the two groups would only increase the risk of recidivism. In my opinion, long prison sentences should be appointed to brutal criminal deeds, such as heavy robberies, armed robberies, human trafficking, drug dealing and smuggling, organized crimes, genocides, murders or multiple murders performed by the same criminals. More so, the committers of these crimes need to be put in a solitary confinement and sentenced with the highest possible punishment. For example, if the average life expectancy is seventy-five years of age and the offender is thirty years old, than the sentence should be forty-five to fifty years long. This way, reoffending more serious crimes in the future will be prevented.\n\tAt the same time, if we rely on punishment only, we fail in making our societies safer. Also, were facing with problems like overcrowded prisons. For less severe criminal actions, longer sentences are associated with higher rates of reoffending. That way, when prisoners return to the societies, the problems multiply. In order to prevent this from happening, we must include rehabilitation as an addition solution to the problem. That is why it is crucially important to treat them as soon as they have been incarcerated.\n\tThe first step towards a successful rehabilitation is thoroughly selected and trained staff and well-organized program. Thus, we can be certain that the highest quality services are delivered to the most complex and challenging people. However, these psychologist are not valued enough, but more, they are being criticized when something goes wrong. The idea of the rehabilitation is improving and reforming a prisoner for a better integration upon his return to the society. The programs for rehabilitation usually include anger management therapy, educational programs, group therapy, workshops, etc. It is hoped that through this process criminals would be less inclined to commit crimes in the future. Its goal is to prevent them from committing another crime by taking away their desire to offend. Rehabilitation should be considered for less serious offenders, especially for first time offenders. We again come upon the issue of overcrowded prisons. Imprisonment, especially elongating prison sentences can cause anger towards the police and the criminal justice system, and these people are highly likely to reoffend after they have been released from prison, many psychologists agree. With rehabilitation psychologists can help criminals improves their behavior. This would be useful for both while serving their time in prison and integrating in the community after the end of their sentence.\n\tAs it can be seen from the preceding examples, rehabilitation has positive effect, but they would have been achieved without previously imprisoning the criminals who committed those crimes. This means that we should encourage rehabilitation more and have a much greater respect towards the people who make these changes happen. Furthermore, we should combine these two solutions. That way, we put criminals aside, we change the violent behavior of offenders and stop them from reoffending, and the most important thing is that innocent people are safe when former prisoners return to the society . \n" + }, + { + "title": "318_MDCM3039.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \n\tEvery man is constantly shaped and influenced by his experiences. I find money the root of all evil for the following reasons: it makes people greedy, creates faulty values, and divides people according to social status.\n\tFirst of all, love of money is a recognized evil, that is born out of an excessive desire for it. There is a famous proverb that says \"Greed begets sin, sin begets death.\" Furthermore, people in developed societies are in a vicious circle. They work hard so that they can earn more money. When they have more money, they spend more. The greed for money increases and they are never satisfied. And then, because they spend more, they have to work even harder. The circle goes round and round.\n\tSecondly, money caused a twisted turn in the real values of life since the times people started using gold and silver for trades. Health, family, friends and moral values were once a priority and not a concept. Marketing and advertising is overwhelming the population presenting idealistic images of high life styles and stressing the materialistic, hindering the spiritual. Therefore, people are subconsciously guided to worry more about the physical appearance of things. For example, with help of money, people undergo thousands of surgeries to gain a look appealing to the advertised standards of beauty. People find enjoyment in expensive comforts and have forgotten about feeding the spiritual, appreciating moments and people. The paradox is that they are losing their health, to pay for things and later on will be losing their money to pay for their health.\n\tLast but not least, there is the problem of dividing people according to social statuses. Society often judges people according to how much money they have, therefore money equals status. Rich and famous people receive better treatment in some institutions than poor. Usually, people of higher social status do not mingle with people of lower social status. People tend to look down on other who have less money than them. An example of this, could be the fact that in the past, marriages between two people of different social status were disapproved. Today, these marriages are always under the question of being out of interest. Moreover, money equals power. Many leaders of nations are completely disregarding the needs of the common people who support them. They manipulate and strive only towards accumulating their wealth.\n\tHowever, many may argue that money isn't the root of all evil. That excess of money could also be used for noble causes. Thus, Bill Gates donates millions of dollars through his foundation to help children in developing countries. These kind of people are guided by noble thoughts. People can argue that even without money, greed still exists and that crime is not triggered only by the possession or lack of money. For example, rape could be a result of lust, and murder a result of a quarrel. Moreover, some people think that money isn't the root of all evil, but rather the lack of money. Money is the result of hard-working process. Also, money motivates people to work smarter and harder. But then again, on the other hand, if there was no money, the lack of it, wouldn't adversely affect anyone. In my opinion, all the fears mentioned only exist because we need ' money ' to buy stuff. And if resources were distributed freely and equally, there would be no need for them.\n\tIn conclusion, the question of money being a good or a bad thing, is debatable, but the fact stands that our world has become a dangerous place to live in, where decency, moral and freedom are just fading concepts that very few of us still remember. On a personal level, we ought to worry less about our image and bear in mind that too much power and wealth steals away piece of mind . \"Being\" and \"doing\" are much more important than \"having\". And ultimately, some evil may not have a lot to do with money, but most money have a lot to do with evil.\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "319_MDCM3040.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should criminals be imprisoned or rehabilitated?\n \n\tA very old issue still raises questions in every criminal justice system - is it better to punish the criminals, or rehabilitate them and give them a chance to change? Retribution versus rehabilitation is an ongoing duel even to this day, while many psychologists and legal workers have had countless debates trying to settle the argument once and for all. Many people might think \"Why is it so questionable? It's obvious that criminals should be punished for their acts!\" But, if it was that simple then it wouldn't baffle experts for decades . \n\tFirst of all, let's determine the difference between prison and rehabilitation; in prison, you lock up the criminal, determine how much time he/she will serve and during that time the authorities will set various punishments, (among which is solitary confinement cell, the one that most of the prisoners fear) to set an example of what will happen if one commits a crime. But, prison holds much darker places than the solitary confinement cell. Very often, the prison guards torment the prisoners, manipulate them into turning against each other which further causes greater problems, all of this because they see themselves as qualified to do as they please just because they have some kind of an authority over the prisoners. And, let's not forget that in prison there are convicts who serve for small thievery, to convicts who raped, killed, etc. Plus, we have prisoners with severe mental illnesses and all three groups are put under one roof, getting the same kind of treatment.\n\tRehabilitation on the other hand, offers the prisoners to become a functional part of the society once they get out. While the majority would say that it is almost impossible to change a criminal mind and expect an ex convict to be a functional part of the society, the Norwegian prison Bastoy Prison Island off the coast of Oslo Fjord proves it wrong. In this prison, the convicts are treated humanely and with respect. The atmosphere is relaxed and they basically function as a \"small society\". According to statistics, the Norwegian prison's reconviction rate is an astonishing 16%, while the European average is 70%, and America's average is 77%. Moreover, besides being humane, pragmatically it's the best for society too since in most cases the convicts get out sooner or later . \n\tYet, there are other problems ahead. Rehabilitation can cost a lot more than ordinary imprisonment, thus making it harder to enforce in poor countries. Furthermore, if you implement the rehabilitation technique in a society where criminals have been punished since the very beginning of that society's justice system, how well will it work? Will it be effective enough? Enforcing rehabilitation instead of retribution in juvenile detention centers could be a small, but important step in introducing such societies with this technique. Year after year it can become accepted as a valid and effective substitute to retribution even in the prisons . \n\tStill, for severe crimes, imprisonment seems like the only way (with strictly professionally trained prison employees, of course). The chances that a former rapist, pedophile or a serial killer can become a functional part of the society are almost equal to zero. So, the best way to create some sort of a balance where the criminal justice system can implement both rehabilitation and imprisonment, is to separate their convicts into those who can function in the society after rehabilitation and those who wouldn't show any changes after rehabilitation. Only that way will they make a change in lowering the criminal rates in their countries.\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "320_MDCM3041.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should criminals be imprisoned or rehabilitated? \n \n\tIt is said that society gets the criminals it deserves. There is no such thing as crime free country, but how criminals are treated may change their lives, the whole system and the country's future as well. Certain approach will give certain results, but what is the right one? Should criminals be imprisoned or rehabilitated?\n\tThere are several names such as prison, detention center, correctional facility, jail, penitentiary etc. all for the same facility in which people are detained by force and sentenced to serve for a certain period due to the seriousness of the crime they had committed. Today's prison system is similar with the old established system centuries ago. Once the state was formed as a civil organization and the written language evolved, codes and rules were set as a legal base for well and rightful society. Every disobedience resulted in legal measure and punishment. Poverty, as a background for most of the crimes committed, is also a reason for the rise of the prison facility. In the past, if people broke the rules, they were supposed to pay a fine to the country, however, because of the great poverty, they were unable to pay the fines and the authorities set the imprisonment as a recompense. Imprisonment, than and still today, stays for punishment, but, not only for punishment - for power and authority as well. It is a way of showing how the country can execute its power by punishing. For instance we can take The Stanford Prison Experiment which is a study conducted by researchers led by Philip Zimbardo, psychology professor, in 1971 at Stanford University, California. This study dealt with the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard, so, half of the participants took the first role, the other half the second. In this paragraph we will focus on the second group, the prison guards, and the effects and the consequences of their role in the study. Professor Zimbardo took only mentally stable and nonviolent students for taking part in his study, but very shortly it was noticeable that the guards started to act really brutally and sadistic towards the prisoners. They insulted them, gave them pointless task to do, harassed them in any possible manner just because so, no need or any sensible reason behind that. This, of course, led to change in the prisoners' behavior - not in the positive way though . [Reference] The importance of this study is that has shown how this type of behavior and surrounding affect prisoners. Even though this is just a study simulating prison life and imprisonment, it is a reflection of reality indeed. Criminals are changed in prison, but for worse, and once they get out of there are even bigger threat than before.\n\tOn the other hand, rehabilitation means restoring something to its original state and when it comes to people it means assisting to return to their normal, healthy life. Rehabilitation is mainly associated with institutions made for people who had an injury, surgery, trauma or suffer from some mental illness and this type of institution led by doctors and professionals help them to recover. Obviously, criminals do suffer from some kind of disturbance since they commit crimes not applicable to the common sense. Rehabilitation will help the criminals to overcome their personal issues, it will help them to socialize again, to cherish the right values and not to be harmful for the people surrounding them. This process is really important in dealing with criminals because it will open a new horizon and opportunities, it will help them during the legal act not to feel only punished and humiliated, but it will make them understand and willful to change. The aforementioned Stanford study was mainly aimed to show the changes in prisoners' behavior and the conclusion was that even mentally stable people in that type of surrounding started to act submissively, to show signs of depression, emotional disorder, to lose their own identity and identify with the prison life. Some of the participants had to leave the study because they could not endure longer and it might have led to permanent health damage. These consequences are the opposite of what the prison's purpose should be. Criminals are people who need help and what should be done is a rehabilitation implementation.\n\tWhen we talk about crimes and the reasons behind, and the purposes for, and the degree of the crime - we can only judge and criticize as passive observers, not being aware that behind every crime lies a mental and emotional disturbance as undeniable core. The long lasting imprisonment practice did not give positive results, maybe a new approach will improve the system and certainly it will benefit society as a whole . \n" + }, + { + "title": "321_MDCM3048.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \n\tThe technology has developed tremendously over the past decade. Thanks to technology our lives are much easier. Transport, for example, is a lot better and much more affordable. Entertainment is another aspect of our lives that has seen a great improvement. Construction industry has also experienced the benefits of the developed technology. However, when we think of technology nowadays we think of smart phones, computers, tablets. This modern technology facilitates our lives. But where are the children in this whole picture. How does it affect them? Technology negatively affects their imagination and dreaming, as well as creativity . \n\tLet's first focus on how children learn. Children notice everything that surrounds them. They notice new ideas, new concepts and try to understand them and construct knowledge of them. Children born in this digital era are surrounded by technology so their brain develops in accordance to these concepts. That is why it is a no surprise that a 3-year old child can use a smart phone or a computer. The statistics show that 90 per cent of the 14-year old children use a mobile phone. Also 56 per cent of the children who are at the age of 10 to 13 years own a phone and even 25 per cent of the children who are at the age between 2 and 5 years have a phone . \n\tThe first point is how technology affects children's imagination and dreaming. In today world of technology there is no need for imagination. If we compare children born a decade ago to children born the past few years, we may notice a difference in their imagination and dreaming. The reason for this being the source of entertainment they had. Let's say toys, for example. They had the opportunity to express their imagination through those toys or even without them. Children used their imagination to entertain themselves. Now the technological inventions are becoming more and more popular and far more interesting to children. Only through one click on the computer or the tablet the children have access to many different ways to entertain themselves. There is no much room for imagination and dreaming here. Everything has been already done for them. What is concerning is that sometimes the parents are those who impose the technology to their children. One excuse for this is to keep them busy and another excuse is that the children do not have another entertainment. This should not be an excuse to impose technology to children because there are many things apart of the technology that can be much more entertaining and at the same time enhance their imagination.\n\tThe second point is the effect technology has on creativity. Studies have shown that creativity is innate, children cannot lose their creativity. However, if it is not looked after, it can be suppressed. The internet offers a great amount of information. New information is uploaded every second. Children know that everything they need is available on the internet. Now since they know where to find what they need, there is no place for creativity. This in turn leads to lack of effort to remember things. Knowing that the necessary information is available on the internet, children do not bother to remember it. There had been a research conducted in 2010 on creativity and the results had been compared to those in 1970s. It had been found out that there was a decrease in American children's creativity. Children in 2010 could not produce as creative ideas as could children back in 1970s . \n\tIn conclusion, technology has a negative effect on children's imagination and creativity. However, children cannot and should not be stopped from their exposure to the technology because technology is not here for a short period of time, it will stay here forever, people cannot escape it so cannot children. That is why children should be led into the technology world carefully. It is certainly that they should be exposed to technology but the technology exposure should be balanced with other types of activities like reading and outdoor games which will stimulate their imagination and creativity and at the same time prepare them for the today technological world.\n" + }, + { + "title": "322_MDCM3056.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \n\tNowadays, people climb on the mountain of society longing for higher positions and power within it. They perceive money as pillars that hold the society and keys that open the golden gardens endowed with power, happiness and stability. The worse thing is that they act wickedly in order to reach the top of that mountain. But, is all this wickedness justifiable? Or Is this strive making humans equal to beasts, craving to sink their teeth into the prey's skin? From this rises another question, Is money the root of all evil? Money causes delusion in people's mind, evokes the deeply rooted avarice which is a dreadful sin and is guiding principle of one's actions and behavior into the world .\n\tThe unquenchable thirst for money makes people avaricious. In the bible Timothy states that [Quotation] [Reference] . This means that if people want more than they have and more than they need, they become covetous. Hipoccrates' epistle to Crateva describes the avarice as a plant that need to be reaped in its root, for all diseases, affecting the human body, to be cured. The dream of gaining money in order to enjoy numberless pleasures, which rich life would offer them, could be depicted as that dreamy dome Xanadu with enchanted gardens, trees and ancient forests, which Colleridge immortalizes in his poem Kubla Khan. Democritus Juniorin his book Anatomy of Melancholy, imposes a question of why would a man work all his life, carry the load of suffering and miseries on his back, live a life like a fool, if he does not gain any pleasure from gaining money . [Reference] Nevertheless, man's eye is never content with what it has, but strive to gain more and that strife makes one avaricious .\n\tMoney imprisons people ' minds and distorts perception by causing delusions. From psychological point of view, our mind creates concepts, developing them into images, which are the fountains of our thinking and believing. Namely, people create a concept in their minds that without money they cannot do anything and what's worse that only money can satisfy their needs. At this point, they become delusional and create some false realm that physical world underlies the basis of living and existence. This reality in which the physical world satisfies the human needs confines human soul reaping it into million pieces. The imprisonment of human mind is also a result of the fact that people [Quotation] . Sanskrit shunya describes this self-centered ignorance empty, meaning that there is no significance or essence in it. It is stated that things are significant if they are connected to everything else. In fact shunya means [Quotation] [Reference] . Nevertheless, money distracts us from the things that make our lives happier such as love, friendship, making us blind without being self - aware of ourselves .\n\tMoney guides one's actions and behaviors, because one's actions [Quotation] - stated Bond in his introduction of the play \"Bingo\". According to him, people use money in order to influence the others around them who are also blinded by the power of the money. He goes on stating that humans do not have natural rights but that these rights are governed by the money . [Reference] Furthermore, money kills the dignity and all human values, because one cannot prosper into the society and gain money while having values and dignity. This means that people's heart need to be corrupted in order to gain money. For example: People due to their sick ambition and aspiration for money and power need to be cruel, to betray, to commit fraud and to kill their way only to become successful. Hence, money creates certain abstract convention, which evoke the animal viciousness within all humans and if someone aspires money she/ he must live by those conventions .\n\tAll in all, money makes people covetous. All people want more and more and this is the root of all miseries, tortures, and remorse. Money is madness of the soul, blindness, plaques of the family, love as Cyprian and Bonaventure describes it. Furthermore, money makes us deluded, confines our soul, and makes us only self-centered, thus separated from the other things existing in the real world. Since we are only self-centered we cannot function, because there is not essence in our existence and we are empty and hollow, according to shunya. We must be connected to the other natural thing in order function. We must become self - aware of who we are and what we are doing in this world; what are the things that truly make us happy and contend? Finally money makes us to behave in particular ways, it is like it puts invisible abstract conventions that we must follow in order to achieve our dreams of becoming successful. But, following these conventions destroys our inner values and our human dignity .\n" + }, + { + "title": "323_MDCM3059.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should criminals be imprisoned or rehabilitated? \n \n\tShould we give the criminals a \"second chance\" and rehabilitate them or should we put them in prison and treat them as they are the worst creatures? This question causes debate during the last centuries. However, every country in the world has its own legal system and the things are different in different countries. Every act of criminal is not the same and there is a difference between criminals.\n\tFrom my personal point of view, there are many, many pros and cons, ins and outs about this debate and I think that is very difficult to make a decision about should we put the criminals in prison or should we send them in some centre of rehabilitation and teach them what is right and what is wrong.\n\tFirstly, I think that we should take in mind the age of the criminals because nowadays we have criminals who do not have 18. Then we should know the mental situation of the criminals and to find the reasons which caused the criminal to commit the act of criminal. Every detail of the life of the criminals can be important to find about the reason of commiting a criminal act. I think that the psychological state of the person is the most important in these cases. And also I think that every prisoner should have the right to see and talk with a psychologist as they have the right to see a lawyer. And when the court is deciding, I think that the information of the psychologist should be taken in consideration. That will help to decide if criminals deserve the chance of rehabilitation or not . \n\tOn the other hand, if I think about the cruelty of the criminalism in some cases I feel furious and I don't think that such kind of criminals deserve rehabilitation. We are witnesses that every day in the world we have murders, terrorism, drug, prostitution, pedophiles, victims of violating, maltreating and abusing, and so many others difficult acts of criminal. And who is responsible for that? Yes, the criminals, criminals who thought they had the power of God to take the lives of the people. Should such people deserve to give them a second chance and rehabilitate? Should they not deserve to pass every day of their lives in prison? We are all furious but we don't have the right to decide about this.\n\tAs I said this debate can not be finished during the last years, people don't have the responses of these questions.\n\tAll in all, I couldn't decide whether the criminals deserve a second chance or not, do they deserve to rehabilitate and to be better people. But, I am sure that they should be punished and they should take the responsibility and accept the decision of the court about the acts they did. Everyone should pay and repent for their sins. We are all humans, we are not God and we do not have the power to do everything we like to do.\n" + }, + { + "title": "324_MDCM3063.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Should criminals be imprisoned or rehabilitated? \n \n\tAfter someone is found guilty of committing a crime, they are bound to spend the next years of their life in jail. But are we right to leave prisoners to decay locked up, with penalties and sanctions as the main objective, or perhaps we should give them access to educational classrooms, creative workshops and activities which would aim at their rehabilitation? Or would such a treatment do more harm than good?\n\tThe criminal justice system costs most of the countries a great amount of money, does not provide rehabilitation, and above all, makes many of the inmates even worse than they were when they were first sent to prison. In fact, many researchers claim that the fact that prisons cause discomfort and unhappiness is the reason why they are unlikely to rehabilitate their population. The current public approach is to be harsh with criminals, which, as mentioned above, sets punishment as the chief purpose of prisons. The result is still a dramatic rise of the number of prisoners, whilst the effect on the crime rates is nearly insignificant. The danger of being sentenced, regardless of the length of the sentence, will not lead to discouragement for anyone who feels certain that they can get away with committing a crime, neither it will discourage those who are incapable of properly judging the consequences of their behavior . \n\tOn the other hand, the main target of rehabilitating the convicts is changing and improving them, so that they would be able rebuild their lives when they are set free. After undergoing such a procedure, it is more likely that they will be less willing to persist with criminal activities. Instead of making the prisoner afraid to break the law, or removing his physical ability to break it, the focus in this case is on taking away the very desire to do wrong . \n\tHowever, this does not imply that felons should not be imprisoned - only that we cannot expect imprisonment itself to change behavior. The sentence should be governed mostly by the gravity of the crime itself. Therefore, it is right to incarcerate criminals who have committed serious crimes, like homicide, and rehabilitation should be an option for minor offenses. Also, first time offenders with milder convictions when only incarcerated, would just be enraged and this would provoke feelings of resentment towards the authorities and those in power. Instead of this, rehabilitation in the sense of guidance and working to help someone, would reshape their behavior and understanding, and later they would more easily adapt to a community . \n\tIn this context, it is important to conclude that there is a need for a system which will be more humane and which will have the necessary qualities to reshape the lives of the criminals, instead simply putting them in a cell. There is a need for programs which will devote a lot of time and effort to attempt to modify individuals' personality characteristics by increasing their self-control or enhance their feeling of empathy. Finally, rehabilitation does not ignore the rest of the community; on the contrary, it places a great value on changing the convict and preventing him from breaking the law again and again . \n" + }, + { + "title": "325_MDCM3065.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \n\tIf one characterizes this century as relying only on reason it is easy to extract imagination and the dreams from the centre and instead leave room for a different era that is the era of science, technology and industrialization which many people believe has deprived young people of any imagination and dreams. One is to believe that success is achieved through measuring the achievement in all the above spheres. However, it does not have to be so if one takes into consideration how these three spheres are interpersonally connected to imagination and dreams. This essay will further scrutinize how each three: science, technology and industrialization, are somewhere connected with imagination and dreams .\n\tIf we take Imagination and science one can clearly see that they are seemingly unrelated. Imagination is taken as being the mere expression of a free thought whilst science is unyielding and rigorous. Science is bounded to fall within the understandable and reachable, in contrary imagination is without any boundaries. Both may seem completely different but what most people cannot see is that they are somewhat connected. One similarity that comes to mind is the balance between the two forces that are struggling tenaciously to achieve something of thought. There is a type of mutual relationship between these two opposites. Namely, science needs imagination to thrive, whilst imagination needs some sort of scientific support to function. If one takes scientists as being people strictly following rules and laws we must also engage with the thought that they also need imagination in the creative process. Also, imagists need to rely on science, if not they will fall in utter chaos. Consequently, imagination seems to be present even with parallel existence of science .\n\tThe question we should be asking here is \"what is technology without the imagination part?\" What I am trying to imply here is that, technology is not just the invention of GPS, gadgets and telephones; it is the process that allows our imagination to transpire into the real world. An author enthusiastic about this theme holds that [Quotation] . To prove that, let me take you to Dick Tracy's cartoons where the wrist watch was also a walkie-talkie which has now become reality incorporated in our smart phones. It is a perfect example of imagination brought to the fore and creating something that we nowadays call a technology process. Take this citation for example [Quotation] . So to conclude, imagination is not lost here either, it is just how we perceive things .\n\tIndustrialization can also be seen as interchangeable with imagination. If we take Slater's spinning machine which he produced from memory, the evidence is clear how imagination played a big role in this industrialization part. Another example are the railroads thanks to which transport of goods and people went swiftly and quickly. Let us take into consideration the imagination of an author such as Charles Dickens and his novel Hard Times. He put the question of industrial society as a subject to what might be entitled as the mobilization of imagination. Thus, proving once again how imagination can be put into practice to elaborate on the theme of industrialization .\n\tTo conclude, science, technology and industrialization have all something in common. Namely, they all emerge from one single force that is our imagination. Maria Montessori stated that [Quotation] . In other words, imagination is the starting point which leads to scientific, technological and industrial breakthrough. Every dream is put into notion through imagination which final product depends on where that force is put into practice. Taking the three evolutionary components into consideration, we can clearly see that all are product of our imagination thus, imagination is not lost even long after the appearance of industry, science and technology .\n" + }, + { + "title": "326_MDCM3068.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \n\tFeminism is a movement which fights for the political, economic and social equality of the sexes. It first appeared in the 19th century in France, the Netherlands, UK and USA. This movement is divided in waves and each wave according to the period it appears fights for a different human right. From its appearance until today feminism has made a great change in the women's way of living. It had obtained many women's rights and is fighting against the oppression in still a great number of countries. Feminists have gained for the women's right to vote, have helped to the sexually abused children who were considered as seducers and not victims and are fighting against pregnancy disrimination. However, today feminism is thought to have done more harm than good and this word and its activists have become infamous . [Quotation] [Reference] .\n\tWomen did not have the right to vote. Therefore, they raised their voice and asked for equal suffrage as man. However, it took them years and great struggle until they gained that right. In 1917 Lucy Burns and a group of women were arrested and tortured after demonstrating in front of the White House because the government was deaf to their demand to the right to vote. Finally, in 1920 women in America gained the this right. In 1918 English women over 30 years gained the right to vote and only in 1928 the law for equal suffrage for men and women was passed. The first nation to pass the law for women suffrage was Australia in the year of 1893. The oppression of women and their voice is evident even in the 21 century as women in Kuwait won the right to vote in 2005.\n\tWith the development of the technology and the easy replacement at the job market many women have reported that after getting pregnant their working hours have been cut or simply by giving birth they would lose their job position. There were also women who have reported that at the job interview they were asked if they plan to have children and those who answered positively never got the job positions. Feminist are trying to solve this problem and are asking for help from all the involved institutions and organizations. There are some visible results from this struggle as according to the [Reference] a woman will be paid a certain amount of money after taking a maternity leave and being fired. In the past, young girls who were sexually abused were not considered as victims but as guilty because they were thought to seduce man. A feminine campaign with Florence Rush changed this believe and did some reforms. Later, this will be taken as a child sexual abuse and Rush will turn the public eye towards the child's psychological state after the abuse as she will take part in an observation of sexually abused children in New York .\n\tTo conclude, feminism fights for women's rights and it does no harm but good. There are still inequalities and gender discrimination in the world that needs to be overcomed. According to the English newspaper The Week women will not reach economic equality with men until the year 2133, in the African countries young girls are still getting married before turning 14. In addition, feminists are fighting against polygamy, fighting for equal rights in marriage and many other issues which are concerning women but also men. In her speech on equality in 2014 in UN Emma Watson said: [Quotation] .\n" + }, + { + "title": "327_NOAC1008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nWhen a person commits a crime, he or she should be punished for it. That is at least how most people feel. It seems morally right that the criminal should pay for his actions. Knowing that the criminal will go to prison, secluded from the rest of the world, his freedom and personal life being robbed from him, satisfies society. They get even with him. But does it benefit society in the long run?\nIdeally, the criminal would come out of prison as a new and improved person. He will have had time to do some serious thinking about his life and his wrongdoings, and will have been determined to live a better life .\nOf course, his is rarely the case. The prison often hardens the criminal, and once the person is free, he will most likely return to living the same lifestyle .\nAlthough the prison has served as a punishment for the criminal, it has also wasted much of the taxpayer's money .\nIf on the other hand, the criminal goes through some sort of rehabilitation, it would profit both the criminal and the society, given that the criminal is going to be able to live a more productive life once he is free .\nObviously, if the criminal is suffering from a poor mental state, psychiatric help should be given. But at the same time many prisons today teaches the prisoners some type of skill, for instance activities like pottery making, but also different job skills. While it keeps the prisoners occupied when they are locked up, it is also a great help for them when they are released. It should be easier for them to function normally in society, and thus stay away from crime .\nIn my opinion, a criminal should be punished, as well as being rehabilitated. It is important to set an example to show that society does not tolerate criminal offenses. In addition serving as a punishment for the criminal, prison also keeps them away from society, out of harms way .\nWhile rehabilitation of all criminals would benefit society, it is not realistic. Not every one wants to be helped, and not every one can be helped .\nWhat prison should not be though, but often is today, is a school for the prisoners on how to be a better criminal. This only punishes society .\n" + }, + { + "title": "328_NOAC1017.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nThere are almost 2 million Americans in prisons in the U.S. today. Many of these criminals go in and out of jail their whole life. Prisons are the perfect school for criminals. They can go in with a \"Bachelor\" degree in stealing cars, and then a few years later they can come out with a \"Masters\" degree in narcotic smuggling. The criminals often share information \"in the joint\" about what they know best, usually criminal stuff .\nWhat can this world give the criminals in prison after they have served their time? It is hard to imagine how it must be. Serving years behind bars and then trying to blend in to our society. First of all, things change and the life they knew isn't the same any more after all those years. They have to adapt to \"our new\" world. This must be very difficult for them. Getting a job is important, but who wants an ex-criminal with a criminal record to work for them? If they fail getting a job, they often do what they know they do best, criminal stuff .\nThe prisons system should help the prisoners to get a new start in life. Help them with a college degree, or train them to be able to get some kind of a descent job after they are done serving there time. Let them work and feel that they are a part of something important and are needed in society. But most of all show them there is more to life than being a criminal. It is possible to make descent money doing \"normal\" stuff .\nThe most important issue to help prisoners with, that will later live in our community, is to help them understand that they cannot keep on disobeying the law. Everybody should be able to talk to a psychiatrist, or some person that will help him or her in his or her situation they now have to serve time in jail for .\nPutting the prisoners \"away\" in jail cells will usually not help the prisoners, especially later on in life. After being stuck in a cell for many years, like an animal in a cage, away from any kind of freedom, the prisoners will probably have more problems when they get out, than when they where put in .\nThe jail system needs to be changed. For thousands of years we've locked criminals up in prisons. There have to be other solutions .\nThere is a reason why criminals get caught for something illegal again and again and are put back in jail. But why anyone would dare disobeying the law ever again after serving time in prison, is outrageous, but happens too often and shows that serving time in prison does not help nor change the prisoners lifestyle .\nA descent job would definitely be a huge lift for them in changing their lifestyle. That is why they need help in prison, talk to psychiatrists or people who can help them and working so they can feel good about themselves and not wanting to go back to there old lifestyle as criminals .\nAll of these issues are depending on one thing. Money. The taxpayers are the ones who will suffer for all the \"help\" the criminals in prison will need. But thinking in longer terms, money will probably be saved because of less criminal activity .\n" + }, + { + "title": "329_NOAG1013.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nIn USA, Europe, Australia and in Scandinavian, in countries with developed western culture and thinking, woman have achieved a positition that gives her all basic rights as regards to education and study, religious performences and believes, to ways of living and to work and career. Even in some countries legislation gives her preferences to certain political and work positions and statuses just because she is woman .\nBesides this achievements, the woman has gained understandness and respect from men, as this is what the women's fight concerns about-the liberation from men's suppression .\nThis long women struggle to achive equal possibillities in life and living, respect both being a woman and a person is long time ago fullfilled in the western culture. Their faight is over. The feminists work is succeeded and all men agree that they have done a most marvelous and highly nessessary work .\nHowever, we have seen during the two last decades that feminists objectives have turned into extremeties. Equally rights and respect and possibillities are no longer enough. Feminists objectives are now to be superior to men - in all aspects and on all levels. And if they do not fine goals to fight for at home, they find abroad, but fight them from save positions from homeland .\nNot long ago I read an interveiw with a nearly fourty year old woman. She worked ver hard and long and ahs given career first priority. However, she sais that he had a man who had given her a child and to whom she was married .\nThis way of perform life and living, to look upon man's role has become common and fully acceptable today. Man's role is being a fertilizer fullfilling woman's prestige to give birth and prove her womanhood .\nMore and more women seems to look upon men as a practical object, useful to have at hand when needed for different purposes .\nAsking young women today what they features and characters they prefer with a future husbond, they will strongly underline that he must be rich in money, have a good job, a nice house and a fast car, and that he must be kind in the sence that he is very generous to her .\nHard values as money, status and position, etc are today dominent preferences to men .\nLooking women today you will observe more and more confirmity with women. Personal identity and individuality are disappering. This confirmities you now can see in women's behavior, dressing, attitude, living and careers, and not least in their personal appearence. It seems to men, very unfortunately that to look like a manis most popular. Sometime even an experienced eye hardly catch the difference, if the person you look at is male or female .\nIdealistic struggles when loosing objectives to fight for, too often turns into exstremeties, and so also with the western feminists fights. Objects become more peculiar, and it now seems that the main object is to be superior to men. And to have the slightest possibillities to gain an objective as this, to gain attentions and support, the feminists fighters must exaggerate, and exaggeration leads to vulgarity. Bad behavior and living, swearing, drunkness, drugs, etc, etc, what earlier were men's \"exclusive privileges\" are now fully atapded and accepted by women and seems now more common among women than men. To be bisexual and to perform bisexualities makes you a modern woman and gives you prestige .\nFrom men's point of view the feminists have turned or transformed women into unpersonal objects. It seems to men that modern women are not allowed - or not so free - that she does not dare show that she is a woman, dare not show her femininity. Modern feminism has made femininity something shamefull. Even better under Talibanlike regimes - at least you know that under this dress is a woman .\nMaybe men are too romantic. But for more and more western men, the modern feminist struggles and fights and influence on women seems to have killed feminism and where are the feminine women. This kind of feminist behavior and performance make men run away in distress and frustration. Modern feminism will turn back upon the women themselves, as the man will not allow feminists to disturb his nature born basic instincts .\nMore and more western men turns their back to their native women and look for partners and wifes in other cultures where preferences and values are others, where he feels cared for and where home, children and family still are dominating and most valuables factor for live and living. Or expressed by five men I happened to meet in an East European county's restaurant some years ago: -\"We are looking for a feminine woman - feminist we have enough of at home.\"\n" + }, + { + "title": "330_NOBE1004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nThere is no doubt that most university degrees are theoretical. They do not prepare students for the real world and are therefore of very little value. Students that graduate have studied for many years, but they have never tried out their theories in the real world. Everybody can read a book on mathematics or biology, but do they learn how to use it in their future profession? Nobody can argue that there is a great difference from reading about something and do it for real. It is sad when one after five or six years of studying find out that one do not fit in the profession one was aiming at. It goes without saying that an education is an expensive investment in one's future. If one is unfortunate enough one have to start all over again to get a new education that fits. This could have been discovered much earlier .\nA great many student with university degrees become teachers. During their studies they do not have the opportunity to find out if they fit as teacher. They do their reading, but they do not know what is the most important to learn or how they can teach it to their future pupils. If they had a chance to do it practically in their studies they would know more about teaching. One need exercise to become a skilful teacher .\nIt is obvious that some people are better theoretical than practical and vice versa. Some students may get the best marks in the university, but they do not know how to do a day's work. On the contrary there are students who are good at practical work, but not at theoretical studies that are found in the university. Is it fair that those who get a degree with excellent marks should get the jobs that the latter could have done better? I guess there are a good many employers that would choose those who know how to work in the real world, and do not only have the knowledge of different theories. I personally hope so. At secondary school most of the teachers have graduated from a university. They know a good deal about their own subject, but do not know how to teach it to their pupils. What is the use of such teachers? One has to think about those who suffer damage namely the pupils .\nIn spite of the examples above, quite a few people argue that university degrees are valuable. Even though some students do not manage to relate their studies to the real world, a great many of them do. A number of people also claim that one have to know the theory before one gets a job. Theory forms the basis of good work. That may be true, but why do they not include practical work in the degrees like they do in for example training colleges? Then there would be both the theoretical aspect and the practical aspect. But that is not how the university functions. People at the university have attached importance to the theoretical aspect for many years now and will doubtfully change that in the next couple of years. It has always been like that. Maybe the system would be changed if there were granted more money. Until then we will have to deal with the theoretical degrees and hope that the students manage to relate their studies to the real world .\nAs we have seen there is a disagreement between those who believe that the university degrees are of little value and those who think that they are valuable. Still nobody knows what the future will bring. One day there may be a change that will prepare the students for the real world .\n" + }, + { + "title": "331_NOBU1004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nWhen we look up in a dictionary the word \"feminist\" is described like this: a person fighting for equal rights among men and women. More than hundred years ago women in Norway really had no rights at all. They couldn't claim education. The most important issue was to learn sewing and cooking in waiting for a marriage. When married she had no rights either. She was her husband's property. We must thank God for what the feminist have done for us women. Today we take for granted woman's position in society. A lot of strong women have fougth for their rights but they had a long way to go and they met opposition among men. In 1882 the first woman obtained Examen Artium and in 1884 women could enter university. Women won the right to vote in 1913 but they had to be aged 30 not 20 as the men .\nTo a great extent feminist have been a benefit for women. But when women enter the labour market they tend to get employed as social workes. So what has happened is that instead of being at home taking care of children and elder parents they prefer to get a job and doing the same work in a kindergarten or at a old people's home. The difference is that they get paid and get sosialized. A man and a woman working e.g. in a kindergarten have equal pay, but because it's a typical woman profession the salary is lower than for example in the industry. Three years at college doesn't pay! At least women have got economical freedom, gained self-respect and are not dependent on any man. The last tendency is that young girls chose other education, they want to have a decent salary and not physically hard work. Who are going to do the social work? In the long run we have to import workers from foreign countries .\nIn recent years it has struck me that feminist have done some harm to their own sex. The hours spent with family and children are less. Bad conscience about work and children are\nsomething many working women have to live with. I think that men and woman are not biologically equal. Women are born to take care of their children and men to go out and hunt.. No feminist can do anything about it. When parents come tired home from work there are still working hours left in the house. Of course many men do their share but statistically the woman do most of this job at home. Why? Are men lazy and women not angry enough?\nFeminist have done us a disservice. We have never been more tired and exhausted than today. Maybe the housemother should be more acknowledged and better paid to the good of the family as a whole. When mothers are working the children have to be taken care of by others. They have to stay at school from early in the evening to late in the afternoon. That is a very long \"working day\" for a little child! The husband is also exhausted because nowadays he also have to do his duties at home which in earlier days was done by the wife. The parents have both got an extended working day because washing, ironing, meals to be prepared must be done in the evening and in weekends .\nMany women find this hard to balance and have found a compromise solution; they work part-time. Women who can afford this when their children are small are usually very satisfied. They are able to spend much time with their little ones and fulfil themselves in a job, used their skill and meet other adults. Few mothers are at home nowadays so one can feel rather lonely working at home all the day. The streets are empty and no children are out playing. Most of them are in kindergarten and when they come home they are too tired to go out. The family has suffered as a cause of feminism and the divorce rate has increased. Today it's difficult to be a family in balance where everybody claim their rights .\n" + }, + { + "title": "332_NOHO1001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nAt Oslo College we have had many different subjects during four years of study. In these subjects there have been many differences in how much we have learned about how to teach. In some subjects we have not learned anything about teaching methods, which should be very important for us .\nDuring our education we have had several weeks of practice in compulsory schools, but I am not sure if this will make me a better teacher. We are usually four students together in the same class with the same teacher. Most of the time everybody is inside the classroom when we are teaching. This is a very awkward situation since you normally are by yourself and do not have anybody to help you. In this particular practise - situation you are able to give the pupils a lot of help, because we are five grown-ups inside the classroom. This makes the whole situation very unrealistic .\nAnother aspect is that normally the teachers chosen for this kind of job, have few problems with their pupils. Everything I have experienced is that the pupils are very well behaved. I have not had the opportunity to solve a huge problem, which I probably will meet as a teacher. So generally, I think the practice is too unrealistic .\nBut of course, we do learn a lot of being out in school as well. We do get to see how it actually is. You get an idea whether you suit as a teacher or not, and you can also get an idea about which age group you would like to teach. It is a long time since we were at a compulsory school as pupils. Therefore we can get to see the school in a different perspective. Even though, we probably do not see how it actually will turn out for us, we do get a pretty good idea about how it is to be a teacher. The workload, what kind of problems they have to put up with, everything they have to do apart from teaching etc .\nApart from our practice, I have already mentioned that there are differences between the different subjects at our college. Why I do not know, but I do find is as a problem. In my point of view we have to learn the basic in the most common subjects as Norwegian for instance. In those subjects we choose as main subjects we should know much more than the basics .\nI have chosen English and Physical Education as my main subjects and in both of these subjects we learn a lot about teaching methods. Physical Education is especially good concerning teaching methods, because we actually have a lot of practise within the group .\nSome of the subjects I have had before have not been that good. One example is Norwegian where we did not learn anything about how to teach, but a lot of theoretic stuff .\nAnother aspect about our subjects is that our exams are very often not related to teaching methods. Only in Physical Education we do have a practice exam where we are suppose to teach other students. It would have been much more realistic if we actually had to teach pupils .\nBecause of the theoretic exams, we are very concerned about learning the theoretic stuff. We are less concerned about learning the teaching methods, because we want be asked for it at an exam. Or actually, we have had questions about how to teach at some written exams, but nobody feels that this is the most important part of the exam. Usually, it is a quite small part. The teachers are also concerned about that we are going to learn the theoretic aspects before the exams. This is probably the reason we do not have more teaching methods inside our courses .\nMy opinion is that this is too bad, but I also think it is the reality. Because of this our college degree can be too theoretical. Our exam-results do not say much about how good we are in teaching, but it is also important to have a wide range of knowledge in the subjects you are suppose to teach. So I would say, our college degrees are valuable, but they do not say everything about our knowledge in teaching .\n" + }, + { + "title": "333_NOHO1026.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nMy father in law loves to discuss with me. And because I am a rather quiet and peace loving person he is the one who has to take the initiative - which he does as provocative as possible. It was about this time of the year (the end f February) that he once asked me: \"My dear daughter in law, in what way will you contribute the eighth of March?\"\nHe was probably looking forward to a juicy discussion, but I guess he asked the wrong person or maybe I could say he asked the wrong generation. The International Women's Day has occurred 32 times in my life but the thought of contributing in one way or another has never crossed my mind and I believe a lot of women in my age would say the same. Feminism is a non-existent topic but in the back of our minds we despise the feminists and call them names: Man-looking man-haters who threw their bras and forced abortion upon every woman .\nOn the other hand we take it for granted that our husbands cook, do the dishes and change diapers as much as we do. Are we ungrateful heiresses to what is gained throughout a century of \"war\"? Or have feminists done more harm than good to the cause of women? My answers will not be based upon research but simply upon my own observations and thoughts being a mother and wife - and obviously a woman .\nPlease your husband, take care of your children, and accept whatever comes; these were your only instructions and rights a hundred years ago. I think most Norwegian women are happy that they live today. Some of my girl friends are film directors, shop owners, designers, dancers, newspaper reporters, top athletes, musicians and doctors. Some are single mothers and own their own apartment. We have conquered every stage of society; the world is at our feet .\nBut the discontent always speaks out loud. Enough is never enough and it might seem pathetic that some feminists still are so extremely angry - because women aren't represented 50% in the best paid jobs, quota above qualification. I am sure I could point at several bad things that took place in the name of feminism. But this is where I think the feminist warriors have lost their way: in their eagerness to achieve equality they ignored to define what feminism truly is as a starting point .\nWe cannot deny the fact that we are women; nothing can change that (except an operation of course). Have we lost our feminine character? Oh, we are so fit and good looking and anorectic and dress like hookers but in an expensive way so as not to be mistaken for one, but do we feel female? Are we too hooked up in the money race that we don't recognise our own gender? We give birth to kids that we put in kindergarten, have full time jobs (or even more because carrier demands it) and someone (a woman?) to wash our big houses .\nWhat are the female characteristics - things that men don't have? We do not dare to ask our men. That would be very degrading to admit our lack of knowledge and a huge step backwards. Why do \"they\" find the South European women so attractive? The modern super model carrier woman doesn't need a man except as a sex partner. She wants children but success is more important. She sees her children 30 tired hours a week while more than 40 hours a week she gives all her energy to the job. Making other priorities is a total failure .\nWe've become like our men, but as a result of this our men have become like us. Why do \"we\" find South European men so attractive? While we eagerly have struggled for our quotas, the enemy has become wife-ridden and henpecked. What a misunderstanding of female integrity!\nHowever, a glimpse of a burka-wearing person in Yemen is enough to conclude that we are quite lucky to live in this \"androgyny\" society. Feminism has certainly contributed in making our world cynical and selfish, but in order to create change and revolution things needed to be stirred up, provoked and brought to the extreme edges .\nThe eighth of March is only one week from now. I won't be joining the demonstrators this year either .\n" + }, + { + "title": "334_NOHO1028.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nMother and father are working and the child gets a key around his/her neck and comes home from school to an empty house. If you then ask this child \"what do you do after school?\", he/she would probably answer: \"I watch television, play television games or computer games\". Or say you go to a camp for children. There you would probably find that they actually don't have much imagination left! Without a television or television/computer games, some of the children actually don't know how to come up with something to do! Except for football maybe..\nIt's said about people in general that we watch far more television now than they did before. There are even many who are addicted. They sit in front of their television from they come home from work/school, till they go to bed in the evening. Why? Because there are so many good programs to watch? I don't think so..\nI've read many times lately and heard/seen on television that people today are far more stressed at work, there are far more people who need help because they are depressed, there are far more people who long for an answer to the everlasting questions \"why do we live?\" and \"what's coming after death?\", etc. Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. You can also hear many who say that religion is just a \"thing\" we make up because we need something that can \"take us away\" from real life; something to comfort us when we are down or scared. If Marx was alive today in the 20th century, would he replace religion with television? If religion is just a \"thing\" we make up to get away from real life and Marx would replace opium with television, I'll ask another question: Why did/do people use opium? You should think it would be exactly to get away from life, to find comfort, etc. Has television replaced religion? Is this why people watch so much more television than before? They need to get away from the stressed everyday life, they are depressed, scared, etc? There are also far more programs on television concerning religion, science fiction, etc. Maybe people seek to find the answers to the two questions in television as well?\nTelevision is a big part of most of our lives. We watch almost everything they send and we become affected by it. So, Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses and I should think that if he was alive at the end of the 20th century, he could actually replace religion with television. For some reason that \"box\" has a way of getting us attached to it and far too many of us watch programs that aren't good for us. In our century opium = television. Maybe we should open clinics for \"Television-addicted\"?\n" + }, + { + "title": "335_NOHO1033.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nWe are now in the year 2002 and have entered the 21st century. It is perhaps time to think new ways when we talk about sentences, but where shall we draw the line? Shall we continue having prisons? Who will come under the criteria for rehabilitation and who should get a prison sentence? Is our prison system so outdated that we should abolish today system and close down the prisons and rehabilitate our criminals in other institutions? Which criteria should those new institutions have if these not should be a new type of prison? We certainly can't have a holiday resort for criminals!\nShould we start with home sentences? In Sweden they are testing home punishment. There is the convicted person marked on either hand or foot with a sensor, a public attendant comes around daily to check the sensor. The sensor records every movement the convicted person makes and will tell if she/het has been outside the restricted area. This will save society money and it makes life better for the convict. How it functions and if the politicians and the legal system are satisfied with this new way of prosecution is unknown for me. I haven't seen any article or documentary about an evaluation of this way of paying your crime .\nShould someone who has committed a murder be allowed to have a nicer way of doing his time than sitting locked up in a prison as they do today? How would society feel if those two young men who committed the terrible rap and murder of two small girls in Kristiansand where rehabilitated into society without been imprisoned? We are not ready to not prosecute our criminals and not put them into prison. Finding a solution to rehabilitate them is a good thought, but those who are touched by the criminals action want to see them punished as hard as possible. Society still demands punishment for crimes committed. Especially crimes which includes children or murder, people will not except any milder form for punishment than a long prison sentence or in sever cases death penalty . (I think of countries who have death penalties, like for example America and China)\nI don't think that we can discuss our legal system and criticise it from the point of view of being a civilised society. If we were such an incredible civilised society why do we have criminals and why do we need sanctions for behaviour we dislike?\nI know that one reason of becoming a criminal lies in the way we treat our children when they are small. Alcohol and drugs, unemployment and other factors can have much to say which direction your life will take. There are many children today who need extra care, something they don't receive. Some teachers see their extra needs and try to apply for extra resources during their education, but many don't get the help because of lack of money .\nMany children experience that being a looser is humiliating and being good in something gives a good reputation. Playing tough, getting hold of things which others don't have when you are young gives in the beginning a good reputation, it often ends in bad circle, which is difficult to get out of .\nEven if our technology is good, people still get disabled children or children with brain damage. Some of these brain disorders are not found and can later in life occur in a lifestyle and behaviour which society not appreciates .\nI don't think that we ever will have a society without anyone behaving against what we accept. Believing in something like that, will be a utopia .\n" + }, + { + "title": "336_NOHO1035.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nReligion had, and still has, a great impact on our society. Religion was once part of a guidence which led to our Constitution in 1814. Still, today, the ten commandments are also seen in the Constitution as well .\nSimilarily, media, and especially television, is another arena in which different views are presented and popularised. Television is performing a kind of social control in keeping the masses ordered, just like religion once did. It generally act to reinforce values that are part of the whole society and plays an important role in the matter of forming new laws. The law concerning children-porn is just one example. If it wasn't for the media, this discussion might not have come up. Like religion, television affect how people think, believe and behave. Some might proclaim that this will destroy people's self awareness. But unlike from religion, people in today's society are rational beeings with the oppurtunity to choose. They can even choose not to have a telly in the house at all. That is the difference between television and religion. You can't choose religion. You are born into it. This is what really create conflicts, e.g schoolchildren shot on their way to school in because of their religion .\nSo the statement that television is the opium of the masses, connote negative reactions. We automatically think of the new television-culture nowadays; reality programs. Because of our quriosity which lies lateny in human nature, this sort of entertaining, will for a long period of time make the reader addicted .\nIn addition to pure entertaining, television contributes on other arenas as well. It's important to have access to information about real violence and sexuality in the world. Restricting such can be socially and politically repressive. Eg. The Vietnam War .\nReligion gathered people. They went to church, they still do, and prayed together. They came to terms with their feelings and could escape from the real world within common surroundings. If we replace religion with television in the 20th century, we will witness the same thing. TV is both entertaining and reality. Still, it's an another world. We are consumers in a television-world so to speak. But as people were sceptic to religion in earlier days, the scepticism within television must not be unmentioned either. We have to remember that media in itself not only reflect events. They construct and change them as well. Television cannot mirror or reflect real-life situation innocently, since they become part of the events themselves. This is also a financial matter. Most producers know how to make the mass addicted. People's support concerning The Royal Wedding were among other events broadcastet all over the world. We could see how small children were dressed up with flags and tiaras. The Wedding produced some kind of emotional response in us. Weeks after, people were still talking about it. Some even recorded it . I think I'm addicted, a lady once said. She just had to watch it over and over again .\nReligion bonded people together, television creates the same formula in todays' society. Over the years, TV has become a global village, were interactions and belonging are central elements. An escape from reality, but still give us insight of it, are reasons enough why television is opium for the masses. At least for most of them .\n" + }, + { + "title": "337_NOHO1045.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nI have a dream. These are the famous words of Martin Luther King Jr. I think a lot of people still have this dream. They dream of peace and harmony in the world. Not only peace between blacks and whites, but between all countries and races. If nobody had this dream what would the world look like? At the moment wars are going on in several countries. Some seem not to want peace, while others hope that one day all peoples will live as equals in harmony. This is probably the biggest dream of all and the most important one. However, smaller dreams are also important. And the road to peace starts with only two people becoming friends. It is a small step, but maybe the most important step on this road .\nIn everyday life we all have dreams. Some of us dream of a great job, winning the lottery, travelling to the other side of the world, or simply a happy family. A lot of these dreams never come true, as life is hard for most people. It is not easy to make it today, neither in the working situation nor in family life. Many have had their hopes crushed and stepped on several times. But usually they stand up and walk on. Their belief in their own dreams is what makes life worth living, and often a setback only strengthens their will to continue reaching for that dream .\nTelevision, science technology and industrialisation have in some way replaced the need for using fantasy and imagination. Television gives us a picture of how things are, or rather how the media wants us to see things. Books give the readers an opportunity to imagine how the characters in the books look and act. This is an opportunity we even get from the radio. Cinematic versions of books give no room for imagination. In films everything is already decided for us. This is also the case in science documentaries. Everything is presented as a fact, and gives us no other choice but to accept this .\nI think fantasy is a very important aspect of our life. We need to use our imagination to prevent our brains from decaying. When I was younger I loved to read books. I read at least a book a week and I had a great imagination. I enjoyed writing and I used a lot of fantasy in my stories. When I turned a bit older other things seemed more important than reading. And the only thing I read was my homework. Television more or less took over the books' role in my life. Lacking the books' influence my imagination suffered tremendously. I still enjoyed writing, but the use of fantasy almost disappeared. Recently I have regained my interest in books and I have already experienced that it has triggered my imagination. Hopefully I will continue to read books for the rest of my life .\nI have dreams. I dream of an easier life, owning an apartment, becoming a millionaire, and maybe most of all I dream of love. I am a hopeless romantic. Even after getting my heart broken a thousand times I keep my faith in true love. That is one of the reasons why I get up in the morning. We all need to believe in our dreams. To me, that is what life is all about .\n" + }, + { + "title": "338_NOUO1025.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nI believe that this statement is used, unfairly, by people who disapprove of the feminists' radicalness in different times. In their opinion, the feminists have, among other things, changed the old consept of family. For instance, a result of the feminist movement in the 1970s, is more divorces. Women can get out of marriages if they have been treated badly by their husband .\nThe suffragette movement wich started in the late 19th century, resulted in womens' right to vote in the early 20th century. Feminist have managed to change the way society look at women and the way women view themselves. A woman's reputation was earlier the most preassus thing she had. After \"the sexual revolusion\" one have acknoledged that women have needs the same way as men does. Women throughout the western world have got new opportunities and possibilities. They choose higher education, which lead to economic independence and more freedom for women in general. A concrete result of feminism in the 1970s is women's right to have an abortion .\nYoung women today cannot identify with the term \"feminism\". Even though many women feel that still, there are areas in which men and women are not eqal, they will not be indentified with the \"un-feminin\", angry women that \"hated men\". I think that is where the feminists in the 70s were wrong. They had to many rules according to how women should look and act. Today, girls and women do not feel at home in that discription. They are individualists. They want to be respected in the same way men are respected; like individualists. That is why a new feminist movement arose in the late 90s. They call themselves \"the new-feminists\" or the \"Gucci-feminists. They feel that there are areas in wich they still have to fight. The issues are not as concrete as the ones that their mother-generation were fighting for. One example is domestic chores. Now that almost as many women as men have a job outside the home, women tend to be the ones who have to to all the work at home as well .\nOne negative effect of feminism which can be seen in this time, is the negative signals that espessially women give to other women if they choose to stay home, taking care of theur children instead of having a career. Women should be able to chose what they want to do without getting reactions that they are anti-feminsits .\nIn my opinion, feminism has not done much harm to women. The feminists have been radical in all decades and therefore thay have gotten a bad reputation. I believe though, that there has to be radicalism to create a norm. There are negative effects, but simply because there is still a long way before men and women are equal in all areas .\nThe fight for women's rights is really a fight for human rights. Women should have the same opporunities as men .\n" + }, + { + "title": "339_NOUO1074.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nLet us consider some of the reasons one might have for stating such a claim. It is true that universities offer highly theoretical education, e.i. lectures, and sometimes smaller groups. These lectures and groups come to maybe 10-15 hours a week. In addition it is required that students study on their own, e.i. that they read, read, read! Some students may form discussion groups, which is advisable, but none the less no more non theoretical than the other forms of education mentioned. The statement above, therefore, seems easy to agree with .\nIs a university degree of less value than degrees from other educational institutions, like the norwegian høgskole? At høgskolen it is common to combine theoretical education, lectures, with a fair amount of practice at a relevant place of work. Students from høgskolen may thus be better prepared for \"the real world\". But I would argue that for a dedicated student it need not be a problem that the university degree is theoretical, they will most certainly adjust to the practical side of their studies once they start working .\nOne of the reasons most of the education at universities are purely theoretical may be that the students are free to choose their own combinations of subject to a much larger extent than at e.g. høgskolen. Because the combinations of subjects vary so much one would have to \"tailor-make\" some sort of practice for each student. And this is, of course, not an easy job .\nIt should be mentioned here that the degrees directed towards a particular occupation, e.g. the study of medicine or psychology, do in fact have plenty of practice .\nOne may conclude that a university-type education does not suit all students. It may be more valuable for well-disciplined students. Students who at own initiative seek out places they can practice what they are being taught. By e.g. taking side jobs or joining organizations related to their studies. There is also the possibility of taking one semester of your degree at a desired place of work. This is a fairly new arrangement that enables students to get a \"real world\" working experience. One should perhaps increase information about, and encourage the students to take better use of, the possibilities offered .\nStudents at universities are mostly left to themselves to decide how to study. With no obligatory lectures or homework it takes a lot of discipline to keep up the good work all through the semester. It may seem that this is because of the theoretical form of education, when it may be just lack of determination that leads to a degree of little value. The students need to realize that they must take an active part in forming their own education. I have myself studied at both university and høgskole and, seen from the perspective of me being prepared for the real world, I value my university education more .\n" + }, + { + "title": "340_NOUO1083.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nThis is a view of university education, that many people, righteous or not, tend to have. And most students have more than once questioned the value of sitting passively in the auditorium, listening to The Professor talking about something (almost) never mentioned outside the campus, only to procede to the reading room to sit there(passively?) for a couple of hours. The theoretical approach in University, can easily be seen as inadequate for coping with careers in the real world. This approach can be argued to be theoretical both in manner and content , that is the way it is taught and what is being taught.A student can stay quite anonymous if he/she wants to. There is no required attendance in smaller groups, so that working in groups can easily be avoided. The social abilities don't really have to be challenged. Another problem is the lack of focus on up-to date, concrete issues and problems, and of really facing and solving them. Maybe it can be called a kind of knowing what, but not how .\nBut the fact is luckily more nuanced than this. The value of any kind of education , in meeting the real world, depends upon what will be your occupation in it. It depends upon the student and his/hers abilities and efforts to extract the experience and learning actually present in the educational process. And of course, it's also important who the individual lecturers are, and what subject is being studied .\nBut, when it comes to questioning the value of a university degree, this will come more to its right if the focus is on the individual development: The (hoped for) wakening up of our consciousness, our curiosity, our critical abilities and not least the shapening of flexible minds. Through facing ancient questions, diving into the past to see the present, and reading the words of those who knew/know the art of conveying, we are hopefully at least given a stepping stone for our own individual development. And this will normally be tried out in the students own contributions through assignments. Also, whatever you study, you have to learn how to gain this knowledge, how to navigate in the mass of information surrounding you as a student. And this is not given you by spoonfulls, this has to be aquired through own effort, in the same way as later on in the real world .\nThere are for sure important qualities to gain from university studies. Still, are they sufficient and satisfactory, considering what they could have been, if providing a more practical and contemporary approach, along with the present inclination? No doubt, students would win a lot through a closer cooperation with both co-students and lecturers. Also, it would be valuable and inspiring going to other sources than mainly texts and other people's discoverings( which also now often is referred to as backgrounds, now \"out of date\").\nClearly changes for the better could be introduced in university education, to prepare students for their careers. But a crucial point has to be made about the nature of this type of education: Many of the students choosing it, do so presicely because it doesn't lead directly to any particular career. This is a fact effecting the type of education found in this institution. But even so, the need of flexibility does not require hours of one-way conversation in an auditorium as its method .\n" + }, + { + "title": "341_NOUO1094.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nAfter reading the statement above I was puzzled as to how I would approach the problem and a little curious to know in what context that person uttered such a statement. My next problem concerned how I would analyze what s/he was referring to at the time .\nWhen I looked up the word feminism in my dictionary I fond that feminism is \"the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of sexual equality\". But the quation above does not refer to feminism per definition but to feminists, people who supposedly fight for feminism. Hence , I think the problem the person wants to address is what we in retrospect can see as a consequence of feminist \"extemity\", that culminated in the 1970s. At the late sixties and early seventies society in the western world seemed ready for an open discussion on the issue of women and their traditional roles as mother, wife and housekeeper. This was due to changes in the political climate and society as a whole. Women began to group themselves in organisations such as Women's Liberation. This happened especially in relation to the hippie movement and other young radical groups who were prominent in society and forced people to hear their message. The \"extremism\" of certain feminist organisations was only a necessary rebellion against what was felt as supression and degeneration of women that had been going on far too long. In my humble opinion, I believe this was an inevitablereaction to an existing androcentric world both in academic circles, the working place and the domestic sphere. Many women felt they were both marginalized and invisible as both subjects and objects, especially in academic studies. And they called for a feminist critical consciousness. In retrospect there has been a tendency to point to the reprocutions of the feminist movement. People claim it has broken up homes. They see the high divorce rate as a direct consequence of women's liberation. Also , the fact that women started to work outside the home and the children have been left in daycare are highly debated. Some members of society, expecially christian right oriented groups, blame women's liberation for legalising abortion, and see pro-choice activists as an abomination. The see women's lib. activities as devastating to the cause of women, since motherhood should be a woman's first priority. Other people praise feminists and feminism, asserting that without it women would still be unjustly reduced to an existence inside the home. In contemporary society, people seems tired of the whole subject matter of female versus male. There has been a shift in focuse away from women and on to gender, which concerns itself with man and woman in mutual interdependence. This is especially recognisable in academic studies. Contemporary women's studies does now presuppose a twentieth-century (twentyfirst - century) holistic anthropology. Here the human being is defined as sexually differentiated. It is not longer split into male or female body and a sexless, rational soul. Women studies make a clear distinction between sex as biologically determined and gender as culturally constructed .\nThe utterance \"Feminists have done more harm than good to the cause of women\" has very little ot no relevance at this time in history. It is a new millenium and people are generally no longer interested in the dichotomy women and men. We are all a human entity and the cause of women is outdated. We are now looking at the cause of mankind .\n" + }, + { + "title": "342_NOUO2002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nI think this is a very solid statement but for many of us, particularly in the western parts of the world, I belive that this statement is correct in many ways. I don't see the television as purely being a negative factor in the society today, and therefore I would like to point out some of the positive aspects that the television represents first .\nOne of the most important and significant role, the television has in the society today, is being an entertainer. Since the beginning of the early 1950's, the television set has been an entertainer in many households around the world. The television set has gathered families for a time of comfort and enjoyment. It has the ability to make people sit down and relax. I think that the second most important role that television has today is as being an important distributor of information and news. It provides us daily with updates on what has happened all over the world, whether it's politics, disturbances or wars in other countries. Tv programmes can also teach us about important events in history and geography. An because the television is a visual medium, it has the ability to take the viewer to historical places in our own armchair. It is also easily available .\nI will now say something about the negative aspects of watching television. I think the television has the ability to passify the viewer to a big extent. It's a one way communication system. It may engage and excite, but the viewer can't immediately respond to the media for what he or she might disagree about on that particular subject or statement. It becomes too easy to take things for granted .\nAddiction is another negative aspect. I think watching too much television can lead to a certain addiction. It's too easy and comfortable to sit and watch Tv game shows, sports; sit-coms or films. Unconsciously, you tend to spend several hours in front off the tv every day. You just have to watch the next football match or the next episode of. And before you know it, the whole evening is over .\nI think being passive in front of the television set can also lead to a weight problem. You can gain weight when you're sitting quiet for several hours each day. And along with tv-watching, often comes eating as a part of the cosy time in front of the television set. You certainly don't burn a big ammount of calories by doing that .\nLoneliness can also be a part of the reason why so many people depend on the telly. One certainly doesn't make any new acquaintances sitting at home. People of today should take more interest in getting to know the nature around them, joining a political organization og groups to meet people who might share the same interests. Having a few close friends helps, you to care about other people, and that might make you feel better about yourself as well. Making new acquaintances is not only good for for your social life, but it's also good for your physical and mental health .\nI have now tried to point out a few positive and negative aspects on how the television affects the people in our society today. Some of the statements may seem very solid, but I belive that people should be conscious about their relationship with the television, and know when to turn the televisionset off. The television is here to stay, and like I said earlier it is an important distributor of news. I only wonder what Marx's opinion on the subject would be .\n" + }, + { + "title": "343_NOUO2003.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nThe claim that there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination because our modern world is dominated by science, technology and industrialisation is, in my opinion, downright stupid. I also think that such a claim reveals a sense of nostalgia I think has little or no relevance to the genres, or professions if you like, which best express contemporary thought and ideas, namely literature, music and arts. In this essay I will try to elaborate on a few point in order to explain my view .\nFrankly, I find the claim hard to grasp. Do humans dream less because of the invention of the microchip? Has our imagination diminished because we can now read books on the Internet? I think the claim could be narrowed down to \"evolution kills imagination\". Considering that humans still possess imagination, I feel tempted to point out the obvious: Human culture has evolved since the beginning. When did science and technology stop us from dreaming? Was it the invention of the lightbulb that killed our imagination? Rhetorical questions aside, here is my point: When one speaks of dreaming and imagination, then this nostalgia, this longing for the past, should be seen as much more dangerous than science and imagination. These are all traits that go hand in hand, and they are distinctly human. In fact, a modern world dominated by science and machines gives way to new dreams and new ways of thinking. Science fiction can be seen as an example of this, and so can electronic music. I have the feeling that someone capable of declaring that science and technology leaves no space for imagination, might not be the biggest Sci-fi nut .\nModern techniques such as photo rendering and computer graphics are new tools available to the modern artist. Sampling and the use of computers have become essentials in creating various forms of modern music, and writers of all kinds now use word processing. Modern technology can not only be a tool easing the creative prosess, it can also make new forms of creativity possible. Some critics argue that the use of modern tools such as computers often results in inferior quality. To that I can only say that the artist has the sole responsibility. It should be fairly obvious that the choice of tools directly influences the creative process. Some even argue that musicians should not need to go to school to develop a high level of proficiency on their instruments. They fear that schooling takes away the individual character of an up-and-coming musician. In response to such fears I quote the renowned guitarist Bill Frisell: \"It's only the players' fault if they let themselves be programmed by the routines that these places establish.\" He continues: \"For example, in the harmony classes at Berklee, they'd have ' avoid notes', notes you weren't supposed to use over a particular chord. Naturally, those were the first ones I'd check out.\" (Guitar Player, July 1992) I think the combined output of all contemporary artistic activity is a clear indicator of the state of mankind. Many argue that this is precisely the job of an artist; to mirror contemporary ideas and thoughts in all its shapes .\nIndustrialisation and new technology inevitably shapes our daily life and the world around us, hence it also influences the way we think and the way we dream. Invention and progress should be seen as assets, not burdens, of living in modern times. I think a key point in this discussion is whether the comforts of modern life, with all its impressive gadgets and its focus on effectiveness, leaves us with more spare time to dream or not. I believe that is often the case, and if not, one should reconsider the ways in which the fruits of modern times are employed. The responsibility of an action is that of the performer, not the tool. Thanks to word processing, I have been able to spend more time elaborating on this essay than actually writing it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "344_NOUO2025.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nIs there a place for dreaming and imagination in our modern world, dominated by science, technology, and industrialisation?\nIn the dictionary it says that the word \"dream\" means \"an ambition or an ideal\"\nIf we were to use this as a definition of what dreaming is, my immediate answer would be \"yeas!\"\nThis because, I think, in most of the western societies people feel as they don't have much more left to fight for. We get the feeling that technology and science will take care of all \"visible\" problems, such as health problems, environmental problems, etc. Industrialism has developed a strong economy in most of these countries, and the young people growing up today, were born into a wealthy family. Most of what is to fight for, are issues that has already been taken care of by previous generations .\nIf you ask some of the teenagers who are taking drugs today, why they do it, their answer is often \"I'm board\". There exist, I think a feeling of emptiness among many people. Almost every thing is for free, so to speak. This emptiness can lead to destructive drug use, but also for some people a search for something more spiritual, and new ideas of what things in life that is most valuable. This is what makes us continue to dream, and there for my answer to the question is also \"no\". We are travelling more now than ever before, we are interested in unknown cultures, in new ways of looking at life. Being a Buddhist is hip. People also mix different ideas from several religions. Some call it \"Shopping religion\".\nWhat about using imagination? Even though our society has been dominated by industrialisation, science, and technology for quit some time now, there still exist a lot of creativity. The 20th century brought new ways of making art, music and literature .\nYoung people today, who grew up with computer games, and MTV, being used to entertainment almost every minute of the day, are just as much creative human beings as generations before. If not, there wouldn't have been so many new artists, writers, painters etc. A need of a room for using imagination makes people trying to find one .\nMy conclusion is that a society dominated by science, technology and industrialisation is not enough for most of us. In the 20th century human beings has in many ways desperately been trying to find their spirit. This shows in arts, filmmaking, literature as Modernism, and in new philosophies, such as Existentialism. The war protests, the civil writes demonstrations, and Flower Power in the 60's, was a result of people dreaming of change .\nGood material conditions do not necessary mean happiness, a society that includes everyone and spiritual satisfaction, it does not makes us stop dreaming, it encourage us to dream even more. Sadly many people does not know any better than to by a dream as in a new car or replacing spiritualism with drugs. But still I believe that dreaming and using our imagination is one of the things that make us human, and the most of us will continue the never ending searching for the \"new\".\n" + }, + { + "title": "345_NOUO2035.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nCountries around the world have different prison systems. Some countries practise death penalty, whaile others let their criminals stay in jail. No mather what kind of a prison system a country has, the criminals get punished. Instead of rehabilitate the criminals by sending them to teraphy, the system lets the criminals suffer, either by being alone or by getting tortured .\nI will first present the countries that do not practise death penalty, and then i will talk about death penalty. The essay will end with a discussion about what kind of prison system that will work the best, and how to renew the system .\nMost countries do not practise death penalty, among these countries Norway is included. In these countries the criminals either get placed in prison or they have to do community service, it depend on the crime. After being caught by the police, the criminal is brought to trial. In trial the judge decides the extent of the crime, then the judge gets the criminal sentenced for the crime he or she has committed .\nLet us use Norway as an example of a country that doesnt practise death penalty. In some cases the criminal only have to pay a fine. This is often in connection with for instance exceeding the speed limit, In other cases the criminals are sent to prison where its possible to stay for 21 years .\nIn the prisons there are a clear distinction on how the criminals are treated, and this depends on whether the crime is serious or not. But in all cases the criminals get placed in a cell. By being in a cell the criminals get little contact with the outside world. Some criminals nearly get anyone to talk to at all. A person who has committed a serious crime as for instance a murder is an unstable and sick person. We live in a society were everybody have the right to be treated equal, this also includes the criminals. A criminal should, like any other sick person, has the opportunity to talk to somebody about his og her problem .\nInstead of letting the criminals stay in jail, some countries practise death penalty. Death penalty is mostly used in some states in the USA. When a criminal gets sentenced to death, he or she must have done a serious crime like a murder. A person who has killed another human being does not deserve to live, is the philosophy behind the death penalty. This is the same philosophy people used thousands of years ago, when \"an eye for an eye\" was the rule to follow .\nThe headline of this essay claims that today's prison system is outdated. I absolutely agree with that. Criminals who sit for many years in a cell with no one to talk to have probably not become better persons. If a criminal just sits day out and day in in a prison, he or she is probably filled with anger and revange against society. When the criminal has served the sentenced without being helped, I think its difficult for he or she to live a normal life as a decent citizen. If criminals are going to manage to live a normal life, i think they need to attend teraphy, The criminals can perhaps find out why the crime was committet when talkin to a psychologist and improve .\nWhen it comes to death penalty, i do not think any countries should be allowed to use this kind of punishment. It makesthe State as bad as the criminal. Its the relatives of the criminals who will suffer. The criminals are executed and can no longer be hurted. By practising death penalty people should fear doing crimes, but in the countries that practise it the number of crimes hasnt decreased .\nIts difficult to find a solution on how a prison system should work proporly. Some people mean its a waste of money to help the criminals with teraphy, while other people mean that a criminal should be treated equal with any other person. The most imported thing is how to increase the number of criminals without breaking the human rights .\n" + }, + { + "title": "346_NOUO2036.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nMarx once said that religion was the opium for the masses, and first and foremost this slogan (if you can call it a slogan) was his explanation of the negative effects of religion. Firstly, as he claimed, it dulls your mind, your intellect and your ability to think clearly and independently. Secondly it has, in conformity with the opium, the ability of making people addicted of the \"substance\", and by this it keeps people in check and controls their life pattern. In other words it makes them to follow traditions and practise rituals for someone or something they believe in, or, as he would probably have said it, do something totally meaningless and even do it regularly. But he found also a positive side of religion; namely that one of its effects is that it diverts \"the masses's\" attention from a potential revolt against the communistic state .\nIt's an interesting thought; would Marx have replaced religion with television, if he had lived today? My answer to this is both yes and no. The answer depends on what kind of position or role he eventually would have had in our society. My answer would be yes if he was in opposition to the governing party and this party would be less communistic in their policy than he himself would have been in the same position. Then it would not have been unlikely to believe that he boldly would have claimed that \"Television is the opium for the masses\". But on the contrary, if he himself was the head of state and was running the show, then I think he would have seen television as an excellent instrument to indoctrinate the masses with communistic propaganda. Of course he would have used other words and maybe said something like: \"...educating ever individual in the society to be a good citizens of the communistic society...etc.\", and maybe continued that \"...this is now possible with these inestimable instruments (TV and likely also internet) that the unconquerable intellect of mankind has given birth to...\". There is a proverb that say that power makes corrupt, and regarding the historical examples of communism (and to some extent socialism) and what the consequences of these regimes have been, I think that these three words (power makes corrupt) describe, as briefly as it is possible, but very strikingly what have happen in the communistic states .\nNow whether television is an \"opium to the masses\" independent of what Marx would have said if he would have been alive today, is also a very interesting question to ask. My personal opinion is that television has unfortunately become the opium for a great \"mass\" of the population. It's far from uncommon that people today are watching television at least more than hour each day, and in many families the TV has become the heart of the house (or the flat), the great rendezvous in the family .\nThe reason why I think one can say that it is an \"opium for the masses\" is that it simply makes you very passive and it teaches you to develop a spectator's attitude towards life. I also think it more or less creates an illusion of an artificial world, and therefore can dull your capability to read and understand different signals coming from the real world. I also think that especially children and teenagers are strongly influenced by television. But the most negative aspect of this is that television itself is more and more influenced by money and power. For some peopel I think you can even say that watching television has become their relgion .\nMy final comment about Marx is that I in fact agree with him. It may sound like a paradox, but I agree with him even though I call myself a christian and strongly believe that God exists. The reason why this is not a paradox for me is because the word \"religion\" to me means trying to do as best as you can to please God. And perhaps then God will be satisfied. But to believe in God is the most natural thing to do, and since I know that he is already satisfied with me through what Jesus has done on the cross, and there I don't need to strive for Gods acceptance. To me God is life, and to believe in him is to live in a fellowship with him, but it's definitely not about religion and neither an opium .\n" + }, + { + "title": "347_PAAM1004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nIt is a fact that our modern world is dominated by science, technology, and industrialization. We have no time for dreaming and imagination. Science has made our life so easy. Science has provided us with so many pleasures and comforts. It reduce human sufferings and hardships. The cinema, radio, TV, computer, internet, mobiles etc are the gifts of science. Modern world is dominated by all these luxuries. We have reached at the bottom of the ocean and flown over the Everest. We have also reached on the moon. The crowning achievement of science is the release of atom energy . \nIf we try to write about the benefits of science, we can easily run into pages. Every thing has its own advantages and disadvantages. If we look to the other side of the coin that inspite of all these comforts or luxuries the life is not happier .\nScience has taught us to fly like birds and swim like fish but it has not taught us to act like men. It has made us cruel and inhuman. Self suicide attack has made a common thing now-a-days. We have killed at large number of people in a few seconds. Such cruel people have no feelings for others. The materialistic civilization has temporary glamour. Because it has the germs of destruction within itself It has no moral values which give permanence to civilization. Science, we use it, for both constructive and destructive purposes . \nModern man misuses the gifts of science. He has abused its discoveries and inventions Science itself is a noble pursuit and the quist for knowledge but when it is misuses, is becomes a clamity. Science also has made our modern world more helpful and facilitate. Radioctive dating also helps in accurately determing the age of bomb attacker and materials which he uses in bomb .\nBut it time that that we stop using atoms for destruction of rival nations It is also deprive us from peace, comfort and pleasure. Today our life is full of worries and tensions. We are so busy that we have free time for our families and friends. We have no spare time spending in the company of our dear ones .\nThere is no doubt that science has made our life so comfortable. But it also added some worries in our life .\nModern man has deprived from happiness and peace of mind. We have a lot of money but little pleasure. Its natural that imaginations give us peace and pleasure. Some imaginations are very nice that fill our heart with pleasure .\nInternet and mobile phones are also great inventions of science. But it is very disadvantaging for the children to use too much mobile phone and internet. Most of the people misuses the internet. No doubt it is very necessary these days wrong use should be prevent. It is also a cause of tension in the modern world. Modern world also faces such difficulties. We must prevent such fault deeds and keep our next generation far away from these misuse of science inventions .\nDreams are very interesting and importat for our life. We should see dreams for our better future. Some dreams are our self creation. Pleasant dreams gives us happiness and peace of mind. It is added in our life which is full of worries and tensions. Imagination is also a source of happiness. Good and pleasant imaginations keeps us happy and fresh." + }, + { + "title": "348_PAAM1007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nCrime is an act committed by somebody which is against the laws of a society and harmful for the people of the society. Whenever somebody committs a crime, he is supposed to be guilty and is supposed to be punished for his act, so that he and the other members of the society learn the lesson from his punishment. Now, it is the duty of the law enforcing agencies and the members of the civil society to make a code of conduct which should be applied to each and every member of the society . \nThere are different code of conducts and different punishment procedures in different societies. For example, the punishment for theft is different in different societies. Prison is the place where the criminals are detained to segregate them from the rest of the people so that they may not cause harm to the members of the society and the members of the society may live in a peaceful way. So prison is a place where criminals are kept. It is a place where criminals are kept as a result of their guilt for a period of time sufficient enough to make them clear of the guilt. So prison is a place which plays very important role in the later life of a criminal when he is released from the prison. During his stay in the prison he has to live with the other criminals who are detained for different crimes some more severe some of moderate intensity, so a criminal lives in a sort of school or a hostel or home where he lives and interacts with other people. It makes the prison a society . \nThere are children who are detained for their guilt e.g. pick pocketing, there are persons who are detained for major wrong doings e.g a theft or a murder but as they live together in prison they interact with each other so they have a chance to learn from each other and from the environment of the prison. In most of the civilized societies the prisons are thought to be an important place and are given good importance to make them a proper learning place and beneficial for the criminals. They are given psychological consultations to help them resolve their mental sickness. They are taught different subjects which help them in their later life to make them good citizens. Prisons are made a good vocational institutes where criminals learn alot. In third world countries, and poor countries like Pakistan, prisons are still a place which needs a lot of reforms . \nRather than turning a guilty person or criminal into a good citizen, the environment of prison makes these prisons more harmful for the society. In their after release life they become more dangerous of the rest of the society members or they learn alot more ways to commit crimes and cause harm to the society. So in our poor country like Pakistan prisons should be given top priority for the better education of the criminals so that when they are released they should prove a helping hand for the society. " + }, + { + "title": "349_PAAO1005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n\nThe degrees are need of time. A man cannot be considered literate or educated without a valid and authorised degree. For survival and better future these named degrees are more important and essentially necessary. This is demand of the day. People are running after there degrees blindly to get them without bothering whether they are getting knowledge of that degree's worth. Their sole purpose is to get the degree by hook or by crook. So is the purpose of the well-known universities. They issue the degree to the students who learn the books by heart or crame them without understanding. On the part of students university requires bookish knowledge. They believe in printed material not in creativity. Many examples can be cited here to prove the point that theory is more important than the creativity. The same pattern is followed by the reknown universities. Individual thinking is always suppressed. The students who violates the traditional way of learning have to pay for that valient or bold act. Because university would not issue degrees to the students who tried to become smart. To some extent the authority is right because some times students failed to clear his points, to convey his mindset. But the examiner must try to read between the lines to understand the viewpoint of the students. The examining authorities give a very little chance to the students to present their own experience and personal thinking. Because the individual thinking seems to be in convenient to them. There are many successful people who have attained a valuable status in the society without having these mere named degrees. Many literary personalities and even writers are thought to illiterate. So it is an open prove that without degree a capable man can prove himself .\nThe famous proverb that Man learns from his own experience is a vital and athentic logical prove that degree are mere theoretical proves not prepare the people for the real world which is very tough. No doubt that we learn from books a lot but they did not tell us that we are gong in a wrong direction. The will not come to stop us from mischives acts. So the importance of books is doubtless but we should not negate creativity. We should take guidance from books but must use that enlightenment according to the circumstances and situations .\nThere are many example to prove that universities donot prepare their students for real world or it would be better to say for the practical world. Because you have to show your abilities through your attitude, body language, way of talking, living and behaviour. And there are many well educated people who have more than one degrees in their hands but they cannot convey their message convincingly, they donot have the personality to effect others lives. Whereas it is considered that a well-educated man is role model for the coming generations. If man with a degree have complexes in his personality how can he impress others?\nAnother kind of educated people is that they don't have command over their subject. Whenever they discuss something related to their subject they get confused or sometimes they donot have enough arguments to defened themselves. A simple example is that a man who have been awarded with the degree of masters in English do not know the structure of a sentence. He cannot write simple english. He cannot teach his subject. He is very weak grammatically. The who will accept him in practical world? What his degree can do for him? The only way is that he should try to improve himself . \nTo sum up it could be said that though the university degrees are theoratical but they are as necessary for survival as basic needs like food, air and water. A man who have a worth-while degree would be more confidents then a man without degrees. A degree is also prove of your hardwork. In the practical work preference is given to these degrees. But there should be some space for the students who have the calibre of creativity must be appreciated. Because such kind of thinking can bring a positive change in life. " + }, + { + "title": "350_PACJ1008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nAlthough this is a general discussion about the prison system but I am talking about the prison system in Pakistan. The prison system in Pakistan is really out dated. It is centuries old that was designed by the British against the Indians and the Muslims. Almost all the systems in Pakistan are those which were made by the British to humiliate and dominate the people of sub continent. In Pakistan this system of prison is centuries old and too bad. Rather it has reached to the level of worst. As police is associated with the prison system and the law and order system, so the corruption is at its highest level in these departments. So the prison system is also not free of this curse. The bribery is very much common is there in the prisons. The officials in prisons openly take bribe for various purposes. Even inside the prisons the drugs and arms can be found easily. There are officials involved in all these games. The prisoners are dealt with very bad methods. They are brutally tortured and there are different methods to be used to torture them. Mostly the criminals become more criminals when they leave jails and prisons. All this is because the prisoners are not treated as human beings. Rather they are taken as animals and non humans. The brutal torture and the company of further criminals make them rather big criminals. Even the facilities for prisoners are not good in prisons. The food the prisoners are given is usually substandard. The other facilities are also too poor and not up to the mark. The proper way to treat criminals is not to punish them severely. There may be other ways to treat the criminals. They should be rehabilitated. The system does not say to hate the criminals. But it says to hate the crimes. So the criminals should not be hated. Rather they should be given more care and attention so that they are not doing the crimes next time. This approach would give very much positive results and the crime rate may be reduced. D be some vocational trainings and courses in the prisons where the prisoner should be given chances to learn various things so that they may be able to do something when they leave prison. Similarly, there should be some psychologists in the prisons where the psychotherapy of the criminals should be done so that next time they don't commit the same crimes. The counseling may be the best option for them. There should be some system to educate the prisoners and criminals. The religious education should also be given along with the other education. The religious touch may prove more helpful to them to regain a normal life. The young criminals should must be kept separate from the professional and habitual criminals. Such criminals always mar the character of those young ones and take them towards the way of severe crimes. Similarly, the reasons for the crimes must be probed. The petty and minor issues must not be punished severely as it creates bad image on the minds of the youth and they become more accustomed to the crimes at larger level. No civilized society is in favor of punishing the criminals. Rather they prefer the system of rehabilitation. It is the rehabilitation which may help reducing the crime rate in any country." + }, + { + "title": "351_PACJ1010.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n\nThis is a strange comment that in our this modern world which is called global village, and which is dominated by science and technology in all the fields of life, there is no longer a place of dreaming and imagination. Some of the people may agree while some may disagree. Every body has his own point of view. One is thing is evidence that the world has become a global village. And in this global village the science and technology has reached to a very much highest level. Man can not imagine the level where the science has reached. It has reached to a very high climax. Even the science has made true all the dreams of the man that were once only considered dreams. Now all dreams have come true and all imaginations has turned into realities. Once man dreamed to fly in the air and now the aeroplanes have made this dream come true and now man is flying in the air round the clock as much high as much he wants to fly. Once it was a dream to see the man from distance and to hear the other man from distance. But now the mobile phones and televisions have made this dream come true and real. Now the distance is no more a hurdle in the communication. Now man can easily talk to his friends or relatives who are thousand miles away from him on the other side of the globe. Now a few clicks of the buttons bring you in contact with some one who is millions of miles away from you, and you all do it without any wires, without any cables or without any physical link. It shows that how the modern man and the modern world has made progress. It shows that in the global village nothing is impossible. Rather all is possible. And no wish can be left unfulfilled . \nBut imagination and dreaming is an important part and parcel of human nature. Man can not live without dreams and imagination. It is the quality of human beings that he dreams of many things. He dreams of things he wants to achieve and he dreams of the things he doest not achieve or he failed to achieve. The dreams and imagination takes him to another world of escapism where he takes refuge in the laps of fascination. The dreaming and imagination are important part of life and they help a lot to spend a normal life on the earth. And other than the escapism, there is another factor which is proof that the imagination and dreaming are necessary for the life. For all major inventions the man first dreamed and then he started working on the dreams and imaginations to make it realize the true. In other words one can say that it was the dreaming and fascination and imagination that lead the man to the path of so many marvellous inventions of age. The flying was a dream of man since so long which came true with the passage of time. So if the process of dreaming is stopped, if it is excluded from the world, there would be no proper life . \nThe modern man is too much occupied in the rat race of materialism. The lust for money is too strong in him. All the time man is busy in collecting the wealth and money. He is too much preoccupied in the pursuits of collecting money. So in such a case the man some times take help from his imagination and he falls deep in to the valley of imaginative things which give him relaxation for some time. In this way it is the imagination which helps the modern man to find some moments of relaxation, peace, calm and satisfaction. Similarly, the literature is most of the time based or depending on the imagination. So it is crystal clear that imagination and fascination and dreaming can not be left. One type of dreaming is day dreaming. This is the thing which could not be allowed there in the modern world or one may say that this is the thing which has no place in the modern era. In this age perhaps the day dreaming has room to exist, other wise the dreaming and imagination are still there and their presence can not be ruled out from the modern world." + }, + { + "title": "352_PACJ1013.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nMost university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. Universities are the source of higher education for the people. The university graduates are successful in finding the good jobs at good salarys and higher payments. The higher education is paly a very important role in the life of the students. They get higher qualification for the sake of good jobs. But now a days almost every university and each college is distributing degrees for the sake of money. There is no proper base for the knowledge and understanding. The students have the bookish knowledge but no proper understanding of the subject or the material. Such students are very good in the exams and they get very high marks in their exams but when they are go in the practical life, they find it totally impossible for themself to prove their knowledge. They are unable to do the things practically. They are just the book readers and crammers. They cram the things just for the sake of the passing of the examination but they do not have practical understanding of the things. This case is especially in those professional degrees where a lot of practice is required. What is the use of such a person who is only the bookish knowledge of the things and he is unable to do any thing practically and does not shows any field work. There are many reasons for this problem. The major problem regarding this problem is that the students are not serious. They do not pay proper attention to the studies. They do not seek any good work and guidence in the practical side. Their main aim is not the practical life but they only wanted to pass the examination for the purpose of degree. Some of the students are not interested in the studies. They only come to the universities for the purpose of the time pass. They come their, spend their times in canteens, cafeterias, benches and class rooms, talk to their friends and then go away. Such students get pass marks as the semester system is easy to pass. But when they come to practical life, and when they come to the market for the sake of job, then they come to know that they do not have any practical understanding of the degree. Such situation gives a disgrace and bad repute to the name of the degree and the institution. Some times there is an other major reasons for this thing. That the universities are not interested in proper teaching and practical aspect of the subject. They only charge the fee and then get the students admitted in the universities and then pass on and left. They want to save their funds and resources so they do not give much importance to the practical aspect of the subject. In this ways the students remain weak and they do not have some proper practical understanding or the knowledge of the subject. Such students not only fail in the jobs but they also fail in the practical life also. This situation does not produce the proper and responsible citizens but the lame and crippled people who are useless and just a burden on the face of the country." + }, + { + "title": "353_PAGD1002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \n\"Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the end of the 20th century, he would replace religion with television.\" By this statement we are informed with Marx's views about religion. Marx was the father of modern communism. He was born in 1818. In his intial age, he was jew by religion. Later on, he turned his views to materialism. He presented his political and economic philosophy of class struggle envisaging replacement of capitalism with socialism . \nHis communist views caused of dialectical materialism. According to his theory the course of history is the evalutionary development of the conflict between opposites. It considers the present day condition of the world as the result of a class struggle between the capitalists aiming at private profit and the proletariat who do or should resist exploitation at their hands . \nBeing a man of materialism, he is adverse to religion. According to him, religion has no importance in making a man's life happy and successful, it is rationalism may lead a man on a successful way. But fact is not that. He is quite false in his views. All his arguments about religion are based on prejudice. He prefers materialism to religion inspit of its all defects. It is materialism which has snobed the moral values of man. Man has fallen down from animal level. It is only for the reason, that he has been free from religion. It has resulted into rising corruption and other social evils in society. In this regard the instense of Japan can be given which is the biggest economic power of the world but is at the first number committing suicede. The people of the countries where religion is an unnecessary mater, has deprived of inner peace and smooth . \nReligion is the intuitive voice of man. If body of man is needed for food, the soul of man is also needed for the acts of virtue. Otherwise there is not any difference between human and animal. Even the cave man was a religious one. He also worship his own god. The history of religion on the earth as old as man. A person who believes in God never be disappointed. He fixes his eyes to the God in every situation. This thing produces in him optimism. Contrary to it, materialistic person is pessimistic. It may consider the religion responsible for strife in the world, because many fights are fought in the world on religious views. He also may consider that religion brings many restrictions in its wake in man's freedom. But we can not accuse the religion a cause of strife in the world because if we know without prejudice we shall come to know that every religion preach its followers to live peace and tolerance. It is human nature which urges him to dominate the other nations . \nIn short, like Carl Marx any thinkers have presented their views against religion and have attempted to slip out the image of God form massess's mind but inspite of all, they failed bitterly in their purpose. Because the God such a reality which is the voice of man's soul. Even a materialistic is not fully convinced of denial the God." + }, + { + "title": "354_PAGF1012.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n\nMan by nature is very enthusiastic to know laws and principles of nature and to know about interesting phenomenon. Education in this regard plays pivotal role by properly guiding man to the area of his/her own interest. Infact education makes a man complete. Without education there is no more difference between wild creatures and human. Islam specifically signifies the importance of education. And make it obligatory to every muslim men and women. And also we can take the example in this regard that Holy Prophet (PBUH) ordered the prisoners of war to educate 10 muslim in regard of jizya. It shows the importance of education. There is another proverb that [Quotation] .\nUniversity is such a stage in one's life where he is specializing the field of his own choice. Going little back in study career of a student is Pakistan especially every one have to opt same subjects and pass through the same products of learning. A doctor which is going to operate in future also have to study the mathematics disregard of the fact that he would have nothing to do with that in future and same in the case of an engineer. So firstly we should develop a sensible and proper education system so that one can gain more and more knowledge of the field of his/her choice right from the beginning . \nAs it is saying that \"little knowledge is dangerous\" so we should stop making jacks. In Paki universities students have to face many problems which prove hurdle to quench their thirst for the subject because of the lack of professional faculty and professional labs. They couldn't understand well. So there must be change in university culture of Pakistan and teachers should start taking interest for the better future of their own country . \nIn our universities notes culture has developed unfortunately. And one can easily get good marks if he/she is good at cramming. So we should discourage cramming culture and promote the conceptual studies like west. Thats why our university graduates are far behind from their foreign counterparts. So we should establish teaching system based on professional and conceptual basis. Beside the theoretical part we should teach students the practical part of their subjects .\nIn modern world man has to complete the machines to survives. And the lack of professional and technical persons are felt badly. Now the last hope to overcome this space is university sector. Universities should start making the technical persons which will prove a pillar for our dwindling economy. This will only happen when the students will be well aware of the practical implementation of their knowledge besides the theoretical significance . \nAnd universities should restrict the studies of humanities because it will grow only clerks and clergies and prove burden for the economy and also risen the rate of unemployment. Therefore students should be prepared to face the challenges of real world . \nConclusion .\nFrom the above discussion it is clear that the student couldn't survive in the modern world. It is the age of machines. So the theoretical degree will be useless for the students, so sense of the practical implementation of their subject by improvisation. Otherwise their degree will be of very little value. " + }, + { + "title": "355_PAGF1014.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nI totally go against the above given statement that dreaming and imagination is minimized in modern and advanced technological world of today. Rather according to my opinion, imagination and dreaming has got broad canvass and vision due to numerous \navailability of sources and information. I would like to start my argument with the mostly hold opinion of people about dreaming and imagination that is with the advancement of machinery, scientific researches, the passion of love is reduced to none. That is altogether wrong family is basic unit of society, family ties are there. The natural instinct of human being to love and to be loved is there. What so ever advancement man is doing, where so ever he is reaching, the need of love, sympathy, gernerousity, feelings leads towards dreaming and imagination. Dreams for a better, peaceful, smooth family or social life is there with man and it can never change .\nAll the advancements are bringing change in his living standards. Man has got luxurious and facilities life to live and enjoy. But we should not forget here to mention that all these progresses are actually the result of dreaming and imagination alongwith hard work and experinents to improve the standards of life. Another angle of that can be taken or interpreted for this statement is that of time consumption. It is said that people are much occupied with scientific facts and technological achievements that he is never free for dreams. They said that dreams are needed if one is unable to get what one wants. If everything is available, everything is on finger touch, then there does seem any place for imagination. But the things that are available on finger touch are not all life .\nThese are an important aspect of life, not all life can be spent depending on these things. If one makes the use of technology excessively in one's life, there surely comes a time when his/her nerves get faliqued and one needs that imaginative part of one's life back .\nDreaming and imagination is essential human activity which controls him from becoming mechenical brutal and inhumar. Being mechanical can not support a man to fit in society, neither it helps a man to live healthily and happily. Dreaming points to future, which imagination points to both past and future. Man tried his level best to do his best to get best in life. Along with doing best, he keeps on dreaming for more and more to compete and beat others for making his life superior but there comes a moment when he imagins his past when he started struggle then he sees his future to be more bright and envious for others. He wishes his family, country to be more successful and excel in every walk of life. He dreams to get fame in case of success. So it is proved that scientific achievement in shape of technological advancement is not all for satisfaction of man, dreaming is has the half share with these things Dreaming and imagination is a kind of Recluse for relaxation from all mental and physical effort. It is actually a key to the physical achievement. One dreams of some thing and then one uses ones mind to make that thought a reality. The same is case with imagination. One imagines something better to accur in life and tries that imagination be reality. We can see the collapse of many societies, who eradicate these things for their life and the result was collapse of society and a robote like life. So it create a balance in society, both things need to walk side byside .\nDreaming is innate in man which can never be irradicated, neither there modern era is able to caste off there things from life. It is there and it will remain forever after as well as imagination." + }, + { + "title": "356_PAGF1018.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nPrison system in history, the imprisonments for creating a safer society .\nMany people are tortured in the prisons in every country \nPolice behaviour is harsh and rude with prisoners. No respect of rules, justices and humanity\nDifferent non political NGO's are active and working for the prisoner's rights . \nWe need to have equality, justice and opportunities for progress available to all the people. Otherwise we cann't hope to have a society free from crimes and criminals .\n\nThere has been this belief by governments that the more imprisonment is the better for creating a safer society. There are more than 37 prisons only in Punjab. And their capacity is to have only few hundered prisoners but these prisons are over crowded due to more imprisonments. The situation is not so much different in other countries like, America, England and Australia. As the figures released by the Australian Bureau of statistics reveal that almost 60 percent of people in prisons last year had been in jail before . \nGenerally, the prisons are over crowded, therefore, the prisoners quarrel with the jail staff and the other prisoners and get injuries e.g fifty prisoners were injured in a clash at central jail in Faisalabad only few months ago. The prisoners are not treatened very well and they are tortured both mentally and physically, e.g, In Guantanamo jail in America, where there is no respect of humanity, rules and justice. And at the end of this torture some prisoners die and mostly became psychological patients and these problems of mental disorder cut off them from the society. There is no proper system of food for prisoners. They are treatened harshly and rudely . \nThe government's belief that the society will be safe if more people who commit crimes are imprisoned, is not right because the police are quite rude and harsh when they raid private quarters or other places for the purpose of search or arrest. They often beat up the people to much who resist them or hinder the search or arrest. Sometimes, they injure the wanted people badly or even kill them and the news later appears as \"killed in police encounter\". \nThey arrest the youth, women and children illegally and lock up them under different rules e.g. under 302, 307, 392, 420 and 337 etc. They torture them in prisons. Respect for women and sympathy for children are also at time not shown by the police. Then after releasing from prisons, they commit crimes as a revenge and have to go to prisons once again. There are more than 6,56, 700 prisoners only in Punjab. Prison system is outdated. Prison is not something that's effectively dealing with the social problems that deal to crime or individual problems but that might lead a particular individuals to committing offences . \nPhysical punishments and mental torture can not work as love, sympathy and justice can do. We should provide justice to the prisoners and try to releas them from prisons. And needless delays in justice in courts should be avoided like wildfire. New laws should be farmed to meet new situations . \nNo civilized society should punish its criminals. It should rehabilitate. In this respect different non-political NGOs are active for the prisoner's rights.e.g, Ansar Burney's welfare trust in Lahore, with prisoners' legal Aid society, is working on self help basis. Therefore, the violation of human rights by the US and Britain in their treatment of Iraqi prisoners in 2004 and earlier remained in hot debate in the mass media .\nThe police and the governments have realized the need of the hour that society should try to rehabilitate its prisoners rather than to punish and torture them. In this regard, US President Barack Obama has promised to close the controversial prison Guantanamo and to end the torture system .\nIn Pakistan, the judges of different districts have asked the civil judges to provide defence council for the prisoners, who cannot hire the lawyers to plea their cases . \nWe need to have equality, justice, respect and opportunities for progress available to all the people and try to rehabilitate them. Otherwise, we cann't hope to have a society free form crimes and criminals." + }, + { + "title": "357_PAGF1033.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nNo civilized society punish its criminals, it should re-habilitate them . [Quotation] . [Reference] \nCrime exists in the world since the very existence of the human beings in the world. When we turn over the pages of the book of the history, we may see that every society and civilization set some code of conduct to be adopted to encourage peace and order in the community and also fixed some to punishments to discourage the nefarious designs of criminals.1$\tIn the very beginning of man's appearance, there was not even any criterion to judge the right & wrong. This was worst period of lawlessness and chaos. During the past few decades, every society is focussing upon the maintenance of peace & serenity in its community. Any person who tries to violats the law, is put behind the bars for a specific period as punishment for his/her misdeeds. There is apparently no fault in putting the criminal behind the bars, but the question when happens to the criminals behind the bars might have a pinching effect on any soft hearted person. Most of the criminals are treated as feelingless animals behind the bars. We come across many stories of the criminals tortured to death while they are in prison. Those, who are tortured to death, might be at a benefit compared to those who are worse them dead. This is a fall of the brutality of the custodians of law enforcement. There is still an other sad and gloomy picture behind the bars which is even worse them the physical torture . \nThe criminal who are influential and have access to the government machinary enjoy every facility and even mentally torture the criminals belonging out of the prison as civilized people, Most of the criminals are stubbed with malice, prejudice & hatred against the society for the injustice, cruelty and rough treatment given to them without any justification . \nSo far as the human nature is concern, a man is basicly thirsty for love & affection. You can get far better and positive result if you use delicate and sophisticated stick of love, co-operation courtesy for the criminals instead of being cruel for the rectification of criminals .\nHuman prejudice and malice also aggravate the already infuriated criminals. Some times a criminal, after spending the strenuous & never breaking period of misery comes out of the prison with a positive intention to lead a civilized and well mannered citizen of the society. But when he has to be a social outcaste faces the hatred and prejudice of his own family and friends, relatives and the members of society, he has to change his intentions and emerges out even more dangerous criminal . 1$\tIf a society really wants to rectify its criminals, it should try to be tolera itself first. There must be rehabilitation centre for the out cast criminals and for those who are homeless . \nThe community should provide respectable means of earning to these criminals. So far as the prison atmosphere is concerned, It must be revolutionized as as well the law enforcing authorities should shoulder their responsibilities and arrange for the conduction of moral classes. Religious scholars may also play their role in turning the heads of rebels. The importance of patience, tolerance, contentment & simplicity in life must be emphasized. The police should not treat the criminals like animals. They should be told what an asset they might be to themselves, their family and to their nation, if they focuss on the point to get progress in life . \nCrime in every society is viewed as having a devastating impect on social economic and political life. Every one of us in concerned about becoming the victom of violent property or moral crime. Legal remedies coupled with modified individuals behaviour can limit the risk of victimization. Business crimes, serial killings, teenage gangs, police brutality, prison riots and violation of human rights stun us all .\nPakistani society views \"Zun\" (woman) \"Zar\" (Money) and \"Zameen\" (Land) as the basic causes of crime and try to treat offender under the centuries old stereotyped methods of strict imprisonment philosopy . \nHowever, if all the facilities are given to the criminals and all these things prove to be fruitless for a criminal, he truly has no right to live in the society of civilized people and should be dealt with iron hands." + }, + { + "title": "358_PAGF1036.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nThe topic for arguement that all university degrees are fake seems biased to some extant. As it is both true and false, it can be justified to some extants but not fully. There are so many arguments which go in favor of this statement and vice versa .\nFavor:\nThe arguement says that all university degrees are theoretical. I will talk here with reference to Pakistan. So many factors are there which go in favor of this argument . \nIf we look at the syllabus of most of Pakistani post graduate level degrees, it is not up to mark to the needs of recent researches and developments in the particular field. Syllabuses are designed that then years after years, there does not occur any slight change in it. So if, there is a 15 years old research or theory is being taught how can we say or expect that that knowledge will help students in being successful practitioners in practical difficulties and situations .\nSo need for an up to date syllabus is there to bring betterment in situation. Another pitfall of syllabus is missing of practical part in syllabus. There must be some part of syllabus containing practicals related to the subject which will be helping students in their practical life, field work is necessary to be successful in field .\n2. Another reason for supporting this argument is that out universities are not that developed and rich with resource material to make students aware of practical things. Universities lack funds. They can not manage to take their students to field. They cannot arrange trips in respective fields . \n3 Universities are offering some degrees which are not having any practical implementation in life. When students go through the syllabus, pass the degree by reading and learning theories, they are disillusioned. When they are unable to find relevant field for work. There knowledge hindares them in doing anything else. They become utterly disappointed at this point. Because Pakistan is not yet that developed country to have all the fields working in system . \nSo, there is a need to go through the syllabus of various degrees to make them up to mark and there is also need of thinking seriously on some titles of degrees which do not have practical or direct practical implication of society to avoid disillusionment is students And to make students useful part of society. It will help in using men power is a better and useful way . \nThis statement cann't be taken fully as based on truth. As there are some disciplines where universities are producing remarkable man power which is performing their duties quite efficiently and giving good results to society . \nFor example, there is the disciplines of Medicine, Engineering, Agriculture and atomic sciences, where universities are providing maximum theoretical and practical exposure to students. Practicals are integral part of academic practices and students have to do it to get their degrees. In the field of medicine, Laboratories are fully equipped with latest machineris to let students know about the things they have to face in practical life. Universities provide students opportunities to visit hospitals, to the practices being done in hospitals. They become well aware of the practical situations . \nThey no longer live in flowery imagination and become used to the hardships they will have to face . \nThen, there is field of Engineering. In this field, considerable importance is given to practical work. Engineers are expected to be perfect after leaving their institutions, So during their studies, they are given practical tasks to cope with practical problems .\nSame is there in the field of agriculture. Where students are taken to field and to various relevant places to let them get know how to practices being done in agriculture . \nApart from these fields, In every subject, universities have made research report or thesis compulsory for students. Student have to go deep into relevent material and then the relevent situation to sort out the solution of the given problem. It makes them aware of the practical life and some of the relevant issues which should be focused .\nSo it can be said that this statement is neither fully true nor fully wrong. Somehow, people are facing practical problems that is way, they claim so but, here is Pakistan with minimum resources, universities are trying their best to bring good result is form of intelligent students, Who can work efficiently in practical life as well." + }, + { + "title": "359_PAGF1039.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nWe live in a world that is dominated by science and technology, and it strange that so many of us feel on the surface that this is natural . \nIndustrialization is the process of social and economic change that informs the human group from a pre1$industrial society into an industrial one. It is a part of a wider modernistion process, where social change and economic development are closly related with technological innovation, particularly with the development of large scale energy and metallurge production . \nIt is also introduces a form of philaspical chane where people obtain a different attitude towards their perception of nature, and a sociological process of ubiquitous rationalisation, \nIt is true that modern world is dominated by science and industrialization but the second statement that dreams and imagination has no world can not be accepted as wrong . \nScience is not based upon dreams, science needs logics, facts and experiments not only imagination. Dreams gives inspiration to set our goals, until you have not dreams you can not set your goal. First of all, Pakistan was a dream of Allama Muhammad Iqbal and then it becomes reality on the basis of facts and arguments . \nWith out dreaming and imagination no one can make progress, who have no dreams than how we would set their goals? \nIn my point of view take the example of a businessman when he think about to run away a new business. First of all, he has a dream, that he will be a successful businessman behind it, he sets goal to achieve his target . \nA student have a dream to be a doctor and he want to come set their goals and objectives with distincit phases. First he plan, how to study? How he should give time to family and his friends. He have to maintain a balance in all the things, but his first priority must be study to fulfill their dream . \nAs Quaid said: [Quotation] .\nA students keep this phrase in mind and works hard it achieve his goal and ultimately his dreams. There is an intrusting example in the respect of these dreams tat comes true. Faisalabad city is undeveloped before 30 years ago. The successful traders, markters and industrilists have a dream to make Faisalabad modernised and developed city. They negotiate with each other to make this dream a reality. So they start invested in Faisalabad . \nMany textile industries opened. Marketrs and traders start business here. Religiously, socialy, culturaly it is a modernized city now . \nAnd Now a days it is considered as textile city and \"Manchister of Pakistan\". Another is example of Mr. Asif Khan, a motivational speaker, a competent, well reputed personality. He groom, train students emotionaly and motivationally. On 17, June, 2010, he addressed to students and said, [Quotation] . \nIt is no doubt that world of industrialization is becoming the base of progress. But industrialization give the man go into world of imagination, in industrialization every one know it is worth and could not go beyond the dreams and imagination. It is all due to science and technology. If one has to make progress he has to be relistic in his real life and also follow the world formation according to scientific approaches. But the world of dreams and imagination give a person new hope and incourage them to go ahead. World of imagenation did not let the man die . \nThe world of imagenation has it,s own charm and dream gives hope and courage to go ahead, it gives new way to think for a great world of imagenation! In science and technology we have firstly hypothesis then experiment and then results but the world of imagination has It is imperical meanings in it self. It gives the courage to find the dreams of imagination Now a days modern world is totaly influenced by science and technology. The ratio of progress is dependent upon the science and technology. Science has made the man as like machine, It is due to science that we take few seconds to know the whole world . \nNow the progress of science is much enhancing the man towards the moon and they are trying to settle a new world on the other planets. But if we say science is everything, It can not be true . \nConclusion:- Dreams, Imagination, Science, Technology and industrialization are hand in glove to compete in modern era." + }, + { + "title": "360_PAGW1002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nIt is an admitted fact that the science has progressed very rapidly in every field of life .\nIn every field of life it has provided us many facilities and without these facilities we feel our life incomplete and of course our life is incomplete without these facilities because we are unable to live and work properly without the facilities provided us by science .\nScience has completely changed the society and the man. Development of countries is directly related to the development of science. Defence of countries depends on the technology and the technology is provided by science but saying this that there is no place of dreaming and imagination in this modern world dominated by science and technology is wrong .\nIt is wrong because immagination and dreaming is the basis of science. At first the man dreamt, then imagined and then discovered many things. New inventions and discoveries are being made everyday so the process of dreaming and immagination is still continued . \nThere are some things which are still out of approach of science, so it is the peoples' dream to see or observe them. And about these things scientists have made just imaginations . \nWe study about atom but no body has seen atom still, because it is too small. Even an atom cannot be seen under electron microscope. Scientists have made their immaginations about the structure of atom which are very similar to the reality. But is has always been a dream to observe the atom .\nScientists could not reach to the solar system completely and they have gathered information about the planets by artificial satellites using hubble telescope but this information is not accurate but it is just an immagination. They have just landed on the Moon. While they have imaginary information about other planets. It is also dream to land on all other planets of solar system . \nScientists have landed on the one side of moon but they could not reach to the other side due to its rotation time so it is also a dream to land on the other side of the moon and scientists have imagined that the second part (side) of the moon is very much similar to the first one . \nScientists have given us information about stars and glaxies. They got information about their distances from each other their areas and temperature etc but all this information is is imaginary .\nScientists have only imagined that how universe came into being. And they have suggested the Big Bang theory as its answer but it is their immagination because any successful experiment has not seen still about this theory .\nIndustrillization has a lot of importance in the country's trade. The work is being done more fastly and accurately. The production rate has increased a lot. But it is industrillization which is causing pollution, global warming and environmental degradation. These problems are causing many diseases in human beings, plants and animals . \nIt is due to scientific knowledge that the cure of many diseases has been discovered, but there are still some diseases whose cure has not been discovered still, the people who have suffered in these diseases have a dream to be healthy again but there is no cure of these diseases so it is also a dream .\nAt last I would like to write that despite of this fact that science has progressed rapidly and has dominated the world, the dreaming and immagination is in the nature of man and nature of the man cannot be changed by any science." + }, + { + "title": "361_PAIJ1004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n\nMost university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare the students for the real world. The syllabus in the universities are not according to the practical world. They only contain the bookish knowledge. Though the students get the degrees from university yet this degree do not help them to take various steps in the real life and they are unable to solve the various problems in the life .\nThe degrees are theoretical as they are not directly linked with the real world. If we consider the example of a student of M.S in Physics then his knowledge is theoretical. The books which are related to his degree are theoretical. He can have the knowledge of equations and the various principles such as Newton's law but he is unable to apply his knowledge in the practical world .\nTheoretical world is world is not what we study in books but it is full with the worries, fears, fever and dangers. The university degrees only help to get a job or a name in the society. In this way university degrees are only the source of getting fame and earning money . \nWhat students study at the university is not related to the practical world. For instance a student of biology study only the theories related to the subject and the important works what the scientist have done in this field. Practical world does not demand for such things. In practical world their deeds are different. Sometimes it happens that a student fully wants away from his/her practical life while getting a university degree. And when he attains the degree the has turned into a different way having different social norms. In this way he/she finds a lot of problems to survive in the practical world and to cope with his/her mates .\nSometimes it happens that a topper and gold medalist fails to survive in the practical world. He faces a lot of difficulties in adjusting himself in the society though his degrees are the source to provide him the theoretical knowledge yet his knowledge is of no use in the practical world. As the demands of the practical world are totally different from what a student study in attaining any university degree. In this way the university degrees are of little value the knowledge which does not help in practical world is useless. It only remains the bookish knowledge . \nSometimes it happen that though the student study related to practical world they only study for the sake of getting good marks in their university degrees. They remain unable to apply their knowledge in the practical to over come the difficulties and to take various steps related to their practical life . \nThe university degrees remain of little value because the knowledge is not conveyed in the correct way to the students. The teachers only give lectures and the students only adopt it in a way of solving the question paper not in a way to use these in solving the problems of practical life. In this way can solve the question paper best but the question of the practical life remains unsolved .\nTo conclude, we can say that the most university degrees are of the little importance as the degrees are unable to provide the students a better understanding of the practical world. Practical world is not what they study in the books but it has different demands. The students only get the knowledge from the experiences and to have better experiences they have to sacrifice the whole life." + }, + { + "title": "362_PALW1002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n\nI selected The Topic: \"Most university degrees are Theoretical and do not prepare for the real world, They are therefore of very little value\". \nI selected this topic due to great implementation in the modern age in countries like pakistan. Approximately, new universities which are developed about two or three years ago, give theoretical degrees to their students. But on the other hand, many or we can say almost all universities also give theoretical degrees to their students due to less experienced faculty members, having no well equiped leborteries, only few numbers of research centers, and many more. And when that students come into their practical \nlife in their respective fields of study, they are nothing .\nSpecially, the departments of science and technology, computer feilds, medical feild, engineering feild suffer their students into theoratical degrees. Now the question is what are theoratical degrees? \nThe universities especially, low level private universities and colleges not sincere about their student future. They do not see the value of degree as it need and do'nt give concentration about the value of degree at the international level. They do'nt tell their students about the value of that degree and about their practical life in the market after completing their education or degree. They do'nt tell that how you implement in the \nsociety after completing their degree. A student think if some'one ask me \"what are oppertunities for you after completing their degree? Or \"what is your practical field after completing your education?\" Or \"what about your future?\" Then what should I say?\nA student hesitate to tell someone that what will his future because he doe'snt know \"how am i express my practical life at the face of someone\"? Because his teachers and his institution do'nt tell him about the implementation of his feild in the practical life. When a student complete his degree or education and enters in his practical life, he feel much more depression when he fails to find his job or opportunity to implement his experience. Then he feel he is nothing in experience. And if a student successfully enters in his practical feild then he feel much more difficulty and hurdels and feel much more \nburden on him. Because his institution or teachers did'nt prepare him for his practical life. And this is a major cause of unemployment in any country when his young generation fail to find his jobs . \nFor example. A pharmacist who works hard and invest a large amount on his degree and complete his specilized five years. And when he see his future as a medical representor or marketing and in a pharmacutical industry at the pay of 10000 to 15000, he worried and feel depression. The two factors are produce. These causing effects. One his institution and his teachers do'nt tell them about his future and second his country which do'nt facilitate him according his feild and work harding . \n\"How to improve it\". Any professional institute should fully prepare about their practical life, the teachers should tell about his future and about his practical life. The country should provide wide research facilities to the professional students. The teachers should kindly sympathetic and serious about students future so That The young generation prepare theirself for the depelopment of their country . \"Nothing used except my mind\"." + }, + { + "title": "363_PALW1004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion?\n\nBefore proceeding, it is necessary for us to put a sight in to the characteristics of modern age, its influence on human beings and on our literary work. We should also define imagination .\nWhat is imagination? Imagination is a mental faculty which farms images of external world or objects not present to senses. It is a faculty to think which we actually are not. Imagination is a shelter which we use to relief ourselves from external problems. It is base of all sort of literary piece of work. It opens the way for future. Then how we can say that modern age is not a place to imagin . \nJules Verve was a French writer. He was not an inventor or scientist but he interpreting many scientific things and events for example travell to moon, hundred years before its happening through his imagination. It was his imagination which showed him the future of world. Imagination explores our feelings, emotions. We imagine the things which give Pleasure and satisfaction to us. Wordsworth, Keats, Coleridge all other Romantic Poets considered imagination very important not only for literary work but for human lives. Let us look what we have lost after giving up the imagination, peace and calmness from our lives .\nModern age is the age of faith and doubt, an age of morality and hypocracy. It is an age of prosperity and age of poverty. It is an age of idealism and age of materialism, age of progress and decline, age of splendour and squalor .\nIn this modern age there are complexities everywhere. We have faith on ourselves, on our work, struggle, on our fate but still our mind are full of doubt. There is prosperity but is also a poverty everywhere. We have splendid lives, standards but we are sick and upset innerly. Outwardly we are happy but innerly we are anxious. In this age man is more consious about his social condition. The empirical and sceptical spirit of science played a part and helped in dissolution of old social acceptance. The scientific approach affected also the field of economic and social investigation - Science has made our lives easy but very rapid also. It is imposible to imagine how the modern man can survive in the absence of various discoveries and inventions of science . \nThough modern age gives us many things but it also snatches many precious things. For example it takes our peace, calmness, purity of love and our imagination. In this modern age man has changed. His attitude towards life has changed. He has every but no time to look into himself. He is going to be dead innerly. Modern man becomes sick mently .\nOur modern literature also shows the conflict of mind. This shows the anxiety, disturbness and lack of imagination. TS Eliot says in his book: [Quotation] \nLeaning togather .\nThen it is wrong to say that in modern age there is no place For imagination. Imagination not only makes a man free from worldly problems but also opens the way to futures' great work which is not present but can be present in future like Jule Verne's imagination .\n\n\n\n" + }, + { + "title": "364_PAPL1002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n\nIf a person is male of female, they are internally weak. They need someone's encourgment that will help them to achieve their aims. In this contemporary world the need of a true religion increases. In this materialistic world people always want someone's help and encouragment that they cannot get from anyone except Allah Almighty . \nWhen Adam came into this world his descedents started fighting with each other due to the lust of different things. Then Allah Almighty started sending His prophets to the people of this world. It is the obstinacy of the people of this world that maximum people remained infidel and those who accepted prophet 's preaching but in such a way that they proved even themselves worst than infidels. From the religious history of this world we know that whenever a prophet started the preachings of God 's message Maximum people of that particular area of society became his worst foes. Those who accepted his preachings but did not act on the message. Jews, Christians, Muslims who profess that they are true followers of God 's message, but in fact they have divided themselves within their religions into different sects for which they were not asked .\nChristians have two main sects Protestants and Catholics. They have also lot of sects in Protestants and Catholic sects e.g. in catholic sect they have Anglicans and Publicans subsects. History is filled with the incidents in which the people of these two main sects and subsects prosecuted, killed, and tormented each other. Same is for Muslims and Jews . \nin which each group tries his best to prosecute the other groups of people and show their superiority . \nHistory also gives us information that these professedly true believers fought fiercly with each other alot. Crusade wars were most important in which Muslims and Christians tormented each other. Whenever the groups fought with each other, they considered themselves true. All those wars annihilated scores of people. This was not the message of God to kill or prosecute each other, people actually they were compelled by their lust for the benefit of this world. They used religion for their targets. All the theologians, priests of different religions could not understand the sly plans of their leaders . \nIn this contemporary world religion still exploits the innocence of the people of this world. But unfortunately we are unaware of this. Scores of people are killed on daily bases. Peace of this world has been snatched and we do not know sins.1$\tReligious scholars extols martyrdom and gives assurance that martyrs will always live in paradise forever. Their moms, dads, brothers, and sisters gets good news that due to their kinship they will also be rewarded at the day of judgment . \nMarx aptly said that the religion was the opium of the masses. As opium is drug and it has bad effect on addits metamorphically same is for religions. Those who follow any religion are warned about the punishments, \nafter death, when they will be died. In short they are passing pleasureless lives and those who do not follow the preachings of any religion are also sombre. In short we the people of this world are adrift . \"If Marx was alive at the end of 20th century, he would replace religion with television\". A question emerges here that if he was alive what he could show to the people of this world through television? I think that would be nothing except cliché. The true remedy for the people of this world lies that all masses should be taught about the real divine preachings of their religions. All the people should be taught that criticism on other religious communities and their prosecution is restricted from God. Then we can see true happiness among the people of this world." + }, + { + "title": "365_PAQI1001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n\nScience is an organized body of knowledge concerning the physical world, both inanimate and animate. It is, in fact, a large collection of facts, arranged in the form of rules or laws. Scientists use exact methods to observe and study facts and natural phenomena, and do experiments to form laws of science. The sciences are branches of such knowledge and these are natural sciences like biology and geology and the physical sciences like physics and chemistry .\nOn the other hand, if a person is not exact in his expression and thought and uses his imagination to express much more than what he observes and feels, he may like to study and research in the arts or humanities .\nOur is a scientific world. We depend on science in a great many ways. We know that science is necessary for the progress of any country. Scientists have made use of science for the benefit of man and society. They have used scientific principals, laws, and facts to invent and develop machines of different kinds. For example, the motor-car, aero plane and railway engines, printing machines, different kinds of machines used in factories producing things of daily use like match boxes, cloth paper, shoes and so on have been invented by scientists. The telephone, the calculator and computer are among the latest electronic inventions that have made our life modern and comfortable .\nScientists and doctors have invented and developed medicines that can cure speedily dangerous diseases like typhoid, cholera, and tuberculosis. Now human beings can live much longer than in older times. Even animals and birds get the finest medical treatment in modern hospitals where effective medicines and suitable facilities are all the time available .\nMoreover information technology, as software industry, for operating the data programmes and systems of computer came to be widely used in the last twenty years . \nThe technological advances of modern science have revolutionized our life patterns. The electronic industry, started in 20th century, has reached unimaginable heights of development. Science has transformed transportation magically, as now the supersonic jet can take man to the farthest end of the world in hours, and rocket can take him to the moon and even beyond. The fast moving submarines can pierce through the sea water under the surface to long distances with the help of radar, for the scientific and business purposes . \nIn fact, science teaches us to work without prejudice. Scientists in all countries use the same formulas, laws and results. They should, therefore, work togather for the advancement of human kind .\nSo we can say that with all the progress in science, imaginations or dreaming cannot replace it. Because imagination is not based on facts and it also does not need any kind of rules or laws. It is totally based on free working of mind without any results. Imagination and dreaming is only useful in the world of arts and poetry because it is used to judge a poet . \nThe power of imagination escap us from the real world and it brings human beings into a world far away from realities. There is no realistic approach in the world of fantacy and dreaming . \nThe above mentioned information about science is totally based on facts but in the world of imagination there is no place of facts and laws. The world of dreaming is only give us pleasure and happiness for sometimes because it escap us from the harsh realities of life. When we came back from this world everything is broken into pieces. Because the world of science and technology is far away from this world." + }, + { + "title": "366_PAUF1008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nIn the start of human civilization, man was quite brutal. There were great quarrals on small matter. People used to kill the enemies or opponents without thinking of settlement. These fights used to continue upto many generations. As the time passed the wild sentiments of man turned to civilized one. His sudden bitter reaction reduced and he invented courts and jails etc and take his revenge through some men of authority and wisdom, who were elected or selected for sake of justice in society. This method made the revenge legal. At present time human civilization is at certain stage that it carries jails and courts to punish its guilties. Laws and rules are designed according to the type and intensity of crime, to punish the criminal for his/her bad deed .\nHuman being carried some wild feelings and tendencies to do crime under certain specific conditions, when usually he get out of temper. The cause of crime may be his/her rage or interest for some benefit or to hide some mistake of his or her own. So man commits crimes which effect others. At present time, when civilization has flourish very much, the innocents complain the related department for example police department, it arrests culprit and take him to jail, then on the basis of argument and witness it is decided by courts whether culprit is guilty or not. If he/she is not guilty, he/she is left. Otherwise, he/she is put in to jail and some punishment is decided for him with respect to his/her crime . \nIt is quite right way for the peace and harmony of a society to punish its criminals. Because innocents want justice, if criminal is not punished, the effected one will have the feelings of rageness and anger. So he will commit the same crime for sake of his internal peace. To abolish his feelings of grief, effected person will do some thing bad and bitter to fulfil his feeling of revenge, he may commit theft, he may torture his opponent by hitting, he may kidnap some one or he may even kill his opponent, if his rage is out of control. This situation will disturb the part of society where all this is being happened. There would be internal restlessness and social disturbance etc .\nIt is said that the criminal should not be punished in a civilized society, but he should be rehabilitated. Then the firs objection that arise is that the society is enough civilized that it has its moral values to provide justice to some innocent, who is disturbed without any appropriate reason. Civilization does not say the guilities should be given protection instead of its innocent. If the criminals are protected by so called rehabilitation, society should not be said civilized but absurd . \nAs there is matter of rehabilitation, so it depends on the choise of effected person, if he finds courage to apologize his guilty, then he should be rehabilitated otherwise he must be punished . \nIt is human nature to commit crime when he wants physical or mental escape from some unwanted situation. If the criminal is not punished in order to rehabilitate him, he may not be fully corrected; and may commit some or other crime unconsciously, because it is psychologically proved that \"Habits never change, it is just intensity which changes\".e.g. If a man torture some other man physically and being arrest and punished. Next time he will not only doing same thing but also stop other doing this. Because he will have fear of his socialy repute. While in case of rehabilitation, no such thing will occur. Criminals would be punished because it is law of Holy Quran to punish criminals. Rules have been established by Allah the creator of the world, Almighty. Quran says that there must be hand for hand, ear for ear, eye for eye and blood for blood. This order of Quran can not be carried out by rehabilitation And who disobey Allah are being cursed in this world and world next to death." + }, + { + "title": "367_POPZ1001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "NA", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nOne often hears the despondent voice their complaints about the deteriorating condition of human creativity which is due to the overdevelopment of technology. What a preposterous idea! Neither technology nor industrialization can impede our capability of dreaming or using our imagination since human minds intrinsically harbor vast amounts of creative powers. We simple need these to overcome daily hazards and excuse our uncommendable behavior .\nOne area in which we urgently need the help of our imagination is school. Every young person realizes that this institution is not the most attractive place in which to spend those short and therefore precious hours of youth. So rather than face the boredom of educational grind, we manufacture scores of elaborate excuses in order to avoid responsibility for our misdemeanors. And this in itself constitutes a miraculous mental exercise. Ages of formal instruction could not equal the intellectual benefits we reap of those intense bouts of creativity when we try to explain our absence, lateness or lack of homework. And what is more important, our inventive efforts have to remain vigorous all the time, since any excuse used twice becomes inescapably cliche .\nIt is a sad truth that adult life breeds adult problems. And this determines the different direction in which the development of our mental powers goes. We are now grown-up and sensible individuals and our worries are of adequately paramount significance. We will go to any lengths to be pardoned for our sloth and continue to be considered full-fledged adults. Thus, we no longer say: \"I have not done my homework because my dog chewed it up\" but we are more likely to come up with something like this: \"My child is in the hospital and I cannot come to work\" or \"My wife has just run away with my best friend so it was impossible for me to meet the deadline\". And it really does not matter that the person involved is a childless bachelor - the boss is so struck by the employee's tragedy that s/he does even notice this blatant inconsistency. It has to be remembered, however, the samples mentioned above are just the most basic and worn-out excuses that would never be used by a truly creative individual .\nIronically, we make use of domestic problems to excuse our inefficiency at work and the other way round. Whenever we come back home after midnight or (perish the thought) next morning, our boss (depicted as a ruthless despot) always plays the role of the culprit. Yes, that is true - coping with a shrewish wife or kind but a little bit dull husband also requires constant cerebration on our part. And here, our task is probably the hardest since no matter how vehemently we try to deny it, it is our spouses who know us best. Consequently, it is the quality of our brainchildren that matters most. No wife would believe that the office computer exudes the suffocating Opium-like fragrance, just as no husband (even the most loving one) would be willing to accept some flimsy explanation about his wife having to work all night with a group of special-slows before an upcoming exam .\nWhen, regardless of all explanations we have used we are forced to shoulder the grievous burden of too many responsibilities and we feel we have too little time to truly enjoy the few pleasures that have been given to us, we can always afford a little flight from the grim reality - we can dream. In this harmless game called \"What Would Happen If...\" we are freely allowed to wallow in glorious visions of our success accompanied by inescapable failure of our mortal enemies-teachers, employers, spouses. Here our imagination reaches its zenith. We rack our brains with unheard-of intensity to invent the tortures that would suit those monsters best. And after such relaxation conjoined with an effective brain exercise we are ready to resume our educational, professional, and connubial duties .\nThere is not a single sound reason to worry that the advancing industrialization wreaks havoc on the formidable might the human mind is naturally endowed with. As long as humans interact the scope for their creativity will remain virtually unlimited .\n" + }, + { + "title": "368_POPZ1003.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \n\"Juvenile delinquents broke into an old woman's house, burgled it, and then, bestially tortured the defenceless victim. Her mutilated body was left on the floor.\" Having read another report of this kind, one pities the victim but finds comfort in the thought that the wrong-doers have been caught and imprisoned. However, there is little hope that those criminals will be stacked away forever. Soon, they will be paroled for good behavior and will set on the evil quest again. By no means does the outdated prison system of punishment help eradicate the crime factor from modern societies. Thus, civilized societies should seek other ways of dealing with criminals; rather than incarcerate them, they should rehabilitate them .\nMany people are drawn to breach the accepted rules because of shortcomings or deficiencies in their system of moral values. What's deeply immoral for the bulk of the society, they perceive as natural for the inability to distinguish good from evil. Others, capable of recognizing this distinction consider it irrelevant. Such was the case in the movie [Reference] where the two protagonists set out on a killing quest across America. They knew that what they were doing was evil and immoral, but they were not troubled by their conscience. The undeniable thrill, excitement and pleasure made them continue of their path. They are also people who break the law because their wretched living conditions stripped them of all hope. Modern societies should realize that these perpetrators cannot be responsible for their shortcomings because they cannot control them. Thus, separating criminals from the rest of the society will not change their psyche. The time and the money will be squandered on this purposeless effort. It is doubtful that these criminals will have any qualms for crimes they have perpetrated .\nBeing confined to a leper asylum never cured anyone of the disease. Quite contrary, having come in contact with other infected the disease progressed even faster eating away the person's flesh and bones and finally resulting in death. Similarly, prisons turn into crime universities. Those, convicted of lighter misdemeanors quickly learn how to go about organizing serious crimes. Instead of leaving the prison walls repentant and willing to make up for their wrong-doing, they leave predisposed and trained to become hardened recidivists. The prison life and contact with ruthless incorrigible offenders eats away their soul and conscience finally resulting in innocent people's deaths. If they had never been put to prison they wouldn't have absorbed the infectious microbe of evil. Had, instead, an effort been made to educate them to become valuable citizens, they would reenter the society equipped in necessary qualities to make their lives meaningful and successful .\nHowever, intimidated law-abiding citizens would rather see their oppressors behind the prison bars. Little do they realize that they do not really secure safety for themselves. The overcrowded prisons are far from housing every offender. Moreover, paroles and temporary releases are issued freely to make place for new arrivals. Thus, criminals have the opportunity to try out new knowledge and commit further crimes. If the so called \"lomiarz\", the man who attacked women by hitting them with a crow-bar, hadn't been issued those releases five Warsaw women would still be alive. The perpetrator allegedly took advantage of his temporary prison releases to attack women .\nThe prison system of punishment proves greatly ineffective. Rather than help the society to do away with crime, it encourages felons to lightheartedly oppress innocent people. If the societies recognized crime as a kind of disease and treated criminals accordingly, not only would the prisons be empty but societies would gain new valuable members as well .\n" + }, + { + "title": "369_POPZ1004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nViolence and crime are one of most characteristic features of the modern world. In order to find a solution which would prevent the rate of crime from growing, many people point out that the key to the problem lays in rehabilitation of those, who have already committed offenses. Accordingly, the y regard the present systems of prisons to be outdated and not serving the purpose of improvement of those, who are kept in them. Following this point of view, no civilised society should punish its criminals but rather do its most to rehabilitate them. Unfortunately, this way of thinking, though attractive, is completely wrong. The biggest crime that a society could commit to itself would be to forgive its criminals .\nThose who think that we should stop punishing criminals and lead them through the process of reeducation in order to improve their behavior and respect for the law, unavoidably follow the path of thinking established by some nineteenth century philosophers and criminal lawyers. According to this approach, criminals do not commit offenses because they are bad by nature, but rather it is because of the society which forced them to be who they are. How dangerous can accepting this point of view be, may be illustrated by a popular case of a murderer accused in nineteenth century Germany of killing somebody. He said to the court that he was sorry for having committed the crime, but he couldn't be punished, because he had been brought up by the people who regarded crime as something natural and accepted, and therefore the society in general is to be blamed for what had happened. Now we must ask ourselves this question: should we allow killers to get away with a not guilty verdict? Of course not! The judge in the case supported this point of view. He said to the accused that he was sorry, but he, in turn, had been brought up by the people who despised crime and he returned the death sentence verdict .\nSociety must never stop punishing criminals. It should be realized that punishment, contrary to what some people say, does have a significant purpose to serve. Criminal lawyers, as early as in the Middle Ages, invented the concepts of general and individual prevention. The latter is based on the assumption that if one suffers considerable hardships for his misdemeanour, he will not decide to commit a crime again. The former, on the other hand, presumes that if the general public sees how severe a punishment the convict has received for what he had done, it will not dare to commit the same offense. In other words, it will realize that crime does not pay. Indeed, people must be aware that if they willingly decide to go astray, they will without fail be punished in a severe and quick manner. This is crucial for any society in order to function properly. Rehabilitation, on the other hand, is based on a naive presumption that those who are already bad, will collaborate to improve their behavior. Will any manufacturer lower the prices of his products knowing that he is o monopolist? Will any horse pull a cart without being urged to do it? Obviously not! It is precisely the same case with criminals and rehabilitation .\nOne should realize, too, that the modern system of prisons is by no means outdated. As a matter of fact, it has never been as lenient as it is nowadays. People who stay behind bars receive decent food, stay warm, may receive regular visits, may write letters and write books, even watch television. Many, on special occasions, are allowed to visit their families outside a prison for a few days. What more should they need? A swimming pool with a swim-up bar and sunglasses? After all, the idea is that they are supposed to endure hardships. One century ago, prisoners could not even dream of such conditions as there are in the prisons today. Water and bread in a dark and damp cell was all they could count for. Today, societies agree to pay great amount of money in order to support comfortable enough prisons, for the people who have done nothing better than to show their disrespect for the law and morality. This fact is rarely mentioned, although it is quite important and should not go without recognition .\nWhat all idealistic points of view have in common is that it is not feasible to put them into practice. It would be simply wonderful to live in a society without prisons and without criminals, either (those few ones who have chanced to put their foot on that land would have already been rehabilitated). Unfortunately, such a state of matters would quickly lead to complete anarchy. We must realize, that prisons are perhaps too comfortable by this time, and the only way to prevent crime is severe sanctions and quick punishment .\n" + }, + { + "title": "370_POPZ1006.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \nUniversity studies are the highest level of education provided by most of the world's education systems. Theoretically, graduating from a university is something of a great value. It is supposed to mean getting a better job, university graduates are associated with high social position. Therefore a lot of young people decide to study at university. After having graduated from a secondary school they decide to continue their education and the most prestigious way to do it is to enter a university. However, in nowadays' world the number of students who are disappointed after having graduated from a university is increasing. The value of a university degree seems to lessen. The knowledge gained at a university does not help young people to achieve success. The fact that the value of a university degree is very little in the real world is conditioned by various factors .\nFirst of all, during the studies a student is \"forced\" by a curriculum to choose less and less subjects which automatically leads to concentrating on a very narrow segment of knowledge. This in turn means putting less effort in studying other, in one's opinion less important subjects. The most obvious example of negative consequences of such a narrow specialization is incompetence of medicine doctors. Having great and detailed knowledge in one field they very frequently cannot diagnose properly illnesses of a more general nature .\nSecondly, the more prestigious studies are, the more theoretical, knowledge is required from students. Additionally, such knowledge concerns various fields. Students of economy, for example, during the five years of their studies have to study various subjects which tackle different problems that are not necessarily connected with one another. Such theoretical knowledge proves to be useless in a real world because usually, at least as far as economy is concerned, practical knowledge is definitely more profitable than the one gained at a university .\nThe distinction between practical and theoretical knowledge is connected with another factor contributing to the theory that university degrees are of little value in the real world. The knowledge that a student has after having graduated from a university is only theoretical. In very few cases students have an opportunity to use their knowledge in practise or to gain professional experience while studying. However nowadays, the key-word while applying for a job is \"Experience\". The number of years one has worked in a particular profession is in most of the cases more important than the marks he/she got for his/her M.A. thesis. The very basic requirements imposed on people who want to work for some prestigious firm are the ability to work on a computer and to use a fax-machine (not to mention typing), fluency in more than one foreign language. These are the things which are usually not included in a curriculum of studies. Consequently, usually none of them is a requirement for getting a university degree. What follows, for a potential employer the fact that an employee has finished university is of a very little importance and in most of the cases will not be the decisive argument during the job - interview .\nAll the above arguments lead to the conclusion that graduating from a university does not mean that a young man or woman is prepared to face the requirements of the real world. The prestige of a university degree remains unchanging but in order to achieve success in nowadays' world one needs knowledge from various fields. So the fact that one has graduated from a university will remain only a subject of a personal satisfaction as long as one does not prove that he/she is really good at something. Then a university degree will become the trump in one's hand and claiming that it has some value will not be baseless anymore .\n" + }, + { + "title": "371_POPZ1009.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nI do not agree with this statement. I think that the prison system is the best way to punish criminals provided that every sentence is actually executed without any exceptions. In the cases of the worst atrocities there should be the capital punishment introduced and executed without changing it into imprisonment under any circumstances .\nAs long as human race exists there has always existed crime. People established certain laws to curb crime and for many years depriving an individual of his or her freedom or just taking away his or her life has been the only way of protecting society from cruelty, of misfits. Punishment inflicted on those who broke the law does not seem to be a sufficient deterrent only when it is not executed entirely for some reason or other. That is also why there is still a growing number of cases of so called serial killers. Those are the people who kill repeatedly, particularly after being released from prison too early .\nAnother aspect of the subject is choosing the right punishment for the most serious crimes. There are cases in which the capital punishment is indispensable. Let's look at the example of Dennis Nilsen, a British mass murderer who killed twelve people and dismembered the bodies of his victims. Some time ago he appeared on TV to give an interview in which he presented explicit details of his atrocities. His words delivered in a matter-of fact tone could almost serve as a beginners guide for potential killers on \"how to murder and dispose of your victims\". When the interview was broadcast, it gave Nilsen four minutes of fame and granted him a celebrity status and glamour. It is not difficult to imagine, however, how much distress this programme brought to the relatives of Nilsen's victims, and what is more, it could have encouraged others to follow him. Such a warped man as Nilsen should have been excluded from society long ago, not only by imprisonment, but by the capital punishment .\nRehabilitating people who committed grisly crimes should not take place in a civilised society. This may lead to the anaesthetization to the human cruelty and the whole society may become inured to violence. Dubious remorse shown by criminals is going to evolve into new atrocities very quickly. The individuals who commit crimes are usually weak, ineffectual people and they can assert some power only by killing or by other kind of breaking the law. Very often they themselves admit that they are not able to lead normal life and in exceptional cases, like in case of Westley Dodd, they publicly plead to be executed for their crimes .\nThere are many arguments for the prison system and against rehabilitation of criminals. Obviously, such a severe punishment is right for them, and what is more, it scares others. Anybody who wants to commit a crime must know for sure that when it comes out, there is no other way but prison. Such system eliminates from the society individuals that may have a very destructive influence on others. Besides, the money that would be spent on rehabilitation of criminals should be allocated to the prevention of crimes instead. What is also very important, the society must know for sure that there is justice in their country and that all the criminals are going to be punished properly. Nobody would like to see acts of revenge done by victims' families in a civilised society .\nBearing all this facts in mind, I think that the prison system is by no means outdated and that every civilised society should punish its criminals in this way .\n" + }, + { + "title": "372_POPZ1010.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song \"Money is the root of all evil\". \n \nAn encyclopaedic entry gives such a definition of money: ' a common, unchanging equivalent of goods which marks their value and can be exchanged for them'. Its origins, dating as late as four to six thousand years ago, are connected with a sociological division of labour which found its expression in the separation of husbandry from handicraft. As a consequence, a surplus of certain goods appeared which could serve as means of exchange. Those goods which were the most transferable became directly exchangable for all the other articles and thus money originated. In the earlier ages, various commodities served as money, later precious metals such as silver and gold started to function as a general equivalent .\nFrom this brief history of money and its invention, it can be observed that it is possible to mark an exact moment when money began to be present in the existence of the mankind. Thus the saying that money is the root of all evil seems to be rather unlogical. It is not easy to state when evil came into being, it seems to be a sort of universal category and a feature of all human beings. While evil has existed as late as our first ancestors started to inhabit the Earth, money is but a human invention, just a useful tool which makes the trade more efficient. Rather, man's love of possessing, greed and unlimited desire to have causes all the wrong which money is unjustly blamed for .\nIt is, however, true that money rules the world. As far as historic sources can tell us, there has always been a certain regularity concerning money. It is, the clear distinction between those who have been in possession of money and those who put a lot of effort to gain it. Moreover, what can be easily noticed is the striking disproportion between these two categories of people. The number of those, who have been trying to find out various ways of possessing it, in other words becoming rich, remains in a predominant majority to those who actually already have had it and have been rich .\nMy view is that it is this disproportion which can be accounted for the evil in the world, not money itself. The common lack of it, on the one hand, and demoralizing power of its excess in much fewer cases seem to be a problem. For it is a universal truth that the disturbance in balance is the source of trouble. Our society, in a result of civilisational progress, operates on such principles which condition the fact that even the most basic needs of man can be fulfilled only when paid for. Food, clothes, accommodation, entertainment, every single item in our surrounding has its price. Even human body as a whole or just its separate parts have a market value and can be sold. In fact, everything has its certain value expressed in some amount of money .\nThe natural and distinctive feature of all people is aiming at comfort and security. There is nothing immoral in this tendency. Further, possession of money gives many obvious opportunities and options of fuller existance. The problem appears when not everyone can achieve all the advantages simply because of the lack of money. Again, the impossibility of existing in a modern world without it is clear. The living examples might be all the people who struck by the extreme poverty have found themselves at the very bottom of social piramide, nearly loosing their human dignity. They would, for sure, attribute their status to the lack of money .\nThe opinion that money cannot give happiness has been functioning for ages. Is it really so? People asked for the definition of happiness would probably point at health, knowledge, security or love. Money, of course, is not a direct equivalent of all these things but if one wants to be honest, it would be necessary to admit that money, to a great extent, helps to achieve all of them .\nMoney itself has little value. It is just a scrap of paper or a piece of metal. How can it be, than, so powerful that, on the one hand, it may help to achieve ultimate happiness and, on the other hand, it is the underlying cause of crime, hatred, humiliation, ignorance, depravation and corruption. Money is not evil. Rather, evil which, just as good, is an innate feature of all human beings makes them treat money as a good excuse for all the wrong in the world .\n" + }, + { + "title": "373_POPZ1015.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nThe contemporary world is becoming more and more influenced by science and industrialisation A contemporary man does lot realise how much science contributes to his or her life. When a telephone, a TV set, a radio or a computer are so common as any other everyday facility, man unconsciously diverts his or her attention from dreaming and imagination. That influence is a threat that has the gradual effect on all of us, it diminishes our ability to think thus to dream or imagine .\nThere are various other factors that limit the development of our mind. First, the communication development, as it has become so easy, there is less need to concentrate the mind. To receive information, we need only sit in front of the TV set and flick from channel to channel with a remote control. To impart information, we need only pick up a telephone and throw out phrases in random sequence, punctuated with \"ums\" and \"errs\". In the 60s the Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan predicted the advent of film and TV would have as radical an effect on our culture as the invention of a printing press had on the culture of the Middle Ages. He predicted that books would become obsolete in one generation. He has been proved wrong in that point, however, who knows what would happen in 100 or 200 hundred years, as although more books are now published than ever before, the vast majority of these books demand little literacy, imagination and intelligence. Having been at the centre of our culture for the past 3 or 4 hundred years, they have now been pushed to the margins, either as adjuncts to TV series, or as a form of entertainment for those few moments when we are out of reach of a screen - on the beach, on a plane, or as a help to prepare people for sleep at the end of a busy day .\nTwenty or thirty years ago, writing letters, keeping diaries were common, people could use words to communicate various, vague emotions, they could use their minds to express thoughts in a concise form. Nowadays, with the use of electronic aids, telephones, videos, faxes, etc., there is no longer place for words, now the content is more important than the form and we are beginning to abandon the habits of thought. It is very frightening as it all starts very early, computer toys, digital watches, calculators, computers are present in the children's lives from the very beginning. Children instead of learning to think grow up convinced that these electronic aids are their right. They learn dead vocabulary that has nothing to do with Shakespeare or Milton. The impute of information they get is boring and mindless and the use of computer breed laziness and discontent. From the very childhood they learn that thinking and organising will be done for them and later this computer generation assumes that it is better to calculate, buy petrol, tell the time, pat the bills or shop with the aid of a computer. Children and young people glued to the computer screen will be more and more common phenomenon. Parents, unaware of a danger, are happy that their beloved kids are developing their minds while they in fact do nothing of that sort playing violent, sophisticated computer games. These children have simply no time for thinking and their behaviour is just the sign of the fact we are entering the computer age which is the age of dehumanisation. What is even more scaring is that people who express misgivings about the use of electronic aids by children are considered to be unimaginative, old-fashioned and out-of touch .\nTo sum up one can draw one frightening conclusion that there is apparently no way in which we can stop the development of science and industrialisation. The only possible solution lie in ourselves it should be of our concern not to allow technology to interfere with our lives too much and to use it wisely, trying not to eliminate from our lives the ability to think, communicate, love, dream, and imagine. However, one must ask him/herself the question whether he/she is strong enough to resist the influence of science and technology. In the majority of cases the answer will be no, as it impossible to do so. What is left then? Are we going to turn into mindless creatures without imagination and dreams?\n" + }, + { + "title": "374_POPZ1020.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \nHuge number of people begin studies every year. The appetite for knowledge, abundant social life and lure of the so-called academic world has brought them all to big cities, where universities and colleges are located. And there they have been affected by academic way of living, so rich in purely theoretical courses that are hardly, if at all, relevant to the outside world. Before passing entrance exams most students had hoped that after three or five years of studies they would reach a kind of prestige and social high status, and this position will secure relatively high salaries. In reality, though, things are different. People who have already got various degrees lack basic abilities to cope with the problems of the real world. Moreover, it is this ability which is valued, rather than the knowledge of theory .\nAcademic staff, together with students, create a world of its own, a vacuum for which nothing from the outside world is of any interest and hardly anything out of it is applicable beyond its boundaries. Universities are totally isolated from the outside world, scholars focus on some abstract disputes rather on their possible implications. Instead coming up with theory-based solutions for today's problems, scientists stick to their useless theories in which nobody is interested except themselves .\nIt is no wonder, then, that students graduating from such stagnant worlds lack skills that might prove handy in the real world. The majority of subjects taught at universities contribute to the students' general knowledge, although later on, provided that a student does not choose academic career, nobody will pay any attention to the courses that a given student completed. Rather, he would be interested in the practical skills and abilities to cope with certain problems, which universities seem to have neglected .\nEven if the need for such skills has been recognised by academic world, students taking part in more practical courses cannot resist the feeling that their practice is both unreal and simulated. Consequently, they do not treat those courses properly, not performing as well as they would have been forced to in a real life situation. As a result of such an attitude students do not benefit from those courses anyway .\nApart from that, universities do not develop skills of making one's way through ruthless reality. As students at universities, they feel secure and comfortable, but at the same time, unaware of the problems existing outside. They proud themselves on getting a high grade for some theoretical projects or congratulation on a given lecture, whereas, in fact, it is life that assesses, not teachers .\nDegrees achieved by students at universities present no value. Despite of their being challenging, or even thrilling, for one has to put much effort into them, one has to be careful not to pay too much attention to the academic work. Since universities fail to prepare for the real world, students have to do this on their own, probably applying for the job while still studying. After all, total negligence of the outside world may result in an inability to cope with its problems. And this would be a disaster .\n" + }, + { + "title": "375_POPZ1044.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nMan has always dreamt of making his life easier. Primates had to struggle for survival and try to improve harsh conditions of life. With time, man started to feel secure and warm in his cave; yet, out of greediness he wanted more and more ... He dreamt of better life with permanent light inside his dwelling place, he dreamt of being able to fly and move from place to place quickly and easily. Most of his dreams came true and man became an advanced creature who managed to achieve a lot thanks to the power of reason. But a price had to be paid for this ...\nNow man has everything his forefathers dreamt of but does it mean that he does not dream any more? And here a paradox arises - man wants to go back to his roots. He longs for a quiet, peaceful life, far from the sight of sky-scrapers and traffic jams. Of course it is mere wishful thinking as we have gone too far in our run for making our lives better and it is practically impossible to turn back now .\nIt is obvious that our lives are dominated by modern science and technology - we are victims of our own creation - but I would not agree that there is no place for dreaming and imagination in this world. Very often people are simply ashamed to admit it but dreams have always been an important part of their lives. The fact that we live in the age of spacecraft does not mean that imagination has been rejected. It may not be as explicit as it was in Homer's days when Greeks lived in the world full of gods created by their own imagination, but it is present in our lives. Like our Victorian predecessors we feel endangered by the development of science and technology and that is why we try to escape into the world of dreams. It is possible by means of literature and Disney lands. The former is very fertile. It has always been the means of giving way to emotions of various kind and imagination running wild. Writers, poets in particular, have tried to show the beauty of the world and contrasted it with the ugliness of big cities and their industrial development. Some film makers have also used their imagination in order to create an unreal but beautiful world of fairies and good spirits, and as an outcome we have such films as \"Hook\" or Disney productions. I remember how sad I was after watching \"Hook\" and how I kept asking myself, \"Why don't we live in a fairyland where everything is so pretty and simple? Good wins over evil and everybody is happy?\" But then I came to the conclusion that this world is in fact inside us and we are the only ones who can make it live on or die .\nA Disney land is a paradise not only for children but also for adults. It is a place where grown-ups forget about the existence of taxes, bills, morgages, etc. It is a place where time has stopped and where everyone forgets about their problems just for a while .\nBut not only is there a tendency in art to escape into the world of dreams but also in architecture. People get and tired of concrete and iron and they seek after solitude in the countryside. The cottages adorned with flower baskets are a truly delightful sight and to me they are an expression of people's longing for simplicity and peacefulness .\nI have tried to show that people of all ages have had various dreams and desires. It is obvious that they differ from age to age but they have always been and always will be present in mankind no matter how more advanced we may become. And I really do hope that Aldous Huxley's gloomy prophecies presented in his novel [Reference] will never come true and that people won't turn into unfeeling creatures deprived of this precious thing called imagination .\n" + }, + { + "title": "376_POPZ1045.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song \"Money is the root of all evil\". \n \nAt the very beginning I should say that I only partly agree with the above statement. In my opinion money is the root of evil indeed but certainly not of all of it. There are other reasons that make people choose the wrong path. Those could be ambition, power, fame, or even alcohol and these do not have to have anything in common with money .\nLet us imagine two old ladies who are neighbours. They always try to exceed each other in everything. Both of them have the most beautiful gardens in the area, best cut lawns and hedges. But one day one of the ladies finds out that her neighbour has bought four splendid greyhounds which look so terrific playing in the garden. Unfortunately she has no funds to buy herself four dogs that are so expensive. She cannot stand the fact that her neighbour is better. She steals secretely to the neighbour's garden and she poisons the dogs. She did an extremely evil thing which was caused by her sense of being better than others, her ambition and also jealousy. What does it have to do with money? Nothing, unless we say that she had to by a poison for it .\nDoing evil things for power or fame many times is connected with money. There are people who strive to get better positions or to became famous it would give them more money, or better connections which would make it easier to make money. But we need to point out the fact that there are many maniacs who love to be in charge of everything and they would every evil thing in order to have everyone in their hands, to manipulate people and kame them dependent .\nAt the very beginning I have mentioned also alcohol as one of the reasons for evil behaviour. We all know how many murders are committed by people who are intoxicated. Alcohol makes people unable to think logically. Murders are effects of a momentary impuls raised by anger which could not be suppressed by reason. What does this have to do with money? Nothing at all, unless again we say that the murderer needed money to buy some alcohol. Of course we can agree that people murder for money, but there are also other reasons: insanity, jealousy of a husband etc .\nThe words of a song yet are true. Money is the root of evil because it is the only mean for our life commodity. If we have money we live better. But in order to have money we have to earn them by hard work and not all people are hard-working. On the other hand there are jobs in which no matter how hard you try you will not earn enough money to feed your family. Finally, there are people for whom there is no job at all. These people might do evil like cheating or stealing. In this way money again has been found to be the core of evil deeds .\nYet everything depends mainly on the personal qualities of a particular individual. For one person money could matter very much, the other could not care for it at all .\n" + }, + { + "title": "377_POPZ2031.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Is capital punishment different in kind from other sorts of judicial sanction? If it were shown to be effective in deterring crimes of certain sorts, would that justify its use? \n \nFirst of all the state is an institution based on the general agreement of the people. Thus, maintaining that it is the state that uses capital punishment, seems to be a tentative euphemism aimed at making our responsibility rather remote. I personally think, that it is the society and not the state, who permits to eradicate criminals. Hence I intend to use people rather than state as a referent in this essay .\nHaving clarified this we can procede to the discussion of capital punishment. Is it a punishment? If so what is its role? What are the arguments of its protagonists and antagonists? Is it justifiable? These are the basic questions I shall try to answer in this essay .\nPunishment is an infliction of pain, suffering, discomfort or death on a person who has infringed the law, rule or custom of the community. In ancient times it was exacted on the basis of the \"eye-for-an-eye\" rule and was designed only to satisfy the thirst for revenge. Today we claim to be a more civilized society and design punishments not to revenge, but to reform. The major aspect of any punishment is to create the possibilities for the offenders to reeducate themselves, and, having served their sentences, to start new lives, and be useful to the community. Capital punishment is devised exclusively to eradicate people who have committed a mistake, however gross it might have been. It is ultimate, it does not give a second chance. In this respect it fails to meet the requirements of a civilized punishment .\nMany of the protagonists of death penalty hold that its main role is to deter the violent crime. They claim that the numbers of offenders who carry guns have increased enormously in the countries, which abolished capital punishment. However the antagonists maintain otherwise. Namely, that death penalty is not an effective deterrent. According to them statistics prove that violent punishment does not tend to bring about a decrease in violent crime .\nAnother issue, fervently discussed by both parties, is the question of morality. Advocates of death penalty believe it immoral that the taxpayers, who may fall prey to murderers and rapists, should pay for their upkeep in prisons. This claim is difficult to refute. Nevertheless killing people, even if they are habitual criminals, can hardly be called moral. Neither jury nor judge should have the power to put an end to a human life. The antagonists of death penalty would probably conclude that it perpetuates the very evil it seeks to remove .\nTo stop the viscious circle, the opposition of capital punishment postulates a prison reform. They emphasize the fact that the object of modern penal system is not only the protection of society but also the reclamation of the criminal. Reeducation and reclamation of an offender, they believe, is likely to reduce the amount of crime. The only answer their adversaries give, is that hardened murderers are beyond hope of reform. On the expiry of their sentences they return as the source of danger to the society. Thus eradicating them is the same as cutting of a diseased organ. But who is to judge that the disease can't be cured?\nThis short discussion of the main points linked to the problem of capital punishment leads to the final question. Is death penalty justifiable? Though, as we have seen, it is a complex issue, but an instinctive answer is simple. Death penalty is not justifiable. First and foremost, it does not meet the requirements of a civilized penal code, because it denies the criminal the right to reform. Second, it does not seem to be an efficient deterrent. Statistics are ambiguous in this respect as it is difficult to account for all sociological factors involved. It also raises numerous moral questions and does not solve any. Finally, it does not cure the society from evil, but only removes responsibility for it from all of us, to one, to the offender. Capital punishment is nothing more than a confession on the part of the community of a failure to protect, educate and support its every member .\n" + }, + { + "title": "378_POSI1001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Death Penalty - for or against? \n \nThe penal code dating from the 6th century BC and invented by Hammurabi consisted of many laws concerned with crime and punishment. According to that great king, whose policies I firmly approve of, people who committed certain crimes should be punished by imposing on them the penalty equal in quality to the criminal offences those people were charged with. In other words, if someone took out someone else's eye he/she should become the victim of the same cruelty .\nThe times have changed since then and the range of crimes has definitely extended but the methods of dealing with the offenders have become less severe. The most typical punishment for most of the offences is the prison sentence. However, seeing the growing number of crimes this does not seem to be very effective. That is why I'm for the death penalty to be introduced or even against abolishing this kind of punishment wherever it already exists .\nIn my opinion if somebody is able to kill, to murder, to rape and is found notorious for committing such crimes we should not analyse his deeds from the legal point of view and wonder whether we can legally kill him or not. Although some people think this is not human to kill murderers in this way my view on that very matter is totally different. Why shouldn't we have the right to impose the death sentence on a person who murders innocent people with cold blood consequently depriving others of their beloved parents, wives, husbands or children? Why should we have mercy on people who unscrupulously rape and they ferociously torment their victims until they finally die? I would say that it would be more inhuman to let those monsters live and walk freely on the earth they contaminated with their infamous actions .\nBesides, the capital punishment really helps to decrease the number of violent crimes. If we have a look at the data coming from America and going back to the 80s when the death penalty was reintroduced we can easily notice that during only two years the crime rate dropped by one fifth. This means that the danger of being executed frightened the criminals and made them realize that continuing the same \"profession\" is not a trifling matter .\nAnother thing which would support the idea of imposing the death penalty on criminals is the situation in prisons. As we all know, the prisons are overcrowded nowadays and the money being spent on them comes from nowhere else but the taxes paid by people. Besides, the prison system is constructed in such a way that very often it lets many prisoners out before their sentence is finished - because they, for example, behaved well. Consequently, the vision of being sent to prison creates no fear in the criminals and allows them to commit the same offences over and over again .\n" + }, + { + "title": "379_POSI1006.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Death Penalty - for or against? \n \nDeath penalty - the most severe capital punishment for breaking the law (usually for committing the most serious of crimes, that is, premeditated murder). This kind of penalty is used rarely, and in not all countries, only in cases of ruthless murderers and heavy criminals, for whom life of other human beings does not count .\nIn my opinion, capital punishment should never be abolished. It ought to exist and help to keep our world free from violence, vengeance, rapes, murders and all terrible kinds of crimes committed with cold blood. The criminals must be separated from the society as quickly as it is possible but I think, they should not undergo any rehabilitation. Firstly, it does not help to change their rotten minds into minds of sensitive, righteous people. Secondly, this costs a lot of money to keep them. After a long sentence they would come out of jail as better professional murderers and more depraved maniacs. Then they would be more dangerous for the society than they had been before .\nTo present my point of view even more clearly, let me consider such a case. Two 23 years old degenerate men rape and kill a 10 years old girl. At first, they tie her up so hard that her thin legs and hands are bleeding. They hit her head many times, then they rape her. Those drunk men almost tear her delicate body apart. When it is finished, they throw beer cans using her as a target. She is lying unconscious all in her own innocent blood. As if this would not be enough, they make a loop on a rope and try to hang the girl on a tree. The branch is not strong enough and it breaks. The girl is not dead, she is breathing which makes those two men very angry. They throw her down from a bridge nearby. She is falling 40 feet down to be killed on sharp rocks beneath. They did it for fun killing her in a sophisticated, thought-over way. For them the law should be merciless. They are useless for the society and when at large, they are very dangerous, heartless and pitiless criminals. There is no hope for their having any remorse or scruples about committing the same or even worse crimes in future .\nTherefore, the most threatening barbarians, killers should be given the life sentence and removed from the society at once not to let their sick minds rule, threaten and destroy our world. I believe in justice and safety which should be ensured by the law .\n" + }, + { + "title": "380_POSI1007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Against the death penalty\n\nThe advocates and opponents of death penalty have been arguing for a very long time. Although there are still fervent followers on both sides of the argument, in the contemporary world one of these sides seems to be gaining advantage over the other .\nCountries which are often - and justly, I think - referred to as the most advanced, the most civilized ones, have moved radically away from death penalty. All over Europe this kind of punishment is considered both inhuman and inefficient, and was cancelled more or less recently. As for the United States, it is still valid in some states but is rarely implemented and - even in such a crime-ridden and violent society as America seems to be - often harshly criticized .\nThe conclusion we are fully entitled to draw from this tendency is that it is what has been constituting our European culture that induces us to abandon death penalty the idea of which clashes sharply with our humanist tradition. This tradition, after centuries of controversy, seems now at last firmly established in our societies, calling upon us to scrap this kind of punishing people for good .\nThe argument stated above puts death penalty and the need for eradicating it from our lives into a larger, more general perspective. It is fully vindicated in itself but there are also some more substantial grounds that may further reinforce the point we make .\nFirst, those who favour capital punishment believe that it exercises a deterrent effect upon would-be offenders. However, if we look at the statistic data we will see that those deeming so cannot find there any confirmation of their views. Surveys carried all over the world show clearly that the threat of punishment by death neither lessens the number of crimes nor makes those committed any less brutal .\nSecondly, we must keep in mind that having sentenced somebody to death and having administered the sentence we cannot rescind it; it is absolutely irrevocable. And what if all of a sudden it turns out that the judges who passed such a verdict were wrong? That there occurred a mistake in the evidence or in the procedure? What if some factor which was hidden or simply overlooked crops up and alters the entire situation? This may always happen. Yet if it does, nothing can be done just because the person who was regarded as guilty and who now appears to be innocent is already punished; in other words - dead. In such circumstances all we can do, apart from chasing the real criminal, is to announce to the world that the person who was sentenced and punished was in fact blameless but by doing so we hardly do justice to him or her as we simply cannot bring them back to life. This is obvious. But let us try more to see the obviousness of things also before, not only after, we have decided to act .\nOur third point, unlike the two former ones, does not belong to the sphere of the statistically factual and the immediately verifiable. Thus, it is not so easily observable. This does not mean that it is in any degree more negligible or lacking in urgency. It appeals to our sense of what is and what isn't morally proper, and stems from the ability to feel empathy towards other people, no matter who they are. It boils down to the conviction that it is not the same to be murdered unawares in some dark wood or street and to be put to death in prison. A victim of a murderer might have hoped that he or she would be saved miraculously or would manage to escape, and this hope may be cherished almost to the very end. He or she does not know when exactly (if at all) they will be dead. This is a blessing; it saves an enormous amount of distress that comes from expectation and certainty in these matters. But the prisoner sentenced to death is not spared this knowledge and consequently has to bear the anguish resulting from it. He or she knows for sure that (and when) their execution will take place. This must be unendurable. The position of the prisoner waiting on death row is therefore incomparable with that of, say, somebody who is shot down in a hold-up or knifed or strangled in a marital quarrel. The state must consider carefully what it does to its citizens, even if those in question happen to be criminals. Naturally, wrongdoers have to be punished. But punishing them one must avoid all pain and suffering that is unnecessary, superfluous. And the practice of death penalty causes far too much of such suffering .\nConsidering the above factors we find it deeply absurd that there are countries where death penalty is still legal .\n" + }, + { + "title": "381_POSI1010.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Death Penalty - for or against? \n \nDeath penalty is definitely nonsensical. Nowadays we notice a rapid deacrese in inflicting capital punishment, which is indicative of the general loss of belief in its purposefulness. The fact that death penalty ceases to be popular is caused by a hightened awarness of the value of human life. After so terrible experiences as the two world wars we seem to be more cautious and hesitant when considering taking man s life .\nThe strongest argument that can be levelled against death penalty is its inhumanity. Unlike other punishmenys, this does not have any educational function, at least for the convict. The only, though very doubtful, value of capital punishment is its role as the deterrent of potential criminals who premeditate committing a crime, a murder in this case. Thus the significance of the punishment, if we assume that punishment can bring any positive results, is shihted from the individual to society. The individual is sentenced to death penalty not to be prevented from committing further crimes but to threaten the community against repeating his grave mistake. Yet, as we fortunately managed to observe, killing the murderers have never been a successful method of getting rid of them. Quite the opposite, cruel laws always produced ruthless and insensitive people who, living under harsh rule themselves, disregarded the universal and undeniable value of human life. Severe laws do not educate society but deprive people of their intrinsic moral sense, and thus create a vicious circle .\nCrime cannot be eradicated by laws because they do not concern the motives but the effects of offensive behaviour. Although for society it is much easier to threaten individuals than to promote humanistic values, we should not limit our efforts in crime prevention to mere negative measures, but we should also try to positively influence the system which gives birth to criminals .\nIt should be considered whether killing, or to state it more eupheministically, liquidating murderers, deserves to be called a fair punishment. When a murder has been committed and the murderer is in the hands of justice, he is no longer dangerous to anyone. Closed in a prison cell, he is completely defenceless and helpless, even if he realizes his mistake and repends it. He is not given a chance to make any resolutions. He cannot make amends. Thus if we kill such a person, we are not better than he and our killing is as ruthless as his. Accordingly, executing a capital punishment on a helpless person is tantamount to a premeditated murder .\nStill, assuming that death penalty is an appropriate punishment for murderers, we can never be sure what motives underlied the crime, whether it was premeditated or accidental, or whether it was committed consciously or in a state of irresponsibility. The evidence is often too vague or even contradictory, which does not conduce to impartial judgement. Insisting on justice, we can easily make a fatal and irreversible mistake sentencing to death an innocent person .\nFinally, we can question our right to put ourselves in the position of masters of life and death. Life, especially human life, is still a great mystery to us. Man is not capable of fathoming this mystery and creating life on his own. Therefore, being completely ignorant of the origin and aim of life, he should not destroy it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "382_POSI2024.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: English is an easy language to learn \n \nPeople all over the world learn foreign languages. One reason, why they do it is international communication. It is English that seems to win the competition for primacy among the languages round the world as it is believed to be the easiest one to learn and the most widely used. It is however disputable whether English is in fact the easiest language to learn and there are obviously different opinions in that matter. A number of certain factors should be taken into consideration in that case. First of all we should take a closer look from the point of view of the learners. We cannot of course forget comparing learning English to learning other languages from the point of view of linguistics as it seems to be the key point in the whole discussion. It is obvious that any two languages have different grammars, vocabulary and syntax .\nWe may try to ask the non native learners of English the question whether it is easy to them to learn the language. It seems to be common among them to approach it from the side of its grammar. Frequently we can hear that English is very difficult because you must learn a number of tenses, conditionals, passives, modals or irregular verbs, what seems to be a lot more than in other languages and in this way much more difficult. Another point of view may assume that English is difficult because of strange pronunciation rules or sometimes rather their lack. Frequently the teachers can hear questions like ' Why is this sequence of letters read in a different way in these two words?'. These difficult to answer questions definitely influence student's motivation and that in effect makes learning more complex .\nWe should also take a closer look at English from the point of view of linguists. Here we will apply the most common way of exploring the language which is based on comparison with a number of other languages. Shortening the whole procedure we will base on obvious facts which are known even to ordinary people with a little linguistic experience. It is widely known that most European languages in their grammars have genders, complicated inflection of various parts of speech connected with it, various types of declination and different word order rules. When we compare those factors with their equivalents in English it is clearly noticeable that in English they are much simpler or sometimes nonexistent. Best example could be the fact that there are no genders in English except a few nouns which have feminine or masculine character like ' actor (actress' or ' man (woman ' which however do not influence declination of any parts of speech. Linguists will also point out certain regularities in grammar which are simpler than in any other language like: ' All progressive tenses have verbs with ing ending.'. They will probably claim that the rules are easy to understand or even sometimes unnecessary but it is enough to remember a few certain schemes. These arguments surely support the claim that English is an easy language to learn .\nThe division introduced here between the learners and the knowers was intended to show contrasting attitudes towards English and its learning. It should be admitted that there may be some opinions that this division is inadequate to the real situation but the author based his opinion on his own experience as the learner and the teacher at the same time. Concluding we could state, basing on the linguistic point of view. that learning English is at most aspects easier than learning other languages .\t\n" + }, + { + "title": "383_POSI2029.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: English is an easy language to learn\n \nEnglish, the language that is currently being learnt by the approximate number of 2 million people all over the world, has undoubtedly gained similar importance as Latin in the Middle Ages. As it has become the international code of communication both in computing and business, no wonder that more and more people commence learning it, usually not as a means of reading Shakespeare's works in the original but simply by necessity, such as enhancing their career opportunities or doing deals with foreign investors. The world seems to have chosen its universal language, but has it made a good choice, at least as far as the degree of difficulty in learning it is concerned?\nIt is usually the case that the first encounter with English, for both the adult and teenage learners, is very rewarding. Everyone who takes up learning is acquainted at least with several phrases or well-known words they have come across in their everyday life, watching satellite programmes, playing computer games or simply from their mother tongue, which is replete with loanwords. The fact that English nouns on the whole are not subject to inflection and verbs do not conjugate makes the beginners feel confident and motivated to learn such a language that appears to be ' much easier than Polish and Russian'. For those who are risk-takers speaking does not pose any problems at all, as they simply make use of the scope of vocabulary they have acquired so far and try to make themselves understood. Once the learners have overcome the fear of mastering the infamous sixteen tenses and the rules governing articles, over which every beginner loses sleep, they come to the conclusion that English grammar is digestible and even comparatively easy. Another argument supporting the alleged effortlessness of mastering English, or at least the ability to communicate easily in it, is the abundance and accessibility of pedagogical material, both authentic and inauthentic, designed for teaching this language. Taking advantage of the comparative studies of English and Polish languages enables teachers to predict and eradicate possible errors made by learners and thus facilitates learning .\nHowever, one may justifiably wonder why ever learners spend so much time, even several years, before they can honestly admit they have mastered the level of proficiency in English and even then can still be taken by surprise with a phrase or word they have never seen or heard before? This can of course be true of any other language, but is it not striking that it so frequently happens to learners of English? The reason for it is, unarguably, the remarkable richness of the English vocabulary, with the multitude of meanings one word may have, its figurativeness and innumerable idioms and phrasal verbs. Therefore the longer one is bent upon English the more they seem to realise what a difficult and painstaking task they have undertaken. When we take into account the problematic spelling and not so easy pronunciation and intonation, the whole matter appears to be far more complicated than at first glance .\nFortunately, the estimation whether English is an easy language to learn or not still remains a matter of individual approach and attitude. Even though someone finds it extremely complicated does it necessary have to produce a discouraging result? But it may be advisable to bear in mind the optimistic opinion about this language and console oneself with this thought in hard times, as one thing is certain: there is, and definitely will be, no escape from English whatsoever .\n" + }, + { + "title": "384_POSI2032.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: English is an easy language to learn\n \nIs English an easy language? I would say yes. That opinion is also shared by my fellow-students from the English Department who brush up their English and are certainly proud of its acquaintance. The same question asked in a classroom of teenagers in a primary school will not trigger such as an unanimous response. Well, first of all, any foreign language taught institutionally has to be learned, tested and graded. Naturally, those musts will deter some of the ' less-gifted ' language learners from even hearing English. Attitude and character seem to be here one of the key concepts. Therefore psychologists maintain that extroverts are more apt to acquire second language, while introverts are not expected to make an astounding progress due to their timid disposition and the ascribed lack of communicativeness .\nSupposedly, a mediocre but conscientious person whose attitude towards English is fairly favourable intents to learn that language. What facts will he have to face? English may seem difficult to grasp due to its, as it may appear, boundless vocabulary of 500.000 words and 300.000 technical terms. However, a student of FC level needs 5.000 words to be communicatively efficient. The pronunciation might be one of the problems our tongue will have to wrestle with. English [(] and [(] do not have their counterparts in Polish, so only more gifted learners would be able to utter those sounds in the way that will neither resemble [d] or [ t] in the case of the latter and [f] corresponding to the former. There are 26 letters in the English alphabet and 45 sounds. That fact discourages Polish native speakers who use 32 letters and produce 37 sounds. That disproportion of sounds and letters in both languages at least partly explains the apparent discrepancy between the English spelling and pronunciation .\nWhile pronunciation and large English lexicon constitute disadvantages, simplicity of form may easily outweigh them - Polish, Spanish, German or Greek operate on the basis of inflections which indicate singular or plural, person and tense. One of the examples supporting that statement would be the conjugation of the English verb in Simple Present Tense. Adding - s or - es endings in the third person singular seems to be an easy task in comparison with the same procedure in Russian or German. There are seven cases in the declination of the Polish noun and the chore becomes even more complicated if adjectives precede the noun. In English, adjectives do not change according to the noun .\nAnother characteristic for the benefit of English is its flexibility. The same word can operate as different parts of speech. One of many examples is the word paper. We can drink from paper cups, read a paper and paper a living-room .\nThe free acceptance of foreign words made English, or more so its American variation an international language. Coupon, kindergarten, graffito, desperado would be instantly understood by the French, Germans, Italians and the Spanish respectively. Although the pronunciation or the spelling of some borrowings may change, they will be easily recognised and used .\nEnglish is the most widespread language with 400 million speakers. It is also recognised as the second official language in 60 countries. Do the given facts support the statement that English is an easy language to learn? In some extent yes, but we must admit that literature written in English and mass media build up its strength all over the world. Owing to the latter, we actually acquire English and its omnipresence facilitates learning. American films and songs performed mostly in English have worked their way into the cultures of both post-communist and EEC countries. English is easy to learn in the free-market economy environment. Unlimited access to the variety of English textbooks, magazines, correspondence or interactive courses should please even those choosy or ' less-gifted ' learners .\n" + }, + { + "title": "385_POSI2060.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: English is an easy language to learn \n \nToday, when English is one of the major languages in the world, it requires an effort of the imagination to realize that this is a relatively recent thing. In Shakespeare's times, for example, only a few million people spoke English, and the language was not thought to be very important by the other nations of Europe, and was unknown to the rest of the world .\nJudging from the world statistics, which say that around 400 million people all over the world speak English and also relying on my own experiences throughout my learning years, I find English a language easy enough to be learned by every potential learner .\nTo start with, I would like to go into certain historical details to some extent, although the paper is not supposed to cover this area of language study in the first place. However, it is a pure fact that Old English, like modern German, French, Russian or Polish had many inflections to show singular and plural, tense, person, etc., but over the centuries, words have been simplified, which is a spectacular facilitation for the learners of English. As a result English verbs now have very few inflections, and adjectives do not change according to the noun, contrary to Polish, where the number of inflections and forms compared to those of English is unbelievably high. Thanks to the loss of inflections, English has become, over the past five centuries, a very flexible language. In relation to its flexibility and simplicity I would like to present some evidence .\nWithout inflections, the same word can operate as many different parts of speech thus facilitating vocabulary development .\nMany nouns and verbs have the same form, (which in Polish never takes place) for example: swim, drink, walk, kiss, look and smile. We can talk about water to drink and to water the flowers; time to go and to time a race; a paper to read and to paper a bedroom. Another substantial simplification is that adjectives can be used as verbs, for example, we warm our hands in front of a fire; if clothes are dirtied, they need to be cleaned and dried. Prepositions too are flexible, e.g. a sixty-yerar old man is nearing retirement; we can talk about a round of golf, cars, or drinks. What's more, English is an incredibly open language for the admission of new words and easy creation of compounds and derivatives .\nOn the other hand there are many learners who believe English to be a very complicated language to master. Quite frequently, as a reason for such an opinion they mention the wide range of English tenses, which indeed may seem an obstacle at the early stages of learning. More to it, some learners hate the English pronunciation and spelling systems in which there is hardly any regularity .\nHowever, in my opinion, these obstructions can be overcome easily through sufficient dose of practice .\nBesides, I think that English shows absolute logic in its grammatical assumptions and although it is a Germanic language, it resembles Polish in many linguistic aspects .\nOne more important issue connected with English is its omnipresence in every branch of our lives and an exceptionally easy access to it, especially through mass-media .\nEnglish is the language of business, politics, sport and science nowadays .\nHowever, its becoming a world language has not been merely due to its easiness and simplicity of form but also to its establishment as a mother tongue outside England, in all the continents of the world. Statistically, one person in seven of the world's entire population speaks English .\nSurprisingly enough, 75 % of the world's mail and 60 % of the world's telephone calls are in English. Isn't it impressive?\nHaving presented all the facts and arguments I have had at my disposal I think I am not left alone with the opinion that the English language is not complex, in fact to me it is a pleasure to learn .\n" + }, + { + "title": "386_POSI2071.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: English is an easy language to learn \n \nWhy are some students successful at language learning while others are not?\nWhy is the foreign language sometimes easy for one group of people and difficult for the other at the same time?\nPeople involved in language teaching often say that students who really want to learn will succeed whatever the circumstances in which they study. The biggest factor affecting their success is the motivation that students bring to class. Motivation is some kind of \"internal drive\" that encourages somebody to pursue a course of action .\nIf we perceive a goal and that goal is sufficiently attractive, we will be strongly motivated to do whatever is necessary to reach it. Language learners who are motivated perceive goals of various kinds; short-term goals and long-term goals .\nIn general, strongly motivated students with long-term goals probably learn easier than those who have no such goals .\nApart from the motivation, physical conditions have great effect on learning the foreign language (not necessarily English). When people get older their speech organs are stiffer. It would be much easier for children to develop pronunciation skill than for adults. In general, English is easily and willingly learned by children. It is very good for children to start learning English at the age of six or seven .\nThe English grammar rules are not very complicated, especially at the beginner's stage, so they are very easily learned by the students .\nSuccess in learning English as a foreign language depends on the learner's nationality. It is very important what the learner's native language is. For Chinese, for example, English would be more difficult than for any other European because these two cultures, Chinese and English, are very distant. Germen, on the contrary, would be better learners at English because these two languages are not very distant (some words are even similar).\nAlthough Polish grammar is different from English one, Polish students don't have bigger problems with understanding and acquiring the English rules .\nEnglish has a special position since it has become the international language of communication. It has become very fashionable as well. You can meet English everywhere: TV, radio, computers and even in the street .\nNowadays, especially in Poland, everything what comes from America is the best. When you go to the cinema you can see mostly an American film and hear real American accent, on the radio most songs are in English but not necessarily singing by an Englishman or an American. A lot of songs are written in English because they sound better and more people could understand them. English is present also in computers so if you want to operate the computer you have to know the language .\nAs I said English is present everywhere now because it has become extremely popular these days. Everybody wants to learn it and know it as it's the most fashionable language in the world. It sounds nice and it's easy to learn. If compared with any other language (Polish, for example) I must say that it's not complicated at all .\n" + }, + { + "title": "387_RUMO2020.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n\nThe problem of the university degrees can be viewed differently. There are certainly some people who consider high education degree to be useless in the sense of its actual practical use. I myself do not agree with this statement. I think that education is one of the most important parts of our lives. It is the basis of the person's whole life. Education gives a person a better appreciation of such fields as art, literature, history, human relations, and science, it is intended to help young people indentify, choose and prepare for a career, it helps people enjoy richer, more meaningful lives. Unfortunately nowadays a great number of the universities appeared in our country that do not provide their students with the actual, valuable education, but I am rather optimistic as far as this situation is concerned. I think that such institutions will soon cease to exist being really useless .\nThe educational system is constantly changing. There are certainly quite a number of problems in this process, some questions have already been solved, others are still to be answered. By way of solving the problems the whole system is developing .\nHistorically universities developed from the cathedral and monastery schools. Their development took place so slowly that it is difficult to know the point at which they became universities. Thus, the first universities in Europe appeared in the 1100's or may be 1200's. Those universities provided the unified teaching of such disciplines as low, medicine, and theology and they were rather general than specilized. These courses were gradually broadened .\nThe point used as the title of the present essay perhaps had been discussed time and again by those people who were concerned with the educational system even in the 18th century. If we look closely at the historical development of the university education we will be able to see the reflection of the problem in question. To my mind, a growth of specialization reflects the point in question .\nDuring the 1800 specialization in knowledge was increasing. Many Institutions were created to train students in such fields as agriculture, medicine, engineering, and commerce. Specialization also resulted in an increased emphasis on advanced study. Thus, education for professions overshadowed the liberal arts .\nNow everything is changing the other way round. We can see another tendency: most of the educators agree that students need a broad education as a basis for whatever field attracts them .\nFrom my point of view, this basic broad education should be humanitarian .\nIn our country in 1950's and also in 1970's technical specialization was of primary importance, but humanitarian education did not have any practical value. I do not mean to say of course that technology is not all important. I mean that the real scientists should have and do have broad education .\nThe word ' humanities' comes from Latin ' homo ' - ' human ' . Thus humanities study everything that is connected with the human beings, the most important facts in the development of the human civilization. This is the knowledge we should take into consideration!\n" + }, + { + "title": "388_RUMO3013.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n\nI believe it would be very interesting to muse upon the statement ' money is the root of all evil ' especially now. It seems to me that for our country this question is gradually becoming more and more urgent. And as for me I feel that now, at the age of 19, it somehow beings to touch me and my life also .\nOf course money itself is not the root of all evil, but it is man's cupidity which was so strongly expressed in money and became in many cases the root of evil. It turned out to be that money to some extent was invented to carry out man's desires of accumulation. When it didn't exist nobody I think could even try to have, for example, 10 waggons instead of one. It becomes possible with money's appearance. Man begins to get money and wishes more. So he gets even more than he needs, he has enough to satisfy his vital requirements, but he wants more and justifies himself, rebuilding his requirements. He already begins to get money not for the sake of food, clothes, other things, but for the sake of money itself. This is really awful that there is never too much money. This thirst for money knows no bounds. In such situation man seems to be a rather pathetic creature, absolutely enslaved. He involves himself in a play, a neverending play, and stops to control it .\nLet's look at the results of people's passion for money in the world. Those endless wars, numerous murders, betrayals, aspiration for authority are very often manifestations of this passion. For many centuries different states, republics and nations appear and dye, separate and unite because of little groups of people who want to get more money. In our everuday life there are so many quarrels, lack of understanding which lead to hostility and they are also the off-spring of this problem .\nI'm not sure that money can make somebody happy. Wise man always spoke about it at all times. In Europe, in America people ( unfortunately they are few) often speak of the tragedy of human nature, of how it is terrible that materialistic values are considered now to be much higher than spiritual ones and so on and so forth. And it is very sad that Russia is eager to be like the West in many respects. Even spiritual goals seem to be an object of sale and purchase. They buy books with gold binding not to read but to demonstrate, disks of the classic music simply for having it. They make their children to study foreigh languages because it is prestigious, supposing rather naively that education also can be bought .\nSo unfortunately money really takes a very important, supreme part in our life. And we certainly can not talk about freedom in the world until we understand quite well how much evil depends on this role of money .\n" + }, + { + "title": "389_RUMO4001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nPeople get used to the achievement of civilisation very quickly. One can hardly imagine a modern apartment without a TVset, a radio or a telephone. Nobody understands how we had been able to live and communicate before these useful things were invented. I wonder if people felt the same when telephone first appeared. It was just a miracle: one didn't need to leave one's house and go somewhere. All one had to do is to take the receiver, to dial the number and to tell anything he or she wanted to convey. I am not against telephone at all, it makes life convenient and comfortable. It makes life easy, but in some sense it separates people, their relationships grow distant. Why to go to see your friends when you can always ring them up. As a result there are so many telephone friends now, when people don't see each other for years but call themselves close friends. I don't think it is a communication in the proper sense, it is just the illusion of it, an ersatz communication, so to speak .\nCinema brought to our life the idea of mass media. As a matter of fact, it doesn't separate people. On the contrary while watching a film one is overwhelmed with the feelings which most of the time are shared by the whole audience. An opinion poll has been conducted recently to find why people go to the cinema. The most common reason was to escape for a moment from this dreary life. Therefore we can say that cinema spreads two great illusions: illusion of living a more interesting and attractive life and illusion of collective or mass consciousness. But still cinema is not so powerful as television because people go to the cinema only occasionally. Television is a much more effective way to influence people's minds. We can say that it combines three features which have been mentioned above: illusion of living a better life, illusion of mass consciousness and illusion of communication. We have surrendered to its power, and now it plays a very important role as the centre of our life. What is the most common thing today? People come home, switch on their tv set and let it work for the rest of the evening. And at weekends, when films go one after another without any pause, they stay at home all day long. Television seems to be a sort of drug which we have grown addicted to. I think it would be useful to try and single out those characteristic features of television which distinguish it from other means of mass media. Unlike radio it appeals to our ability to see and to hear, its visual and aural impact on us is very strong. Unlike cinema which contains a personal attitude and presupposes a personal interpretation, television is neither artistic, nor personal. It uses words to put some idea into our heads depriving us of an opportunity to think in a different way. Therefore it may serve as an excellent means to rule a country as religion used to be, and it was realised in the Third Reich where television was turned into the official means of state propaganda and governmental control .\nIn conclusion, I would like to emphasise that television as a product of progress brought some good things into our lives but there is hardly any need to mention them because they are familiar to everyone. I wanted to discuss only those negative features of television which may balance the positive ones and help to estimate objectively its role in our life .\n" + }, + { + "title": "390_RUMO4007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nSo much chewing gum For the eyes .\n(Small boy's definition of certain TV programs).\nIt would be great hypocrisy on my part to start putting on airs and say that I never indulge in such lowbrow activity as watching TV. Oh, shame on me, I can watch it from dawn till night when I have a day off. I remember, as a child I used to contemplate on what a horrible life must our poor ancestors have led who had no television, poor dears!\nThere is no point in denying that TV has become part and parcel of our everyday life. It is a feature of our civilisation and when it has ceased to exist our life will change .\nWe must give television credit for its educational programs, for example, I find TV language lessons very helpful. Then, isn't it wonderful to travel around the world without stirring a finger; to visit places and see things that we are dying to visit and see, but have very little chance of ever doing it: we can witness a volcano erupting; we can go down under the sea and watch sharks and octopus and what not; we can have a look at our planet bird's eye view or even from the outer space. All this feeds our imagination and convinces us that things we find in books really do exist .\nSuch a phenomenon as mass culture would hardly have existed without television. There can be varied opinions about mass culture, but we should admit that, a cheap and vulgar substitute though it can be, it is better than nothing at all. The highbrow may be irritated by some programs, but for some they may be the only source of information: television expands their knowledge of the world and enriches their vocabulary .\nAddictive as it is, television rules our lives: we plan everything in accordance with the TV schedule. Vulgar as it may be, television forms our world-view: we see only those things that we are shown; if TV-makers consider something to be uninteresting for the largest part of viewership or simply not spectacular enough, than we will never learn of its existence .\nWhat I dislike about television is that it not only does not encourage \"ordinary folk\" to use their little grey cells, but even makes them believe that the rest of the world is populated by their like. As Nathalie Sarraute put it: \"Radio and television have succeeded in lifting the manufacture of banality out of the sphere of handicraft and placed it is that of a major industry\". Television gives us all, so to speak, a set of common words and thoughts that we all share, and then it gives us the impression that everything else is heresy .\nThe mind of an ordinary person nowadays is crammed with facts and opinions and viewpoints, and very often they contradict each other. One may call it a \"jig-saw puzzle\" world-view where lots of pieces simply do not fit in. Nevertheless, this creates an illusion of a deep insight into everything: people do not understand that to know something does not mean to store everything one hears about it, but to form one's own idea about it. Names of famous writers and composers have become household names, but that does not mean that people have become more educated .\nMay be we, all of us, are poor TV-addicts and waste our time ogling into the flickering screens that slowly but steadily sap our intelligence, but still it is great to know that this great comforter, enlightener and entertainer is always with us, \"for better for worse, in sickness and in health, till death us to part\".\n" + }, + { + "title": "391_RUMO4009.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nThe 20-th century... We can't but give it its due. From the very beginning up to the end this time represents a great progress of mankind in all fields. It is literally overwhelmed by discoveries, historical events that are really worth putting down in history. In fact all the preceding centuries' contribution in the development of man power is incomparably less than the one made during this particular period. There is no need to enumerate a great number of names of people who made it possible to fly into space, to have such a good helper as a personal computer, to create real miracles in the fields of chemistry, biology and many other sciences .\nSo the 20-th century... It is not over yet but in my estimation in advance of time limits. As is known the time influences upon a man, changes him. Nowadays this dependence is especially actual and obvious because the tempo of industrialisation of life is too fast. It penetrates into the most spheres of modern society. But a man never can be a robot, though sometimes he has to come up to this invisible edge between a man and a machine, but it is too dangerous. The point is that his brain is an open system, ready to imbibe everything new. Moreover there are some fields which will always remain vitally important. For instance - human relations. When there is a lack of them, a man gets tired of life much faster, and when such facts take place he may simply destroy himself, commit a SUICIDE.\nThat's why everything concerning human nature needs directly is sacred and inviolable. People engaged in the sphere of entertainment and show-business have always taken it into consideration. A man is the only being enjoying soul. This abstract notion, the poets sang the praise of for ages, is naughty and hard to predict. Nevertheless it is the main feature differing a man from animals .\nLet us try to follow the flight of human fantasy. All the modern inventions and achievements were born in this super computer called human mind. When the civilisation were in rudimentary state and later at the feudal time imagination was the screen reflecting all human thoughts. In the beginning all the great things were nothing more than dreams. Some of them a man made come true, some still wait for their realisation. That's why dreaming is a necessary step in all undertakings. It represents a model, maybe a very primitive one but still no less important. Also dreaming, is like a vent that helps us to escape reality for a while. Every man has his own dreamland \"but not everybody is eager to go a long way which begins in our mind. Only a rather lucky man manages to realise his ambitions, but \"God helps them who help themselves\". That's why strong will, and first of all, firm belief in our own dreamland is the key to survival in such a crazy world like ours .\n" + }, + { + "title": "392_RUMO4017.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nFeminism is a phenomenon, which together with television, cinema, numerous flights into the space characterises our crazy 20th century .\nFeminism, what is it actually? It is the struggle of women for their rights the dictionary informs us. So at first sight there is no harm in it. Let's have a brief look at the history of its development .\nThe end of the 19th century - women are bored and tired of sitting at home, knitting, washing , bringing their children up and waiting for their husbands who spend all their time at offices earning for the living. It is not a very cheerful picture, is it? And who will judge poor women for their innocent desire to vary their monotonous lives a little?\nWhat do we observe now, just several decades later? Women study at universities together with men, they wear the same clothes, take an active part in politics, they go in for sports, they even fly into the space .\nThey are likely to have achieved everything they dreamed about .\nBut amazingly they do not stop. They dug deeper and found things which they called \" discrimination \" and \" sexism\".\nA man opens a door before a woman and she is insulted. She can do it herself, she does not also let him pay for her at the restaurant. She earns enough to do it herself. There will be millions of such examples. And finally what do we have now? Men treat us as if we were men. They forgot what it is to be a gentleman .\nThe relations between men and women became simply like in the stone age. And when some women who are far from the idea of feminism try to protest men always have a ready answer: \" But you wanted it yourselves \" .\nI think that the cause of feminism gave us, women, a lot, but today it has gone too far. There must not be extremes - that is a golden rule. Unfortunately feminists do not understand it , as they do not understand how ridiculous they and their ideas are .\n\" We are no worse than men. We want to have everything men have.\"\nThat's a phrase frequently used by them. And gradually they become like men: very rude and not elegant at all .\nI don't know about the others, but I want to be a woman, and I want to feel in the presence of men. And I am absolutely sure that most of today's women do not want to have anything in common with today's feminists, who, probably, are establishing the 3rd class now .\nSo let them fight for their ideas, but don't let's us, women, be taken by them .\n" + }, + { + "title": "393_RUMO4022.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nTo begin with I should say that opium is a double-sided phenomenon: on the one hand it does irreparable harm, but on the other - strange it may sound-it helps people. We know perfectly well that opium serves as a basic component for various medicines .\nI would like to observe the situation with the television from these absolutely opposite points of view. Let's begin with harmful things, as we usually prefer to do .\nFirst of all, this awful \"goggle-box\" brings quarrels into families. The case is always the same. A wife wants to see a \"soup opera\", a husband at least doesn't want it, he usually prefers to have supper instead. Besides, he is interested in sports... A child enjoys watching cartoons. Tastes differ. And what will they do? The answer is very simple: they quarrel or... buy a new \"one-eyed monster\".\nYesterday, I saw a man on TV, he found a solution of the problem: he threw his TVset out of the window! He said that he could not bear it anymore, the TVset gained power over his whole family, in fact, there wasn't Family, anymore .\nOh, dear! We've completely forgotten that there are a lot of interesting things around us, we are so much involved with the television. Do you remember, when you wrote letters to your friends and relatives or when you heard from them? I'm quite surprised by the number of people around me who simply cannot write letters (in the proper sense of the word). How often I hear: \"I'm watching a very interesting program, don't bother me now, please, or phone me later\". But if I am depressed, I need help and advice immediately?! TV-monster takes my friends away. It offers them simple pleasures and everything that I can't do. Of course, it is simpler to switch the TVset on, sit comfortably in an arm-chair and enjoy, than to go hiking, reading, visiting friends or even going to the theatre .\n\"Television replaces parents!\" \"Television makes us foolish!\" \"It demands and obtains total attention!\"\nAll right... But let's ask ourselves: \"If it is so harmful and awful, why do we go on watching it?\"\nThe fact is, television gives us enormous opportunities to learn a lot about the world, ways of living in various countries. We are able even to learn foreign languages with the help of it. As time goes on, there appear many interesting and useful programs for children and adults, teens and old people. And all those entertaining shows help us to relax after our hard day. It also unites a family. I guess, people like to gather together in the evening, maybe at the dinner, and to watch a family program. The whole family also can take part in TV games .\nSo, the TV problem is very complicated and we cannot either praise or curse television. I think, everything depends on ourselves. And don't forget, television is opium. How to use it, in what cases and in what doses, that is the question .\n" + }, + { + "title": "394_RUMO5002.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nWe have to face the fact that feminists have caused a lot of harm both to the society and the women's liberation movement, to the whole idea of women's liberation .\nFirst and foremost, we should try to understand how it happened that men and women had found themselves \"on the two separate sides of the fence\". It seems to me that it is all due to feminists .\nFeminists believe that they fight for equal opportunities with men. But what have they managed to achieve since they began fighting?\nMen smile widely when they are asked to respect women's aspiration to have the same jobs and wages as they do. Because of the feminists' behaviour and their tricks men regard the idea of women's liberation as a very amusing one - and nothing more .\nMen do not seem to think much of women's abilities. May be, that is because they see only funny nervous persons, who are not satisfied with the way they live, and these strange persons fight for women's rights. Many of those, who call themselves feminists are rude and fussy, and they do not have the slightest idea of real feminism, which is always \"pure and never simple\". But what we see now, is just a simplification of feminism .\nLet's look into the matter of the feminists' \"achievements\" now .\nWomen all over the world can get any job - if they work hard .\nIt is not true in all the cases, but in many cases it is true. But if a woman managed to get a good job it is very often due to a man, who has hired her, helped her and who has let her dreams come true, because men are not as cruel and stupid as feminists consider them to be. And what is more, men are always glad to let women be equal to them as far as the question who will pay a bill in a restaurant is concerned. There are the cases when men spoiled by feminists, invite women to a restaurant, eat and disappear in order to give women a chance to be equal with them. Men who give seats to women in a bus died out like dinosaurs. They even are afraid of looking ridiculous and their motto is \"To die, but not to give up\". This is all fruit of many years labour of feminists. Who could imagine such situations a century ago, when there were not so many people involved into the movement! But I would like to return to feminists' \"achievements\". As we all know now, feminists hate compliments and hate people paying them compliments. And now we are told pleasant things more and more seldom . \"Haven't you noticed any thing? I have had my hair cut! - Oh, do not worry, your hair will grow again soon\". Such conversations have become part and parcel of our associating with men. But they adore to give us some pieces of advice, like: \"You'd better go in for sports - I don't want you to put on weight\", etc. I can't tell anything about feminists, but I believe, many ordinary women prefer being payed compliments - and they are fed up of such advice .\nMen consider women to be equal with them but not in the cases we would like them to do. Men who have listened to feminists' speeches on TV, on the radio for a long time cannot treat women like princesses, but only like good chaps .\nAnd another important point is to be made: those women, who really want to be equal with men don't speak about it too much and never make so much fuss about it, because they just do not have enough time. They abandon themselves to work and do their best to work as men do and even better, to achieve the results the men achieve. And they do not attract others' attention by their strange actions. That is all because they know: who but feminists assured men of their being stronger than women, although feminists wanted to do the reverse. It were feminists to build this fence between men and women by talking about it all the time .\n" + }, + { + "title": "395_RUMO5008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nSome people say , that in our modern world , dominated by science , technology and industrialisation , there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination .\nI am disagree with such opinion . From my point of view , nothing can prevent a person , who has imagination , to use it . I would like to mention , that any idea or invention , even in the sphere of science and technology is a product of one's imagination .\nBut even if we will not take everything , concerning science into account , there is a great field for one's creative activity and thinking .\nFor example , it is difficult to look clearly at 20th century and see it as people will a hundred years after our days . We are still too close to it .\nThe imagination of the painters of 20th century gave lifes to many interesting ideas by means of their works : cubists (Publo Picasso and Georges Braque) tried to show their subjects as though they could be seen from several points at the same time . All the different planes shown made them look as though they were composed of little cubes . The Cubists also rejected the Impressionist colours and worked mainly in browns and greys . Picasso's painting continued to change and develope after his Cubist phase .\nThe growing science of phisiology was largely responsible for the movement in art called Surrealism . The works of Freud at the beggining of the century was echoed in the paintings of Max Ernst .\nThe Expressionist painters , beginning with Van Gogh , needed to express their personal reactions to the confusing world around them , their personal dreams . If to speak of Marc Chagal's paintings , I would say that they are dream-like . I would even better call them ' fantasies' , not paintings .\nSo , in our modern world we can find a lot of gifted people .\nFor example , people used , use and will use their imagination and their dreams in music : not only when composing it , but also when listening to it . Igor Stravinsky , Sergei Procofiev , Dmitriy Shostakovich , Maurrice Ravel and many others - they did not simply use their dreams in their works . Each of their works was a Dream itself .\nSome composers of our age have become interested in entirely new ways of creating sounds , for example , by the use of electronics . Some have even had music programmed by computers , which raised the question of whether or not it is truely creative work , and therefore true art . But I think , that any piece of music has inside it a piece of one's soul ; the perfect set of sounds does not have it , when it is composed by some electronics . Music is a kind of communication between souls ; even the most ' clever ' computer does not have one .\nThe same is with ballet or any other kind of dancing . There is to be a kind of communication between the souls of people . Every movement of dancer's hand , leg , even of his or her eyes are very important . It can not be done by computer ; soulless machine can not make people cry or laugh . Some dancers , such as Rudolf Nuriev , have a power over people . That is because he had a great imagination : he did not act during his dance - he lived .\nSo I am sure , that there is every chance that in 2041 theatergoers will be enjoying an authentic production of ' Giselle ' to celebrate its 200th birthday .\nThe world of art is closely connected with imagination , because without it art is impossible . Art is the making or doing almost everything , which depends on a degree of personal skill and talent . In this way judo , riding a bicycle , swimming or making model aircraft might each be thought of as an art .\nIn order to paint a picture , or carve an image out of stone , or compose a music work , the artist needs to be able to see what he is doing . Each human being has his own view on the world around him .\nI feel sorry about the people , who think m, that there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination in our modern world . It means , from my point of view , that they do non have any imagination at all . Pity things !\n" + }, + { + "title": "396_RUMO5020.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney and its role in lives of people is not an obvious question. One should consider all pros and contras before making a judgement on any subject, especially on such a controversial one as money .\nNot only money but often lack of it may be \"a root of evil\". Money may give independence and power, lack of it constricts and limits. Certainly, there is a question of how the power given by money would be used in every particular case, but this largely depends on the person in possession of power and not on some intrinsic characteristics of money itself .\nPoverty very often means dependence and limited opportunities for self expression. The great artists who suffers from it is a tragedy: a famous example is Paul Gauguin who had to dissolve the paint of his paintings when he needed some extra canvas that he could not afford to buy. Pablo Picasso, when he was young and unknown, burnt his drawings in the fireplace to heat the room as he had no money to buy coal for it. Salvador Dali said that an artist must be rich to be independent, because independence is an indispensable condition of creative work .\nIt perhaps should be regretted that the human world is made so dependent on money and the wealthy, nevertheless very few can neglect its cruel rules, virtually no one could ever escape it .\nMoney stratifies the modern society, it protects those who have it and hampers the way up of those who don't, the world cannot favour and salute everyone, Somme has to lose. The winners only have to quiet the losers to preserve their positions - this is usually called \"to maintain social stability\".\nThis world is a world of possession, property may destroy human relationships - relatives quarrel over inheritance, friendship ends because of arguments over debts - these are common plots both in literature and in reality. And very often poor people are the most cruel and unmerciful in this eternal fight for property .\nIt does not imply, of course, that wealthy people are generally kinder or more humane than their unfortunate neighbours. But they often have better chances to be kinder, as they have a lot themselves, they may be too lazy sometimes to fight for an extra piece of other people's possessions. They even can often afford charity - this elegant way of making one proud of oneself .\nA risk that no one can be secured against is \"money addiction\". Money addicts are eager to use any means to obtain more and more money, they simply cannot stop doing it, especially as so many temptations are put in one's way .\nPoor people can commit crimes because of money as well. There are terrifying stories in this country about desperate people who, having not been given their wages for years, are driven to crimes - for example, a man who attempted to burn himself in the accounts-department of the plant he was working in, though innocent people were victims of this accident, other workers did not blame him - having been in the same conditions they understood what made him to do this terrible thing .\n\"Poverty is a vice\" - one of the Dostoevsky's characters argues. Perhaps, it is not a vice by itself, but many other vices originate from it - envy, hatred, greed. Envy and greed are one of the strongest motives that guide humans .\nStill money can play positive role in a human's life, it helps to get a good education, and therefore quite often to find a good job. Possession of money very often improves one's character and maintains one's calmness and personal integrity .\nThe utopian wish I am thinking of is that people could have money and at the same moment not lose their heads because of it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "397_RUMO5034.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nEveryone of us, I believe, at least once in his life asked himself, or had been asked, about the role money plays in his/her life. I doubt, whether there would be many people who would honestly answer, that they do not care much about money and say, that it brings only sorrow .\nWe must admit, of course, that history remembers quite a lot of terrible crimes that were committed because of money. People assured themselves that money would make them happy and powerful, and they were not afraid to kill or to steal, in order to get it. Blood flowed, people were dying, towns and even countries had been destroyed, and of course, that bloody money could not bring much happiness to its owners .\nBut how much good properly used money can bring! I think, now we are becoming wiser about it, although we can not deny that crimes are still being committed. But we must think, what our lives would be like without money? Would the children be able to get proper education? Would the patients be well-treated? Would we be able to enjoy our lives fully?\nWe also can not deny that in our age of industry, technology and progress we can not do without money which play a vital role in our existence, especially recently, when we have got an opportunity to live our lives as we want .\nSome people tend to say, that to think always about how to gain more money is too materialistic, but, to tell the truth, how can we otherwise survive? We have to, I think, face the fact, that we live in the country, where we can not be sure about our future, when we do not know, what is going to happen with us tomorrow - that is why we have to secure ourselves. I do not mean to say, of course, that only money must be our final aim, it is not the only thing one should be ruled by. Its importance and power must be limited, so that it would not turn into an idol, that kills and brings evil .\nBut if we have a look at all those poor people, pensioners, abandoned children in orphanages, we will see, that their main misfortune-the problem, that is being talked about for so long, is lack of money. Unfortunately, a wish to help is not always enough to solve these painful matter .\nWe switch on the TV or radio and is it that we hear? We hear that this or that branch of science or industry is lacking money, the institutes, plants are on the edge of collapse, because they do not know where to collapse, because they do not know where to collapse, because they do not know where to find the means to survive .\nSo how then can money be the root of all evil, if almost everyone can not dispense with it, if it can, and does bring good .\nThe only thing, that is very often turns to be difficult, is to be able to stop when its needed and do not cross the border of what is permitted. Everything is, actually, in our hands. In is only in our power whether to make money either the source of sorrow and blood, or welfare and pleasure. It's not money that brings in evil; evil had always been brought in by people's lack of restrain and crave for profit. So isn't that a reason to think about ourselves? For in good hands even what before was brought only by sorrow can serve to good .\n" + }, + { + "title": "398_RUMO5040.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nThe problem of education is one of the greatest interest and importance which recently has been touched upon. It concerns practically everyone. Two thirds of people think of university education; every year there is increadible competition to all universities, but the question which is bound to arise in this connection whether all these people ( both parents and future students) realize the aim of the university studies and the process of it. Everybody wants to enter one of those so-called prestigious faculties bearing in mind the idea of as if it is really possible for a student graduated from one of these departements to have enough knowledge to occupy the ' prestigeous' place in life. But none of the first year students could explane the real goal of his studies in university and the value of his future degree .\nSo first year students recieve plenty of information which may seem useless because it is so difficult, there are a lot of new terms, notions which are supposed to cover practically the whole sphere of his future studies. And then in further years he just gets a deeper knowledge in a sphere. A student begins to specialize in this or that sphere so that the number of subjects introduced in last year of studies is much less as compare to the first year. And sometimes he is specialized in a subject which may not be connected with his future work ' in the real world'.\nFrankly speaking only 25 per cent of the whole amount of information which students recieve in university may be useful to him in future life in the case that he would be going to work in the sphere of his profession .\nBut here and there they speak of the changes which have already taken place or which should be adduced in order to reform our system of higher education, to make it more practical and useful. And of course every modern programms and systems of education which are presented on all levels ( from the secondary education to the level of university studies) are innovations which are to be praized. But we should distinguish between university education and all other kinds of educations which are offered by colleges, special courses etc .\nA person who wants only narrow special knowledge ( instead of university ' universal ' one ) in any sphere to work at should choose not the university but some college or courses which offer a number of practical abilities and skills for a particular trend of business. But if a person chooses the university level of education itpresupposes his readiness to the universal number of subjects he is going to study and his ability to acquire this amount of information or even more if he is particularly interested in some subject. And one more remark it is so difficult to find a job for a narrow specialist .\nIn this connection I want to remember the words of Kozma Prutkov who said that \" specialist is like a gumboil - his developement is one-sided\". It seems to me that all professors who write educational programms think of it and decided to give a student as much information as possible - so they try to make the university programm really unversal. Thus the great amount of information recieved on university lectures and seminars forms a general cultural background which helps a student of linguistics with university degree to communicate more or less freely within some other spheres of science. The information in adjoined spheres may help to solve problems and make conclusions in special sphere .\nProbably one more reason which can refute the pragmatic approach to university education it is one of interest. The interest matter is obviously important when we speak of a student devoted to the subject a sphere of science he is going to dedicate his life. Then such kind of student begins to acquire knowledge in history of the sphere, the present state of the art, the existing ideas of further developement. Thus he gradually becomes aware of the subject so that he can work in every sphere connected with his profession. And this approach of ' wide ' education is commonly shared in this country which occupies one of the first places in the world scale of higher education .\nTherefore we can't speak of uselessness of university theoretical education and degrees which are so hard to achieve but by all means are worth to be achieved .\n" + }, + { + "title": "399_RUMO5044.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nIt is by and large assumed that the university degrees are teoretical and have nothing to do with the real world. If we ask our graduate acquantancies about their jobs many of them would probably say that they have not obtained the work they would like to have. It occurs that a more prestigious post is occupied by a less educated person who may be not as much educated as you are but works better because he/she is more experienced. On may come across a great number of adver - tisments where there is need for a person qualified and expe - rienced in a particular area of work activity. Why is it so?\nThe answer is clear and simple. The theoretical course needs practice .\nI would like to illustrate the point referring to my own studies. I am learning at the English Department of the philological faculty, so I am to know all important items of English, in other wards I'll know the language theoretically although I am tought to speak, write and read properly. My knowledge of English is necessary to continue my study as a postgraduate but I don't really think the knowledge of all pe - culiarities of the language can be of any use at a place which has nothing to do with theoretical study of the language .\n- I would like to clarify the diffrence between theory and practice. Theoretical studies are based on practice, theory actually analyzes and systematizes data of practice. For ins - tance, we are studing the history of English. As a material we have a number of Old and Middle English texts that are acts of speech in other words practice of language. Researchers nor - mally create their own theories analyzing, generalizing and systematizing these texts. Another example of the kind con - cerns sundry dictionaries of modern English .\nBased on the current use of language, they are to fix all kinds of changes appearing in the language. But there is hard - ly a theory that can cover all peculiarities of the daily lan - guage use. Theory is, generalizing an object of study, to form a certain idea of a particular object. So I think, that prac - tice is primary and theory is secondary .\nAt a university one studies a number of theoretical subjects, he/she gets the idea of what he/she may do when wor - king. But as prince Charles once said; ' to think about doing so is one thing but to actually get up and do it is another matter altogether'. So I think that one should check one's knowledge by mere practice .\n" + }, + { + "title": "400_RUMO5046.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nThere have been so many changes in economic, social and political life in Russia in the 1980s. Nowdays there many different political parties instead of the only Communist Parny that has existed for 70 years in this country. The privatisation of the 1990s promoted the appearance of people owning shares in companies. Many people preter working for themselves and not as employees. All these changes are not enough to prevent the growth of unemployment and strikes .\nSo the Government's first priorities are to improve the economic situation, to curb inflation, to reduce taxes and ...\nto forget about public expenditure .\nI mean that the government is so slow in building up its role in educeation. At the same time in much of our public diseussions it seems taken for granted that certain essencial changes in educational system of Russia are the urgency .\nIs it true or not ? It is not simple to answer this question, because there is a world of difference between the situation in education nowadays and in the past, between the situation in liberal education and technical one .\nIt has been assumed for many years that to enter the university, to graduate from it, to complete the university degree are the things of great value and have a lot of prestige. At present it is very easy to aim at all these things if you havt a lot of money. Furthermore, having a university degree doesn't guarantee that a person will have a good well-paid and interesting job. So many young people enter the university in order to get diploma, to show it to the parents and relatives and to begin finding a job having no connexion with his or her profession .\nOne more important point connected with the necessity to change the educational system of Russia is the sharp deterioration of the high standards of the education in polytechnics and technical colleges. It does'n need any proof that the Soviet engineers just after graduating from polytechnics have been able to work properly and without many difficulties in any branch of industry. But in the course of time equipment of the laboratory become obsolete and the is no money to buy new and modern one. These students having perfect knowledge of their subjects are unable, therefor, to find a job and, moreover, they can't work. In my opinion, the best way to improve this situation is for the state to realise clearly that without well-prepared specialists this country is doomed to destruction .\nBut the general liberal education of Russia is on the verge of completely distruction. This state has no funds for the essential purposes. There is no money for the lingvistic laboratories, no money for new books, no money for holding seientific conferences, no money for publishing books by L. Tolstoy or A. Chekhov. And the commonplace retorts to these statements are: how can you tell about money for publishing jubilee edition of the works of Bunin when many people have nothing to eat ? But that's nonsense !\nOne more question connected with liberal education in this contry is: does this state really need in such a number of linguists, specialists in literature, historians and writhers!\nThat is the question of great importance for me as for a person whose profession is the language and literature .\nWith the industrial and scientific revolution it has come about that to live and work well, to be at home in this new world of ours, we need to have an education which is limited neither to the know-how of our jobs nor to our duties of citizenship. Our education should let as to make money that we need for life and assist in achieving certain self - - satisfaction. Unfortunately, our university degrees don't promote these aims .\nFor example, now I'm a third-year student of the one the most prestigeous universities in the world. I'm a student of Moscow State University. I'm fond of reading books and discussing them with my friends. I admire my teachers, the size and deepness of their knowledge .\nBut at the same time I clearly realize that I'm unable to create any remarkable research, or to write an interesting book, or to work as a teacher at school. I have no skills for practical work. And I believe that not only me, but many my colleagies try to solve this dilemma - to have interesting buainess without much money or to begin to work in order to make money and to have high living conditions .\n" + }, + { + "title": "401_RUMO6014.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nLife of the young in an over-industrialized world is fool of unexpected turns .\nNew ideas come our way practically at every step, and very often dominate our young nimble minds and seem to have a life of their own. Thus, integrating into the world of new technologies and new ideas has ceased to be a challenge for the happy few. It is now a full-time job, for those who are on the alert to find their road in life. It would not do you any good to live the life of a maverick with books and theories crouching over you. On the other hand plunging into this world of modern life might be no less harmful both for your identity and your health. The world of reality and the world of make - believe are to coexist peacefully if not in perfect harmony. If you ask me, I think life is to be enjoyed. After all, what is the idea of spending your green years in the subdued excellence of libraries and reading halls unless you can at last hope to enjoy. Enjoying a thought relishing it, testing it for depth and exploring its modern application is what university student is to make his primary goal in life. Is it not the world of make-believe? Or is this life of human thought put against day-to-day formalities of existence ? I wonder .\nSome people think that life is like a good book. The further you get into it the more it begins to make sense. I think it is a very rich idea and most stimulating as a motivation. Us, being the writers of our lives, the chance of starting a new chapter does not present itself more often than one would wish .\nChecking on the mistakes in something we have written takes most of our life leaving a spacious room for improvement on the one hand and a slight chance for saying something outrageously original on the other .\nWhat do we come into our professional life for ? To take in the knowledge of the past, to touch upon the masterful perfection of the present and, perhaps, to aspire for the enchanted afar. Is not it dreaming ? I am convinced it is so even if you have to stare at the world with wide-open eyes of exited disbelieve . \" What is this life, if full of care we have no time to stand and stare...\" - this allusion to the famous poem seems to be very much to the point in language study, since language in its primary oral form is nothing more than a diachronic bridge between generations of people and universe. The firmer your bridge is, the better chance you stand of not falling behind the overwhelming process of evolution of human thought .\nThe pace of life quickens daily. Thus, being too realistic about keeping track of the latest achievement of humanity in whatever sphere you take up is not very promising. The world of make-believe is of unsurpassed value. It takes the load off your mind, makes you wonder, protects you against the destroying effects of selfcriticism and inspires you with a romantic zest for selfperfection. The world of make-believe is ideal, it is devoid of imperfect things. Sometimes it is like peering at a crystal ball in the hope of making Santa Claus fulfil your wish .\nThe good thing about dreaming is that occasionally dreams do come true, and a dreamer like no other person is eager to share the goal with all those busking in his friendship and devotion. A dreamer is definitely a better person than a dry moralist - inquisitive, easily exerted and genuinely grateful .\n" + }, + { + "title": "402_RUMO6025.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nA good part of our ' war between the sexes' - and consequently much of what we identify as ' the problems of society and civilization today', is due to our evolution of rationales in which the relative non-evolution of our basic reproductive cycle has not been assimilated. Quite simply, it does not appear to have been the nature of evolution to have ' much improved ' our basic reproductive mechanism over that of early mankind, a cycle in which ' pubescent, little pro-hominid boys impregnated fecund, little pro-hominid girls' as soon as possible (essentially anthropoid-ape age), and ' little men', consequently, supported and protected nurturing ' little mothers' until their progeny were themselves able to propagate . -In a hypothetically primitive framework for ' now sapiens', this basic cycle of organism-viability might be of no less than 16 and no more than 28 years length .\nThe evolution of ' pro-hominid cerebration ' on the other hand, took ' den ' congregation into coalescings of primitive society thru which, eventually, such ' primitive, vertebrate breeding ' was itself superceded under increasingly deliberative but still survival-of-the-fittest, pecking-order-based ' rationale'. This evolution (eventually ' knowledge ' - science and technology), is synonymous that of ' facilitating organism viability ' and extending life-span/physiology therein in a way which increasingly subordinated that primitive reproductive cycle to societal and civilizational ' advances' - both men and women eventually eschewing child-bearing past early thirties; women, further (especially mothers), of interest in sex reducing into menopause and terminating thereafter, but men - disparately, of ' primitive ' drive essentially continuing into likewise increasing old age . -There is no mystery in the eventually formal institutionalization of polygamy, the whole of ' the war between the sexes' really taking off after the industrial revolution .\nWhat has evolved is a period of singularly human-kind, post-'critical reproduction ' time, essentially that between ' primitive-man parenting complete ' (24 to 28 years of age) and present-day ' old age', the occupation and substance of which has been more or less circumstantially conjured into existence out of that only vehicle of all vertebrate supercession - survival-of-the-fittest pecking order diasporating into its configuration space. Consequences of this out-distancing of progenitive mechanism by our unique deliberative capability, it must be observed - democracy, free enterprise and economic policy for example, have nothing whatsoever to do with ethics, religion, human rights and other such nonsense thru which we justify their existence and manipulation. Our ' deliberative capability', in effect, has yet to include assimilation of this quite natural divergence so critically underlying ' the human phenomenon and all things human'.\n" + }, + { + "title": "403_RUMO8004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nI beleive this statement is completely untrue. Feminists have done a lot to the cause of women. Indeed there have always been organisations of women compaigning to promote women's interests in society .\nFeminists concentrated on gaining access for women to education, employment and political interests. Feminism is concerned with ending legal discrimination against women and removing all barriers which prevent their entry into the public spheres on equal terms with men. During last four decades of the nineteenth century a series of campaigns emerged to improve women's legal and economic position .\nFeminists have pressed for public policies to outlaw discrimination against women - both direct discrimination such as paying a woman less than a man doing the same job and indirect discrimination such as attaching unnecessary conditions to a job which will have the effect of excluding a woman. Feminists try to gain access for women to the rights , activities and responsibilities commonly available to men and to be \"let in\" to full participation in all areas of society as it currently exists .\nPrevailing cultural norm used to require women to subordinate their active and creative needs to conform to a housewife role . As a result , stay-at home women felt empty and dissatisfied , tired and depressed .\nThere used to be sexual division of labour in the home , which designated the male as a breadwinner and his wife as economically dependent on him and responsible only for child care and housework .\nThis role left them fill rather isolated and low status. Moreover , women's dependent economic status gave men full control over the allocation of money within the home , and this often resulted in women not receiving the necessary benefits of men's wages. Such situation could spoil the relations within the family completely .\nBut now , because of women's movement, the situation has changed .\nThe employment of women, their ability to get a higher paid jobs affects the power structure of the family. A woman is no longer dominated by man , dependent on him , since their recources are equalized. Thus , a working wife's husband listens to her more , and she listens to herself more. She expresses herself and has more opinions. Instead of looking up into her husband's eyes and worshipping him ( what can make him a complete tyran ) , she levels with him , what makes him respect her. That doesn't certainly mean that a woman necessarily must devote her whole life to career - on the contrary , many feminists glorified her role as a mother. She just must have an opportunity to do both - her career and her housework. And I think , women's position in the public spheres of work and politics can not be viewed in isolation from their role in private sphere of home and family .\nStill I beleive feminists must continue their struggle. There are still areas of professional work where women are grossly underrepresented .\nEconomic growth have improved women's material position , but many still experience poverty and their standard of living tends to be lower on average than men's - so , the goal of financial independence for women is not completely won. The questions arise naturally : Why women play such comparatively a small role in politics ? Why are low paid workers predominently women and high-paid professionals and managers mainly men ? So, as we can see , men as a group still gain a privileged position in society .\nI also beleive that the political emergence of women acting consciously against domination by men is not just activiation of a new interest group. It's a historical event which holds the promise of enabling a more complete challenge of domination than has ever been possible before. Feminists' campaign have a long-term goal of transforming all relationships of domination and subordination in society .\n" + }, + { + "title": "404_RUMO9006.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nTelevision - new religion ?\nThe twentieth century is inconceivable without television .\nAlmost every family in the world has a television set. There are TV sets in cafes and bars, schools and universities, in hospitals, banks and airports. Television is a universal source of information. People can study and travel with the help of television, it informs us of current affairs home and abroad and of course television is a good means of relaxation .\nTV has become a new kind of art. Directors and cameramen have to work a lot to create a good show. Different special effects are used to make it more exciting and sometimes frightenning. But among hundreds of programmes only few are really popular with the vewers. Some showmen and newscasters are not inferior to singers and actors in their popularity .\nI am not sure if it is possible to call television a new relegion but it goes without saying that millions of people adore it. Some of them do not only watch TV, they also come to TV studioes and take part in their favourite programmes and chat-shows, they want to talk to TV- stars and to get their autographs .\nBesides television plays an important part in the popularization of sports. It gives sport fans an opportunity to watch different competitions and matches at home if they can not buy tickets or just have no time to go to a match they would like to see. Top models and popular sportswomen perform their shaping programmes on TV and women can work at their bodies together with them .\nPlenty of soap operas are being shown on television now and most women , especially housewives enjoy them immensely. They try not to miss a single part, they discuss the troubles of the characters and take them close to heart.I think there are some funny and touching soap operas but in most cases they are boring because they are very often alike .\nA large number of programmes are designed for children. Playgrounds usually become deserted when animated cartoons or other programmes for children are on. There are a lot of wonderful and touching ones and small boys and girls and even grown ups watch them with great pleasure .\nUnfortunatelly in Russia television is usually the only amusement invalids and bed-ridden people can afford. They are the most regular viewers of TV programmes.I think it is an important merit of televisoin .\nBut of course television has its own drawbacks. It seems to me that there are too many programes devoted to politics. We should be informed of current affairs but in our country people have to face so many problems and they want to forget about them at least for a time. But it is impossible if every minute you are told about crimes and political problems .\nI also think that too much violence is shown on the screen and there is violence even in cartoons for children. Some of them are about wars and fights and robberies. Meanwhile children watch many hours of television and it has great influence on them, besides children are inclined to imitate the characters they see on the screen and I would not like it if my younger sister became as cruel as some of them are .\nPeople complain there are too many advertisments in between the programmes . Advitisihg campains bring in great profit to businessmen and I do not think angry viewers can help it. Anyhow there is something they can do about it-just turn their TV sets down not to hear primitive slogans .\nI think television may be compared with religion and of course there is some resemblance. As any religion TV has its detractors and people who adore it and even fanatics. The former never turn their TV sets on if they have any while the latter watch TV night and day, try to persue TV and film stars, get nervous when advertisments last too long and know the TV - guide almost by heart.I am sure that both go to extremes .\nTo my mind television is just a kind of amusement ,a way of relaxation. It is an invention which gives us possibility to broaden our horizons makes our life more interesting. But it should not be opium or a religion which would let us escape from reality or have great influence on us. As far as believers are concerned I do not think television can substitute for their religion or church services.I am sure that neither TV nor computer and \"Internet\" or any other achievments of science and engineering are a good substitute for reading communicating, love or religion .\n" + }, + { + "title": "405_RUMO9010.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney, money, money... What is money? Money is health, money is pleasure. Money is education, delight, happiness, life. Money is envy, crime. Money is death... So, money is everything. All we have we have for money. If we have money we have everything. But should we have everything? That is the question. The more we have the more we want to have .\nDo you want to be rich? - Yes, you do. If you said ' ' no ' ' I just wouldn't believe you .\nAnd even if you said to your wife that you don't want to make a fortune your wife would kill you , I assure you. And what do you do to get some money? I'd like to quote a few words from a song: \" I work all night I work all day To pay the bills I have to pay - Isn't it sad?\nAnd still there never seems to be A single penny left for me - That's too bad! \"\nDon't you feel the same? You get up before darn and your working day has already begun. You spend the whole day working until absolutely worn out to go out anywhere or to enjoy your family life you fall asleep in an arm chare before your TV set. So you work from dawn till night day after day, week after week and so on , so forth. But what for?\nA man's wife watches TV admiring the beautiful life shown in films. And she demands that her husband should work less , pay more attention to her and his children and still he should bring more money. Then he begins to understand that his life is unbearable. His life becomes a torture and... he commits suicide .\nBut let's talk more seriously. Money is the root of all evil. Do you remember the war in Chechnya? How many people died during that war! A great number of young innocent men, women, children were victims in the hands of our government. The leaders of our country made a pile by sacrificing their own people. And you know that most of the wars broke out because someone wanted to conquer new territories, nations and become the greatest in the word .\nVanity, the wish to have power, money, push a man to destroy the life of other people. For example lets speak about drug tradesmen. They make people their slaves .\nFor a grate sum of money a man allows himself to induce another person to lead a pitiable existence, to turn the other's life to dreadful torture. And what about drug addicts? They feel drug-made delight, pleasure, joyfulness for a few hours and they go to rob or even kill innocent people to get some money which they will pay for rotten drugs in order to forget the cruel world in their false dreams .\nPeople steal information from each other. Then they sell it. And it doesn't matter to them why others buy that information and what they are going to do with it .\nA lot of our sportsmen emigrated to the countries where they could make more money. They sell themselves, they sell their motherland. Isn't it sad?\nWe are the slaves of money. Even if we had fair money and we could enjoy them Could be proud of them, could we be happy knowing that other people suffer?\nMoney is the root of all evil. But we have no power to change it. People are too imperfect to live without money. We live for ourselves. It's against our nature. Do you remember the dream about socialism where all people are equal? To build that world was a great mistake for us .\nOur vanity push us to struggle for a place under the sun. But isn't it the law of nature?\nDon't animals struggle for their life? Of course animals have no money. But people are more complicated creatures than animals. So we invent end money. Animals struggle for their life without money and people struggle with the help of them .\nSo, what is money? Is it the way of our existence? Money seems to be the root of our rotten life full of cruelty and evil. But history knows the examples or it's better to say attempts of building society without money. They were all a crash. Then maybe the root of all evil is human nature, not money?\n" + }, + { + "title": "406_RUMO9012.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nTo say the truth it took me much time to think over this state - ment, mayby because in our country the problem of feminism is not so popular as in Europe or in the USA. It happens that it is accepted to suppose that after the Great October Socialist Revolution men and wo - men are equal in their rights. And it was really like that. With the 20ies we were in the era of the \"emancipated\" woman. The had the vote .\nShe also had short hair and lipstick. Young women with jobs did not have to marry the first man who asked them. There were also protests over inequities of jobs and wages and there was a hard-fought battle paralleling the current strugle for abortion reform over birth cont - rol. Then it was the War which drew women into industry and for the first time in history into the armed forces on a par with men. As for the present I am a woman and I do not feel any infringement of my rights only becaus I am a womam. As for the civilized countries I think it is just the same: women are challenging and overturning the status quo in all fields from politics and business to sports and me - dicine, reshaping and recasting the social, political and economic trends of the day. Now the statementthat all that the women wish to have must come through a single channel and single choice: wealth, po - wer, social distinction, fame and even home and happiness, reputation, ease and pleasure, their bread and butter - all must come to them thro - ugh a small gold ring - is really out of date and unpopular. In this case if a woman can be elected to higher office, can occupy top corpo - rate posts and own successful business she can do whatever she wants and she has the equal rights with men, I do not see any reasons for feminists to be indignant. So if we are talking about the present I do not think the feminism has done either harm or good, but if we are talking about the feminism in the historical aspect I am just sure that it has done only good. Let's look at the social image of women in the last several generations. The first thing we discover is that the scholary historians who deride the idea of a special history of women are quite correct. Women have not been trend-setters, activists in the drama of great events. If they turn up in the middle of some climalic scene they are likely to have got there by the accident of marriage or occasionally of birth. Women-monarches have inherited power under laws made by men, not laid hands on it themselves. The history of women has not been made within their own ranks but has followed from the ma - le-initiated proced. Women's history is fragmented, interrupted; a shadow history of human beings whose existence has been shaped by the efforts and the demands of othere. As for the fight of women for their rights it involved more then a struggle for tangible goals like equal pay, equal opportunity, the vote it self. It was a fight for the very right to fight, to declare that one's ambitions and needs are as im - portent as those of men. Women were so isolated that the world could practically run without them exept for their services as domestic drudges. Millions of women knew from their own experience that \"equal rights for women\" was a phrase but not a fact. The women's movement was a search for a more honorable and worthy life. Yes it \"was\" and maybe now it is just the time to stop the search and look around, may - be it is the time when men and women should bury the hatchet and live in peace and harmony. Now women are vital, courageous, independent, fully equal strong but at the same it seems they do not have delicacy, sensitivity and gentleness without which our sexiness and strength, courage and independence are a hollow pose. So I do not deny femi - nists' services I just want to say that women should not forget that they are women and should nurture in themselves a kind of indomitab - le, gentle spirit that must be made more widely available, in order to, inspire a new generation of women, not by glossing over the dark rea - lities we can not afford to ignore, but by reminding us that reality is both dark and bright, and that to live with both requires courage .\n" + }, + { + "title": "407_SEBG1008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today? \n\nIn his seminal work, Animal Farm, George Orwell presents an elaborate system of allegory depicting, perhaps better than any documentary account ever could, the sinister ideology already in place in Stalin's Soviet Union, one of hipocricy and brutal repression, all in the name of progress. While filled to the brim with quotable aphorisms, one quote in particular seems to have captured the zeitgeist perfectly: [Quotation] . While this applied to the pseudocommunist system of the Soviet Union, a case can be made that it can also be applied to today's western liberal democracies, the validity of which application shall be discussed herein .\nDoes global capitalism today not precisely follow the logic of Orwell's pigs, creating an atmosphere of fierce and often unfair competition, where the losers are deemed lazy and unworthy, and the winners showered with praise as job creators and visionaries? Global inequallity is a topic that has only recently begun to be tackled by some of the foremost minds in both economy and philosophy, and it will take a long time before the solutions, if discovered, percolate down to the political decision makers whose job it is, at least nominally, to resolve these issues. Let me first remark upon the fact that in developed countries, such as the U.S, the vast majority of both wealth and income are hoarded by the very richest of the rich, who pay little to no taxes to the state, due to tax loopholes and offshore tax havens, thus being privileged in comparison to the middle and working class .\nThe extremly wealthy also wield undue political influence. Through lobbying and campaign contributions, corporations and individuals are able to bribe politicians into acting against the interests of the country and the people, and for their own (getting re-elected), and those of their benefactors. In fact, it has been ruled that corporations are effectively people, which gives them the right to free speech, and opens the floodgates of unlimited money flowing into Political Action Committees, thus tainting the political process .\nOn the other hand, it could well be said that we are living in a time of unparalleled social changes, a world of tolerance and social acceptance. Certain unalienable human rights have been introduced and adherence to the conventions concerning those rights are monitored across the world. The sudden and tempestuous rise of LGBT rights across the developed world is a good example of this emerging tolerance. With same-sex marriages becoming legal in the U.S. and many other countries, including Ireland, which is the first country to vote in favour of such a proposal on a referendum, LGBT rights are set to become a part of the new global order of tolerance. Women's rights have also been largely established, but there is still a rather jarring pay gap between women and men for the same amount of work. Different religious beliefs and customs are also respected in modern societies, in spite of the rise of xenophobic far-right groups across Europe and the U.S. due in large part to the migrant crisis raging through Europe .\nThe results of the previous considerations can be summed up as follows: equality has largely been achieved in the stratum of social equality with regard to race, sexual orientation and religion, but remain unobtainable with regard to economic considerations. So in effect, Orwell was both right and wrong, and only time will tell whether we shall one day truly live on an Animal Farm .\n" + }, + { + "title": "408_SEBG1014.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song \"Money is the root of all evil\". Agree or disagree? \n\nIn today's society where capitalism dictates everything from the way in which we spend our time to our thoughts and feelings it is hard not to become a slave of money. We have to use it in almost every sphere of our life. Even though it can bring us innumerable benefits, it poses a great threat to our well-being and sense of self.\nOur lives can be enriched by many experiences and products, such as travel, sports, makeup and more - most of which cannot possibly be attained without the help of money. Since ancient times, people have been using money for trade of their possessions. Instead of giving their goat for a bag of rice, they started using different types of coins - gold, silver or more recently, paper notes. This has enabled them to estimate the exact value of their possessions, thus allowing them to trade more fairly. With the use of money, we can also buy plane tickets and just in a few hours reach the most exotic destinations on our planet, stay in the most luxurious resorts and afford relaxing spas. Money can be often viewed as a well-deserved reward for our hard work. It often enables us to buy appliances and electronic devices which make our life easier, such as computers, mobile phones and washing machines. Having enough money offers you myrriad of choices in life and provides you with a possibility to see the world and get to know people from different cultures and walks of life.\nDespite these benefits, there is however the other side of the coin - money often can and does become poisonous. We can see this notion reflected in many parts of our life. Many relationships have been ruined because the people in it could not agree on the division of money between them. Further, people from the upper class are often frowned upon when they decide to date someone from the lower social group. Girls often do not look for real values in potential partners - like honesty, courage and goodness, but instead just search for someone with a big wallet. Money brings about huge gaps within society - the differences between the elite and the poor are sharply defined and walls are not to be crossed. Worst of all, money causes terrifying wars all over the planet and provokes the worst in people - greed and selfishness. Smart children are frequently not given the access to the best education simply because they haven't been born in the rich households. There is also a saying [Quotation] - and it is true, we work more, spend time with our friends and family less just because we have a nonsencial desire to accumulate our possessions. As a result, we get more anxious, tired and bitter. Nature is being destroyed because of the human greed, air is getting more and more polluted - all of it because humans are making factories everywhere, factories that are there to help us accumulate more useless possessions. People have forgotten to love, to rejoice in simple things, to live in accordance to the nature, all because of money.\nEven though it is probably impossible to banish money completely, we should all strive to find meaning in other spheres of our lives for the more noble purpuses - such as helping the poor or investing in hospitals or orphanages. In conclusion, although the statement may seem too extreme, money can sometimes indeed be \"the root of all evil\", as the old song has it.\n" + }, + { + "title": "409_SEBG1015.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n\nSociety has been punishing people proven to be guilty of all possible serious and less serious crimes since the age of the first human beings who had walked this planet. As only living beings with a conscience, we have the inate ability to tell right from wrong and are taught about moral principles and what is considered \"good and bad\" behaviour from an early age. We've developed a legal system that enforces punishment appropriate for the committed crime and to discourage potential future criminal behaviour in order to keep people under control. The system has greatly evolved since its beginning but is it efficient enough and does it truly serve its purpose?\nMany will argue in favour of the prison system not being rigorous enough due to the continuously raising rime rates all over the world. It is well known that the main rule is that \"the punishment must fit the crime\" but the crime victims or their closest friends and family are often dissatisfied with how the criminal is dealt with. This results in many people blaming the law and the law enforcers for being incompetent, not doing their jobs or simply the prison system being completely disfunctual. People seem to think that there would be less crime if the punishments were more severe and served as a more convincing deterrent.\nWhile that argument might be somewhat acceptable, people seem to forget that even when a person commits a crime, no matter how serious, they are still a person. Instead of forcing criminals to pay for their crimes by simply putting them in prison, we should try a different approach such as trying to rehabilitate them. People who commit crimes are like open wounds - if we just put a bandaid over it without treating it beforehand, it will not heal properly and even if it does look healed at first glance, there'll always be a chance of it ripping open again or something even worse happening on the inside which we don't see. All people have a conscience and we should put in effort to help some of them get in touch with their's if they lost their way. Putting people away in prison is the quick and easy way of \"solving\" a problem, but is it the right one? If the crime rates keep going up even though we all know what awaits people who break the law, then maybe that's a sign that our methods are not efficient enough and instead of making the punishments more extreme, we should try doing the opposite - actually helping them overcome whatever issues that made them do what they did. People don't commit crimes because they are evil but because they are unhappy with themselves, their lives or have severe psychological issues possibly caused by traumatic experiences or the conditions under which they've spent their lives.\nTo conclude, no matter how awful the crimes committed by people are, we need to remember that it still is people who do them and therefore they should be treated as such and not just cage them like animals gone mad. This method may not always prove to be 100% succesfull, but there is no excuse for not at least trying. The goal is to heal and mend the problematic members of our society and not just isolate and punish them consequently making them feel worthless and disposable. We should want to find long term solutions to problem, not just for the time being.\n" + }, + { + "title": "410_SEBG1032.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today? \n\nThe question whether equality among people exists and to what extent, has occupied minds of thoughtful individuals for milleniums. Its definition, number of layers and the way it is perceived across different cultures all add up to the complexity of this theme. Shadding the light of present day capitalism (with all of its atributs) onto the matter, we might find different peculiarities there and make a number of conclusions .\nI strongly believe, and there are many evidence in support of my belief, that Orwell was right: some people are indeed more equal than others. Firstly, the most common \"diferentia specifica\" nowadays among people is money. The more you have it, the more protected you are, in almost all possible ways. The question \"what's his/hers net worth\" has become so common in the States that it is not considered unusual let alone unethical or rude to ask it on your first or second date. My country is no exception. Being a member of certain political parties in Serbia entitles you to have access to different kinds of power: jobs, opportunities, money... In addition, gender (in)equality must be given special focus. Women work just as much as men do, but they earn approximately 1/3 less. Finally, as a member of minority group, I occasionally experience national and religious bigotry and ignorance. All mentioned above led me to believe that we live in a truly inequal world .\nHowever, things are not all that black and white, and there surely are examples of equality. Studying English at this University has thaught me that equality does exist: it doesn't really matter to professors who you are, what do you wear and what is your social status, but rather you performance and knowledge. Furthermore, people are equal in pain, love, hate, grief... You can't possibly avoid any of them no matter what. The ultimate equality marker we also can't possibly avoid is death. In the words of famous Serbian poet Jovan Ducic, [Quotation] . \nTo sum up, even though there are things that can lead us into believing that people are equal, it is imensely important to be able to tell the difference between equality in abstract things (we are all capable of by nature), and equality in real life terms. Infortunately, due to many causes, most of which are of economical and political nature, equality in real life will remain to be just another utopistic idea that individuals will spend time debating on .\n" + }, + { + "title": "411_SEBG2014.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n\nThe term feminism firs appeared in the 20th century and was associated with groups of women who organized protests and rallies to fight for women's rights. The most famous group was the Suffragette movement which was notorious for being the most radical of them all. This was considered the first wave of feminism by many historians and sociologists. They brought the traditional patriarchal system to its knees and said: \"We will not be treated like cattle, we are human beings like everyone else, and we deserve equal rights.\" Although I must agree that first wave feminism created a better world for women and gender relations in general, I believe without a doubt that third wave feminism, or modern day feminism, seeks to damage these relationships that the first wave so desperately sought to create and in a way, unconsciously maybe, tries to destroy it .\nOn one hand, feminism should provide a safe haven for weak individuals, some modern feminists include men as well, and give them strength and ambition in life. Feminists today are seen as strong excentric individuals, male and female, who fight for equality because they believe that this goal is still not achieved. With the help of social media third wave feminists have gathered many followers all across the world and are supported by many different social justice groups which help them in battling their issues. There are numerous social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube where they share videos in which they spread their messages of equality and justice. There are numerous TV channels that broadcast talk shows where top feminists are invited to talk about social issues. The Internet is the true battlefield for feminists and social justice warriors, who fight against inequality and the horrible patriarchy .\nOn the other hand, I believe that this movement only consists of groups of attention seekers who are trying to become famous for doing something for the society and gender relations when in fact all they talk about are already resolved issues. Their most frequently used argument is the gender pay gap. They argue that every woman earns 74 cents for every man's dollar, but they fail to reallise that this issue has already been resolved a long time ago and that women actually earn more than a man does. The second argument is the white male privilege argument. They claim that white men are being treated than white women, or women of different colour, by having more rights and being offered better job positions. The thing one, and probably the one most feminists and social justice warriors use in everyday communication is the \"man constantly rape\" argument. This argument creates the biggest problem for gender relations as it is, as mentioned before, forced through the media and social networks by highly respected feminist celebrities worldwide. The problem is that they claim that every form of sexual harassment, be that verbal or physical, or any kind of misconduct towards women should be considered rape and should be legally punished. Unfortunatelly, this lead to cases where women sued men under the claim that the fact they had too much to drink on the night when they had intercourse is sufficient enough of an excuse to prove that they did not give consent. Feminists even agree that this should apply to married couples as well .\nIn conclusion, it is my honest opinion that third wave feminism creates, or happens to create unconsciously, a world where gender relations are broken, unsafe, unsecure, and without trust which is crucial for healthy relationships by promoting a form of propaganda throug liberal media and social networks .\n" + }, + { + "title": "412_SEBG2027.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today? \n\nThe Middle East crisis, terrorism threats, immigrant crisis, economies which are standing on a slippery slope, it seems as though the worldwide turmoil has no intention of settling down. And just as the world is suffocating in problems, the humanity stands its greatest test, are we looking past the skin color, religious belief, genders and all other categorizations, or are we still guided by the common human vanity and egoism?\nTrouble and misery have always brought people together, as the old saying goes [Quotation] . And it might sound harsh, but there is something beautiful in seeing people come together, united, just for one cause - to help one another. The sense of equality which floods the masses gathered around the ones in trouble may be one of the requisites of the 21st century. We have all witnessed it. Last year we were all Charlie, Je suis Charlie, couple of years before that the world had turned all of its compassion to Japan, watching in dread the catastrophic events following the earthquake. And what about the crisis in Middle East and the rivers of people escaping the war, gushing at the borders of Europe. At first all of the border countries welcomed the immigrants, sensibly right?! [Quotation] these were some of the comments heard in every day's chatter... For a second it looked as the world had got a message, and that there were no stopping for the spirit of unity, equality, humanity and all thee unfaithful to the goodness in people would be converted.\nBut then, the rivers of people wouldn't stop gushing, and the world became afraid. The borders started to close for some of the refugees. It soon became clear that the selectiveness of the \"gate keepers\" was instructed from the high above, the politics and economy (read - money) had the key to better life. The humanity soon abolished their hope in equality which has become obsolete. The fear conjoined with the vanity of the people and the prejudices took place to common sense. Instead of uniting, the world is dividing, it seem that now more than ever the categories are visible, nationalities, skin color, religious beliefs, careers we are in, the money we earn. The xenophobic societies finally have finally arose as something acceptable. More than ever George Orwell is right: [Quotation] . We have put a value to human life. Simply it is not the same if a white European (or for that matter - American) person dies, or the Middle Eastern person's life is in question.\nEven though one might argue that the dreams of equality are possible, and that we have achieved a lot in that area, still it is inevitable to notice all the inequality and selective practice of the basic human rights nowadays. There is no value to human life, we are all the same, the same food feeds us and the same diseases kill us. Who is to say that one is better than the other? Well, I'd like to say no one, but you and I know this is not true.\n" + }, + { + "title": "413_SEBG2046.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n\nNowadays, most of us can't imagine their lives without technology. We have been using it on daily basis, for work, education, communication etc. It helped us and made our lives easier in many ways, but it also has its disadvantages .\nScience, technology and industrialization improved our lives in number of ways in many different areas. I believe that if we use it right, not only that it doesn't limit our imagination, but it can actually inspire us to dream bigger, broad our views, make us think and become more creative and imaginative. First of all, most of us have computers and internet at our homes. Thanks to these, we have access to the latest news, so we can stay informed; to social networks, so we can stay in touch with people or even meet new friends online; to many e-books and audio which we might not find in the bookstores in our country, to many online courses of languages, science, etc. which we can attend for free, in case we can't afford them. Therefore, technology can be incredibly useful. We can discover new things every day, stimulate our gray cells and thus become more creative, innovative and come up with amazing ideas. Second, we can say thanks to science for being able to cure many deseases which used to be considered deadly a few centuries ago; for explaining what is going on in the world around us (quantum physics, space exploration...) all of this inspires us to learn more, maybe discover our hidden talents, dream about things we thought were impossible. It can inspire us to do great things, maybe write a fantasy novel, become an astronaut or define new laws of physics. Third, when industrialization began, it was developing rapidly, because every invention and a machine inspired people to create more of them and make their lives easier. Every scientist, inventor or engineer must be a dreamer and have creative spirit. They all dream of making this world a better place for every human being .\nOn the other hand, science, technology and industrialization have their disadvantages too. First, some people might use scientific breakthroughs for their own hidden agendas. Not everyone wants to do good. They might use science to harm people, destroy nature or fulfill their childhood dream of rulling the world. Second, people might start relying on technology too much. They can become lazy and refuse to use their brains, their imagination. They just do not want to be bothered, because for some reason, they believe they already have everything they need and that they know everything they need to know. They have no desire to explore further and discover new things. Also, when it comes to industrialization, people think that machines we already have are good enough, that there is apsolutely no need for improvement or adjustments. Therefore, we can see that, in a way, technology can be dreadful for our dreams and imagination, it can stop us from striving for better, because we think we already have everything and that there are no mysteries left to be discovered .\nTo conclude, if we know how to use technology for self improvement and development, if we want to use science to make this world a better place and do good and if we are able to use the advancement of industrialisation to make our lives easier this can only benefit us and our brains. It can motivate us, educate us, make us become better people, strive for better and dream bigger .\n" + }, + { + "title": "414_SEBG2050.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song \"Money is the root of all evil\". Agree or disagree? \n\nWe live in a world where everything seems to be revolving around money and making money. Industries and businesses are flourishing at an unprecedented rate, and we seem to be losing ourselves in this vicious circle of making more and more profit. Our society has become industrialised and materialistic to an extent that has never been seen before, people are judged or appreciated depending on how rich they are. Although money is necessary for most essential things in life, I strongly believe that it is money that in fact is the root of all evil, or at least, the root of most of it .\nMoney makes the world go round they say, and this is a fact well known nowadays. It is essential for everyday life, we need it for clothes, food, hygene, to begin with the small things, but also rent, bills, gas, and similar expenses. But money has much more power than to just be used for mere expenses of our daily life. Money is the fuel which makes numerous great things possible, such as all sorts of cures for illnesses, materials for technological equipment, medical equipment, different research projects and experiments which may change the world in the future. And although they say that you can't buy the most important things in life such as love, happiness or health, the sad truth is that if you are well-positioned in society you will have more friends, be able to afford more things and also be more likely to be healthy since you will have the option to choose healthier options in your alimentation, because we all know how pricey eating healthy can be. And, bottom line, if you happen to get ill, you need money for medication or in the worst case a surgery, so if you wanted you would be able to choose a better medical institution to go to than the state hospital .\nHowever, in spite of all the perks of money, I strongly believe that it is the money and wealth that are the causes of world's biggest evils. Starting with ignorance, far from me saying that wealthy people are ignorant, but some of them set a very bad example for their children by giving them too much freedom and no responsibilities. This we can see in various examples, such as the \"Rich Kids of Tehran\" profile on Instagram which first came to my mind. They show off their wealth, their collections of gold watches, the piles of dollar bills, the luxurious cars and mansions, but what they don't show off is class, modesty or knowledge. They grow up to be pompous daddy-sons and daughters and few of them become scientists, explorers, writers, or contribute in any way to their society, and that is just the ignorance which money causes. It causes far worse things, and one of them is pollution. Our environment is getting more and more polluted and industry is becoming more and more developed nevertheless. The ozone layer is ruined, the climate is changing and all most people care about is not losing money. The air and water are severely polluted, but all we see is more cars and more ships. Where this will lead our future generations, we are yet to see. But the worst thing that money causes is war. Were it not for money, would there be nuclear weapons, or any other kind of weapons with the power to destroy the entire planet? Hardly. Greed in itself is not sufficient anymore, you need money to make anything possible, especially war. The saddest thing is that human lives have become to be valued through money and if a soldier dies in war, his family will receive a certain amount of money for their loss .\nWe live in a modern age where everything and anything is possible, and it is possible thanks to money. We see all the grand shiny things money has made possible, but few of us will actually think of what we've lost because of money. And we've lost a lot. Should we continue following this path, soon enough we will lose ourselves .\n" + }, + { + "title": "415_SEBJ1030.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today? \n\nIn the 21st century, we are facing extreme materialism and it is obvious that most people only care about power and money. Every day, we witness many cases of workers being abused and made to work more than they are paid for. This, as well as other occurrences lead us to the conclusion already given in the title \"All men are equal: but some are more equal than others.\"\nA good example to illustrate this statement could be politics nowadays. Wealthy countries dominate the poor ones; even though slavery and colonialism are far behind, we still see that oppression is happening in a subtle way. For example, Africa's natural recources are widely exploited by more powerful countries; sometimes even wars emerge whose true cause are those resoruces - but this is only one thing people do in order to gain more money. We hear statements promoting equality of all people every day, but those are only words; in real life, the situation is quite the opposite. Also, the taxes people pay to their countries should be collected for public expenses, but many politicians neglect citizens' welfare and secretly spend the money for their own needs.\nChildren and teenagers also face different situations proving that not all people are equal. In schools, the only important thing for pupils has become to look good, have expensive clothes, smartphones and even expensive cars in some cases. The worst thing about that is that a great many parents encourage this in a way and spend a lot of money on their children. It is surprising that even some teachers prefer rich pupils to those who are not equally wealthy. Those who can't afford expensive things are rejected and looked upon as people who don't deserve the same treatment like others. They often have to try much harder, and even in that case success is not guaranteed.\nMore importantly, in a society where capitalism dominates, workers don't have the rights they should have - they are not paid enough, they perform many jobs simultaneously and they often work longer than they should. An employee in a coffee shop often has to serve thy guests, clean and do any other work necessary. This is another way for more powerful people to make fortune by using others' abilities and hard work. The law is also corrupted and it doesn't protect those people who are forced to work in those harsh conditions in order to make a living. Not only do they have to work hard, but they are not treated equally when they try to get a job - we often hear that somebody had paid a specific sum of money or that they are employer's cousins and were employed owing to these facts.\nHowever, in the last few decades there have been considerable changes concerning women and ethnic minorities, for example. In the past centuries, women had barely any rights; they were not allowed to vote during elections and were not paid as highly as men. That is all in the past now and the situation concerning the equality of sexes is getting better. Also, some ethnic groups were discriminated by the society until recently, but now this is changed and these people can claim their rights as well. Also, some political associations such as the United Nations help to promote human rights and assistance between countries.\nMany organizations have been founded recently whose goal is to help poor people and there are always new campaigns promoting human rights and equality of all people. Many people are willing to help and they often donate money and other necessary things useful for those who need help, not taking their race or nationality into consideration. For example, the Red Cross is an international organization whose aim is the benefit of old, sick and poor people from around the world.\nTo sum up, equality is certainly promoted in the society, but it is controversial and also raises questions about how true this is in real life. Even through media, we are faced with numerous prejudices and attitudes that show us that some men truly are more equal than others. Unfortunately, all these prejudices are mostly based on money as an indication of how valuable people are.\n" + }, + { + "title": "416_SEBJ1039.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In his novel 'Animal Farm' George Orwell wrote 'All men are equal but some are more equal than others'. How true is this today? \n\nEquality. That is what we all talk about every day and what people have been fighting for for ages, but, when we take everything into account - do we really see and respect all people equally?\nThere is no doubt that, overall, the question of equality has raised to a much higher level. However, statements, comments etc. we get to hear from some people make us think that there are still problems regarding that, and that there always will be. How can someone, e.g. say they support this and that activity, person, but then, when for a certain group, a religion or nationality, that same person says negative things about people belonging to those groups, based on some things s/he heard before about them. I would know what this feels like, since coming from Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is most likely always going to be labeled as \"the war country where everyone is still killing everyone\", makes me come across people who write the worst things about my country and nationality online, calling all of us \"criminals, killers, maniacs\" etc. Is that the equality some are asking for?\nSpeaking of the world in general, I can't help but feel that, in a way, people rate one's life more than another's. People seem to choose whose life is important, and whose is not. I was raised that way to see every life equally, every innocent life lost as a tragedy, no matter where that innocent life came from, what color it was, what religion... This might be a bit egoistic, but, how don't all people have this view on one's life like me, since they're already raising their voice for equality?\nThe recent Paris attacks that were a huge tragedy and brought sadness to everyone, are an example how this world chooses who to care about and pay attention to. That same day, there were attacks, big murders and disasters in a few different countries on other continents. How many people posted something about those tragedies on their social media? Barely anyone, or a really small number, compared to the ones focusing on Paris attacks only. Of course, there is never a BUT for the innocent human victims, because every life matters the same, or at least that should be the case. But, there is a BUT for people who choose to cry over one specific group but totally ignore the others, since they are \"irrelevant\" in their eyes. Why is it so?\nWe can blame it on the media. Sure, media divide people into important/not important groups and so they present stories following that order. It is already known that people mostly believe in those things that are \"served\" to them, without thinking twice or trying to find out more. So, if the media only talk about one tragedy or attack - people will only care about that. However, we use the Internet every day, how can't we notice that there are other people who suffer and die every day? I might be rude, but, it seems like we don't care. People care about the \"big\" countries and cities and nations, yet others who they are not familiar with are completely ignored and their tragedies are barely even mentioned anywhere. Where's that famous \"equality\" in all of that? How can one call himself \"a fighter for equality\" if he/she still labels people based on their differences, no matter what they are? If one sees an entire group of people through some bad individuals, what exactly is that equality they're fighting for?\nWhen some people hear where you're coming from, they make a picture of you and your country and it's usually going to be a stereotyped one, so if you are, like me, from a \"notorious\" country, the first images people will get of you won't be the brightest. Trust me, I've faced this.\nThe quote by George Orwell, [Quotation] is still accurate and, unfortunately, will be for a long time. I wish I was wrong, but there's nothing telling me that this will change. Since I can't always think about what other people think, I will focus on myself and be happy to say I'm not one of the people who treat others differently based on who they are and where they come from.\n" + }, + { + "title": "417_SEBJ2007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Is capital punishment defensible?\n\nCapital punishment is a form of punishment where the perpetrator is sentenced to death. Throughout the history many execution methods were used, such as beheading, hanging, guillotine, crucifixion, gas chamber, firing squad, etc. During the middle ages different techniques of torture usually preceded the death penalty. Today mostly lethal injection and electrocution are used as execution methods in the USA. Some other countries that retained the death penalty are People's Republic of China, North Korea, Japan, Somalia and most states in the Middle East. Whether this is a justified decision remains a debatable issue .\nIt could be argued that death penalty is defensible. Committing offences such as murder or rape demands justice to be served. Many people believe that such offences should be punishable by death. They claim that capital punishment can set an example for other criminals and help the crime rates decrease, as crime in their countries is increasing. I would disagree on this and state that there are no statistics that prove that capital punishment helps when it comes to countering crime. If a person decides to commit an offence, he or she will do that regardless of circumstances, so the statement that capital punishment will frighten possible perpetrators is not reliable .\nFurthermore, opponents are sure that it is cheaper to execute a person than to make them serve a sentence without parole. This argument is invalid since there was a study done in California which discovered that it was more expensive to execute a person than to keep them in prison for life .\nIn support of death penalty some may say that legal system is fair. However, there is a racial bias in the USA where most countries which used to belong to The Confederacy perform executions. Majority of those who are put on death row are African Americans. Additionally, most of those who are put on death row are poor and cannot afford a good defense attorney .\n [Quotation] . This is the lesson of nonviolence which leader of Indian independence movement, Mahatma Gandhi, tried to teach us. By killing someone we display exactly the same behavior, proving that we are not better than those who committed crimes. This means that by killing those who kill we became killers as well .\nDeath penalty eliminates all possibility for rehabilitation. If we murder murderers, we are not solving the problem of high rate of serial killers, but vaguely disguising that problem is being solved. If we want to abolish death penalty, we have to offer some form of alternative. One form of replacement may be prison sentence without parole, but one could refute this by saying that this is no solution since prisons are already crowded. The proper solution would be rehabilitation of perpetrators in the form of expert help from psychologists and psychiatrists. In addition, help of religious kind can be useful for some of the convicts. There are many examples where religion helped people change for better. To conclude with, death penalty does not represent a solution to problems but only an easier way out. We must consider more humane and moral ways of dealing with crimes against humanity .\n" + }, + { + "title": "418_SEES1009.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Is capital punishment defensible?\n\nThere are many moral, practical, and economic reasons to oppose the death penalty. To introduce the law which allows someone's life to be taken is not an easy decision to make and many sides have to be examined before making final decision. It is not just the question of the money, or of racial issues, or complex moral dillemas, but all of this these combined, and many more. What does many more exactly mean? Let's find out .\nMoral arguments which oppose death penalty that have to be considered are various. Besides the obvious, but complex dilemma as to whether anybody claims the right to kill somebody, no matter what the accused did, there are many other problems to face. First of all, one has to ask himself, \"would bringing this law be direct assault on the free will, which is the basis of the modern society?\" Any kind of radical restriction of human behaviour could produce a devastating effect, and shake the already loose foundations of the existing world. Furthermore, many, if not all religions profess non-violence, and we must admit that our society is still not completely secularized. Hence, new issues on that front would appear. Lastly, but not least, it has been shown throughout the history that revenge and retaliation were almost never a good solution. Indeed, moral aspects seem as too much too swallow in order for capital punishment to be introduced .\nOn the another side of this problem lie practical reasons that oppose the introduction of the death penalty. Many studies have been published, but still there are not many, or any viable ones, that confirm the effectiveness of the capital punishment. There is no confirmed data that any of more than 30 countries around the world that practice this type of sanction, including PR China and the USA, have smaller crime rates than the countries which abolished it. Moreover, countries with distinct racial and economic differences, have a hard time providing equal defense for each of their residents, hence many poor people and members of minorities (or both) are more prone to be condemned than the rich, who are often protected by their wealth, and by the country itself. It is not hard to see that anyone defending the death penalty would have to tackle great practical obstacles .\nFinally, there is an economic aspect of this problem. Death penalty takes much of the taxpayers' money. It come as a surprise, but it is a truth that it costs less to incarcerate offenders and feed and clothe them, then to send them on a death row. Most of the world economies are already struggling, so any new expense is not welcome. Thus we can say with certainty that death penalty is not economically viable .\nTo sum up, death penalty brings more harm than good. Morally, economically and practically, consequences of its introduction are vast and it looks as another way has to be found to treat dangereous criminals. This one just affect us too much, both in our minds and our wallets .\n" + }, + { + "title": "419_SEES1020.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song \"Money is the root of all evil\". Agree or disagree? \n\nAn old song of the Andrews Sisters \"Money is the root of all evil\" gives us a few reasons why this is incontestable true. Of course there are many more reasons unrelated to song but this time I will single out just few of them from the song in order to show you why I agree with this words. So, in the song we can find that money gives us just a temporarily satisfaction, deprives us from emotions and true values in the life, and finally it contaminates us with higher desire for it. Let me give you more details .\nSo as I mentioned this song tells us that money gives us a just temporarily satisfaction and I completely agree with it. We all know that money's duration is not long. There are many cases where somebody won the lottery or got the money in some other way, and soon thereafter spend all that money. There is no proper way to save that money if you are not satisfied with things that you already have. Therefore this bring us to another reason why money is the root of all evil .\nThe second reason that shows us all the evil of the money is closely conectected to previous one. Better said, while the money gives us a just temporarily satisfaction it deprives us from emotions and true values in the same time. The best explanation is given in the words of song: [Quotation] . So it shows us which are true values that we need to respect and also shows us that these values you can not buy. You can possess all the luxury but if you don't have inner satisfaction all that luxury is not important. But the most difficult is the way to cognition. Lot of people spend a big part of their lives in attempts to get more money and in last years of their lives they realize that all the effort was wasted. So all these attempts to get more money represent one more reason why the money is the root of all evil .\nIn the words [Quotation] is shown how the money contaminates us with higher desire for it. We all start with small desires but as we fulfill them our desires become higher. In this way our desire for money constantly increasing. And again it is connected to previous reasons why the money is the root of all evil. With our desires for money we forget true values. So everything this represent a vicious circle in which we are loosing ourselves just for higher desires .\nSo to sum up, all these reasons that are given in the old song of the Adrews Sisters \"Money is the root of all evil\" and about which I said before, give us a true image of money. I've wrote how I experienced this song and lessons that I've learnt from it. I hope you agree with me at least in some statements .\n" + }, + { + "title": "420_SEES2001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n\nAs the world's developing grows incredibly fast, we are not even aware of all of the changes that is bringing to us. Science achievements, technology inventions and huge industrialization, each of them affects on each of us. It is clear - there are consequences, but they are expectable and reasonable consequences and results are both good and bad and their influences are more or less equal. However, we should finally distinct them and provide all of the good and bad sides of this modern age. Are we completely overtaken by modern achievements? Are we robots, machines, emotionless and programmed or they still haven't got such a hold on us? If they have, how to deal with it and what to do?\nHas the science reached its own top? Look around. Science is everything and everywhere. Technology is everything and everywhere. Industrialization too. We are surrounded by mobile phones, computers, all of the kinds of machines. Those machines are working and living with us and for us. I can not imagine spending only one day without my phone. On the first place, because of communication, on the second place, because of the information - some things for school and education and for my personal interests. And that's brilliant! Being able to talk with a friend who's miles away. Being able to see a friend, to share photos etc. Furthermore, whenever we need to know something, which we knew but forgot or we simple want to know, we can just ask \"Google\". \"Google\" knows. We are completely informed, completely protected and we have completely solved our lack of knowledge. Or we at least think we have.\nThe internet opens a whole new life and a whole new world to us. There is no single thing that we can not find on the internet. Internet's options and knowledges are endless. In this connotation, we can not see bad sides of technology. Various kind of social media, \"Facebook\", \"Youtube\", \"Instagram\", people, (mainly young people) find very useful, productive and interesting. Some of them are quite inspirational, which gives the ideas for people to think more, to create more, to search more, to develop more. We have a numerous examples everywhere, of people who started working on internet. At the beggining, it started as a hoby, now, they have already earned a bunch of money.\nEvery day we are exposed to the influences of social media. We are living our lives there. Fortunatelly, not all of us but there's already a quite big number of those who are affected. People are not aware that the things we see out there, they are all fake. Most of the time. Following celebrity profiles, seeing the kind of life that they're living, seeing the way they look alike and as the result - wanting to be them, wanting to be like them. Although it's impossible, and completely ridiculous, young people are giving their best to make the exact copy of life their idol has. Young girls are constantly on diets, constantly under make-up and constantly taking photos of themselves - all in order to get more \"likes\", more \"followers\" and to make people like them. It's insane. Number of young girls doing this is already huge and they are giving all and living for \"likes\".\nIs there still a room for dreaming, imagination and creation? Sure there is! Those who were born to dream and to create, they'll always find a way to make a wonderful things and to say them. There will never be such technology or industrialization that is going to kill people's tendency for dreaming. What's more, they'll always be making new invents. Those who dream are those who brought and who are still bringing the greatest achievements in all fields of science, technology and industry.\n" + }, + { + "title": "421_SEES2005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n\nThe media is everywhere and takes up a great deal of people's everyday lives. Nowadays, technology is advenced that much, that sometimes is impossible to imagine life without it. People depend on the media to provide them with the information that otherwise would be hard to get. My opinion is that technology, science and industrialization can have positive and negative effects on society. We can take Mass Media as an example .\nFirst of all, I want to mention that media affects society in many different ways, such as: businesses use media to promote their products, the media effects communication and the media affects body image and behaviour of people in society. When we talk about business, we can say that companies use the media to convince consumers to buy their products. Since the start of Mass Media, companies have used communication to broadcoast to large numbers of people about their product. Companies use online advertisement to influence people to buy their products. Also, a lot of people are influenced to buy a product because of post on social media websites by their friends. So, that is how the media spreading new products and attracts consumers to buy it .\nThe people of society, use the media to communicate with friends, family and people all around the world. In modern world we can not imagine life without technology. In the past 50 years, the media has grown its influence significantly with the changes in new technology, starting with the telegraph all the way to today's internet. Due to the rapid spread of media to all parts of the world, the access to information is easy and fast. Owing to web technology almost everyone has access to information from anywhere in the world .\nOn the contrary, there is also negative influence of media. When we say there is no longer place for dreaming and imagination, that is true. Nowadays, people are so dependent on social media they are becoming more and more disconected with the world around them. They are always on their phones or other form of communication device, causing people to become disconnected with what is happening around them and not to live in the moment. Our ideas are changed with the influence of media. We are neglecting much important things such as knowledge, education, friendship... Because the influence of media on teenagers, kids, society is huge they need to be informed on how the media actually works .\nWe also can not have our own opinion, dreams and illusions if we are only leaning on the media. We are determined that we are going to find everything we search for on the Internet and than there is no need to have your own imagination. Also, media influences the way people look at themselves and how they behave. It is no secret that advertisers use photoshop to edit photos to make the person in it look more appealing. It can take years or even longer people to come to the realization that the images they see are manipulated. Living in society where most of the images people see may not be real is damaging .\nIn conclusion, the media and technology in general affects society in many different ways. People use the media in their everyday lives to communicate with each other, and to know what is happening in the world. The media can have negative influence too, on the way people view themselves and how people behave. So we can say that in modern world the media has both positive and negative influence on society .\n" + }, + { + "title": "422_SEES2022.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n\nThe world is full of criminals and their work never stops so we are in constant struggle in making decisions how to deal with them. One thing is sure, current prison system is heavily outdated with some basics that should be kept. Constant deaths in the prisons, people being tortured and raped all over the world just prove this theory and the another theory that not every criminal can be rehabilitated. Also, not everyone deserves a second chance too .\nThe biggest crimes that the man can imagine can not be justified thus the criminals don't deserve a chance to be rehabilitated. Mass murderers, terrorists, people who steal from the poor, drug lords and many more can not be rehabilitated simply because they don't deserve it. They have done to much harm to be treated with respect and simpathy and they deserve to root firstly in prison and in the hell afterwards. Constant beating, deaths and torturing suits them perfectly but it is important to say that not everyone deserves the same .\nPeople make mistakes. That is the fact. Someone, steals in order to feed the family, someone kills in self-defence and there is a whole bunch of young people outside, watching \"Godfather\" trilogy and in order to be \"cool\", do some crazy stuff. That people need someone and to teach them what is good and what is bad. Personal note: even me and my friends were on the trial when we were young, for robbing one house we were thinking it was empty. We got our lesson and since that time, we were never ever in contact with any criminal or even thinking of doing one ourselves .\nMoney. So important thing but for some reason when it comes to the prison system issue, people tend to forget to mention it. Paying for the clothes, paying the guards, the staff of the prison, food and many other things, costs every country a fortune. Do not forget about the special prisons with television, internet, and a lot of things that average citzen can not achieve. We could instead force the prisoners to work for the country. Let them work on the fields, clean the streets and by doing that, make some money for the country. Let them repay what they stole, if they did, or let them try to wash their sins by helping the society. Do everything to make them better people for the good of the community where they live. There are some rumours that Americans did some experiments to their prisoners but that is too brutal and not a good example, not much money in it .\nRehabilitation is often just an exuse by the prisoners or their lawyers in order to make their clients look better in the eyes of the judge, and a free ticket out of the jail. It is silly to talk that someone can change after a few years in prison by being surrounded with heavy criminals. It is absurd, speaking of which, we need specialized facilities for rehabilitation and a huge number of people willing to help the criminals. The people in charge have to be sharp-minded because it is nothing for one murderer to try to lie that he is \"cured\", because some believe in theories that some people are born for criminals and they will try to decieve so we need to be careful. On the other hand, a lot of prisoners became a well-known and respected citzens and we should strive for it .\nIn order to change the prison system, we need to change the laws too. Legalize the weed, make some verdicts that sent you the prison to be payable instead because to pay hurts the most for certain people. This shouldn't be taken lightly and we the best people specialized in law to work on this. Make the prison days productive and meaningful but lower the durations of the verdicts lower, but make them remember every single day spent in prison .\nFear is the biggest reason why people will try to be good. Use propaganda in a good way, educate children, reward good examples and there won't be criminals in the first place, so no one to rehabilitate or only a few stubborn people. Prison system must be changed as soon as possible with the help of every citizen of the country, for the greater good, for the generation that is coming. We have experience and solid ground, let us show that the human is the most inteligent being on the planet. After the dolphins .\n" + }, + { + "title": "423_SENS1016.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song \"Money is the root of all evil\". Agree or disagree? \n\nOne could hardly ever imagine the world we know without the green blood that runs through the veins of what we know as economy and at the same time, it acts as fuel for the engines of industry and ever-changing technology, and that of course is money. The statement that money is the root of all evil, when looked at logically, is only true to a certain degree. Instead, I would argue that money is purely a tool, it shapes people and exposes their hidden desires, wishes and character traits by either corrupting them as it is most often the case, or for those people that are truly inherently good, it liberates them and allows them to help those who truly need it .\nFirstly, it would be wrong and utterly foolish to blame the evil of this world on money, even before money, there was the lust for power in men and that is what causes the corruption. Corruption and political affairs are the primary means through which the consequences of this power-lust are reflected on average people and their everyday lives. One could go on for days counting the instances where individuals sold their ideals, beliefs and took up a cause for the side that was harmful to few our people, and this is especially evident in the Balkans and felt up to this day. There are consequences for everything we do, however, those that are to blame would never admit their guilt and it is our own fault as a collective of all human beings for the attrocious conditions of our lives. It is tremendously easy for those in power to control the people when people are so weak-minded .\nHowever, no matter how degenerate and desperate the times we live in seem to be, there will always be a handful of people that well remain pure and untouched by powerlust. Examples are people like Mother Tereza, when she received the Nobel prize for her work and a million dollars that go with it, she gave all the money to the cause of buying food for the starving people, a million dollars worth of rice and had a second of doubt about it .\nFinally, even with all this said, there remains a grim picture of what awaits us in the future. Humans have reached a treshold and become stuck in a nut, and there is only the path of downfall if we don't change our consciousness from the core because whether there be money or not, the problem lies in all of us .\n" + }, + { + "title": "424_SENS1027.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song \"Money is the root of all evil\". Agree or disagree? \n\nMoney is the most ridiculous thing that has ever been invented since the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Money is one of two main reasons why we are going through such struggle these days. The second reason is people's enormous thirst for power. However, these two are closely related. I went to the secondary school of economics and I still remember when we learned how money was invented in Italy somewhere around 13th century, I believe. What I remember best is that the invention of money imediately triggered some conflicts among people. It does not matter which form money takes, the consequences are the same. However, people often have to accept things as they are. In other words, we have to get up at 6 AM each morning, work all day long until a woman from a political party calls us and asks us to vote and to join one of those political satanistic organizations. If there were no money, there would be no politics and our life would be perfect. If people weren't greedy and shared food and properties, there wouldn't be a need for something like the money is. Money is just a physical form of human greed, which is one of seven deadly sins. Every time I try to read news, I end up with reading either about some wars somewhere in the world or about amazingly bad political situation in my country. Everything is the consequence of human greed, gluttony, lust, and many more \"virtues\" that will lead this world to an end. Therefore, if someone asked me how to try to define money, I would say that it was a piece of Satan's hand. Every single war after WW2 started by offering enormous sums of money to some people that were \"chosen\" to do their job. But I must admit that it works perfectly. Now they legalize weed only to earn some profit, even on their own kids. It has gone too far, in my opinion. I should be politically correct and say that the money can be good, too. No, it is awesome, because you can buy sausages, gallows, or even duckling. It is true, but they are using it to buy armor and guns, to build their new airplanes and to support the world's progressive degradation and destruction. It doesn't matter who is who - all people are the same - they tend to destroy everything. The most evil consequence of the use of money is the change in personality of a certain person. Money changes people and they are never again the same. What they want is always more, and more, and more. This leads us to conclusion that those people are not so happy as it may seem. It is very interesting that many rich and successful artists died of some very expensive drugs and later it was discovered that they were depressive for some reason. That reason can easily be the money. The more you have - the more you want. People forget why they wake up and they lost their purpose in life beside that much euros and dollars. However, I still believe that things can change. The money was not dirty and bloody until people made it be like that. The only reason why I like money is the word money, because if money had not been invented, Pink Floyd wouldn't have been able to make one of their best guitar solos of all time besides \"Comfortably Numb\". Everything other about money is bad because bad people use it for bad purposes. The others use it to buy bread, which is fine.\n" + }, + { + "title": "425_SENS2032.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song \"Money is the root of all evil\". Agree or disagree? \n\nThe saying that [Quotation] has probably never been more true than it is in our time. Money is a crucial aspect of everyone's lives and it can be said that it controles our lives. After all, we need money to provide the basic things we need in order to survive: food, water, shelter, as well as all the other things we need in everyday life. Money is also probably the main reason people have jobs; in order to have money we have to earn it by doing something which can be valued. Being such an important part of our lives, it is no wonder people think that \"Money is the root of all evil\" and I tend to agree with these words and will explain in this essay why .\nOne of the first things which come to mind when thinking about how money is the root of our problems is the different ways people get it. Having the importance that it has in our lives, it is easy to understand why some people would do almost anything to gain certain amounts of it. Not everyone is ready to work the same way as most people do, to have a job which benefits the community in some way, but choose to do things which are in our society considered as illegal or unethical. Those things can range from petty crimes to serious offences which can harm someone's life, but what they all have in common is that they harm our community and the rules we chose to live by, all because of money .\nAnother claim for money being the cause of all bad things in this world is our dependence on it. Money is so integrated in our way of living that today nobody can function without it. People need money in order to have drinking water and food, healthcare and homes, not to mention all the other things needed for a person to be a part of the society. To have a normal life, one needs money, which is why we are all as a society obsessed with having it .\nOne another reason for seeing \"money as root of all evil\" is the status and importance we have become accustomed in ascribing to it. Money today has a god-like importance to people. Their value is often measured with the amount of money they have or do not have. Many people see it as a solution to all of lives problems and the lack of it as the end of the world. Money is often the reason of numerous family fall-outs, ended friendships and relationships. This status and importance we give to money leads many people to value it more than the things which in truth are much more important than bank notes .\nAll in all, there are many reasons why money can be seen as the root of all bad things in the world, including the ways some people get it, our dependence on it and the status and importance we give it. Greed for money only brings out the worst in people which shows that, truly \"Money is the root of all evil\".\n" + }, + { + "title": "426_SENS3012.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song \"Money is the root of all evil\". Agree or disagree? \n\nDoes money cause all our problems? It is a very frequently asked question these days, with a plethora of different answers and opinions. Some claim that with money everything is easier; some claim that a piece of paper cannot make your life better. But, one cannot deny, the whole world spins around money.\nThere are actually two different worlds - the rich one and the poor one. In the world full of money, expensive cars, luxurious mansions, glamour and glitter everything seems to be perfect. Looked from the outside, it really does seem perfect. However, there is much deeper and darker side hidden beneath all that shine. If you look closer into lives of, for example, famous persons, it is not happiness that you see. No. It is dissatisfaction, anger, helplessness. One cannot resist asking \"Why? Why, when they have everything they want?\" Now comes the question of what is really the thing humans want. Cars? Clothes? Expensive hotels? Overloaded bank accounts? People who have all these things do not actually care about them. They are slaves to their fortune. What is the purpose of a huge house if you live there alone? What is the purpose of millions and billions if you have no one to spend them with?\nNext are a little less rich people, those who own companies or have well paid jobs so they can afford themselves a luxurious life. Those are people who are never at home, who pay a babysitter to raise their children because they are too busy with earning money. Those are lonely men and women who left their beloved ones or were left by them because they missed every birthday and anniversary, because they were working late. No matter how much money you have, you can never buy time. The true values do not lie in money and in things you can buy with money. Only those who have it know that.\nOn the other hand, there are people who have so little, almost nothing, speaking materialistically, but actually they have everything. How comes? Well, maybe a mother cannot afford to buy her children the latest phone, but she can spend some time playing with them, she waits them with hot lunch on the table, she is there to kiss them goodnight. Maybe a boyfriend doesn't have money for expensive dinner, but he will make one by himself. Maybe a father cannot buy his son a new car, but he will come to every football mach his son plays. That is the true luxury. It is shame that so many people never realize that, or when they do, it is too late.\nMoney is an addiction, a sickness. No matter how much you have it, it is never enough, you always want more and more. But it is not money to be blamed. After all, it is nothing more than a piece of paper. The true evil lies in people themselves. Human's greed and envy are the biggest evil force in the world. Money is not alive, it cannot consciously cause you troubles and bring you misery. It is simply a means to an end, and you are the one who decides what that end will be. The best things in life come for free, it has always been like that, and it will always be.\n" + }, + { + "title": "427_SPM01005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nThe statement \"feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good\" is false. In fact, feminists are the ones who have fought and managed an improvement of women's situation in society, although there is still a hard work to do. In order to support this argument, we are going to review the following subjects: Labour discrimination, the right to vote, the fight against male chauvinist behaviours, the representation of women in important political charges and the recognition of the sexuality in woman .\nNowadays, the Spanish Law penalizes sexual discrimination as for labour. The last sentences are becoming favourables to women. A few weeks ago, for instance, an enterprise has been charged with paying more money to men than to women, when both accomplished the same work. Other theme to be discussed is the women's right ~o vote, which has to do with the equality in the rights of the State. feminist pressures were used for the recognition of women's sufrage in Spain, in 1931. Besides, thanks to the fight of feminist groups, more reactionarity male shauvinist behaviours are denounced, the agressions are reported, and rapings are punished with greater severity, although there are exceptions, as always. To take an obvious example, a few years ago, and even today in some cases, the girl who wore a mini-skirt was the real guilty of her raping. Moreover, in the present political parties (especially in those which are situated in the center-left wing), women begin to be considered when taking important decisions. In an increasing way, women request more participation in the direction organs. In Spain we have three women who hold the charge of ministers in our government. But the world of women is still a dropout in the political world. At last, we must state that it is due to the feminist struggle that the sexuality of women is put on the same level as masculine one, and it is not so hidden. Before this, man could enjoy with his sex and be proud of his potency (or prepotency} whereas woman, had as her only function in society, that of procreating. With the sexual liberation, women advanced towards the knowledge and experimentation of their own body .\nTherefore, the equality of wages, the right to vote, the consideration of women as inferior and less intelligents beings, the higher percentage of participation of women in charges with power of decision, and the fact of recognising their own sexuality are some of the consequences of the feminist fight since it, the oldest revolution of this century, began. Two weeks ago, I concentrated with some women to protest against two men who had raped a girl. They are free because she was scared and left to her country; therefore, the denounce has being stopped. Then the evidence is clear , there is no doubt that there was a rape, even from the point of view of the law. But in a legal way there is nothing to be done: only to demonstrate your rage for another injustice committed against women. This act has done more harm to the cause of women than good: from the rapers' point of view. That's why I am a militant feminist .\n" + }, + { + "title": "428_SPM01013.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nThe cliché that \"money is the root of all evil ' has become in human history much more than a saying picked up by chance from an old song, but a reality which even more noticeable in modern times .\nMoney is generally regarded as a priceless key to unlock the slammed-shut doors which one encounters in daily life. Hence there is nothing that materialistic people would not be willing to do to obtain it. There exist positive means of earning money; working with endurance, integrity and good motivation seem to be the most worthy. Nevertheless exist other means of obtaining it which are not so honorable, but quicker. These means have become prominent in present day society .\nThese days society is evidently led by tendencies of consumption unknown before. During the Roman Empire, the Middle Ages and The lndustrial Revolution for instance, the boundaries between classes were completly separated and only a few fortunate members of the groups in power were aware of and could enjoy the delights wealthiness could provide. Today the means of communication transmit the excelencies of a glamorous world to those who find it hard to make ends meet. Hence the phrases ' I own\", ' I possess\" are becoming the guiding lights of a broad sector of society .\nIt is an unknown fact that to own and to posses one has to buy and that requires money. How does one find money? It is precisely at this point that evil is likely to make its apperance onto the stage especially because the cycle of money dictates that when money enters the hands of one it leaves the pocket of another. The trick is how to convince others to let loose their pockets. Even with in the limits of the legal methods of finding money there exist hidden tactics to seize the money of others. For instance, marketing is a means of making a piece of merchandise look wonderful and absolutely necessary for our existence, when the truth is the contrary. Are these methods of using propaganda in adverdsing to sell at all cost absolutely legal?.\nHowever publicity and marketing are minor \"crimes\" when compared to violence, death, war, deprivation of human rights and other horrors which are aimed at the attainment of money, it seems that the value of human life diminishes as the value of money increases. It is then that homo lupu homini est may be applied to the definition of human behaviour. At this disgraceful view of human nature, man's blood stained hands rise proudly showing their ignominious award .\nNonetheless, it may be adduced that not always behind a violent act is an uncontainable lust for the acquisition of money or power. It may be alleged that nonmaterialistic ideological motives can prompt persons to get engaged in actions which endanger other people's basic rights even that of life. However, how many of those people do not conduct themselves by an ideal, but are subtly manipulated by the desires to accomplish the aims of an economical gain?.\nIn spite of all the vile acts and corruption which surround the world of money, it would be unfair not to acknowledge the altruistic purposes which lead some individuals or organisations to put their or other's money at the service of the needy ones .\nThese non-profit organisations are the most outstanding proof of the praisable actions which can be carried out thanks to money. Money can help to mitigate manu disabilities, calamities and much suffering where its lack is source of a continuous state of misfortune and afliction .\nIn conclusion, it must be taken into consideration that although the allure of money compells human beings to do wrong beyond any limits, in the long term money is neither good or bad itself but persons and their actions determine the role money play in the world .\n" + }, + { + "title": "429_SPM02004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney is necessary in order to live in our modern society. It is obvious. Commerce and Economy are based upon money .\nWhen people have little money, this money is more likely to be spent in primary needs (just to eat, dress; That's to say \"to live\").\nThe other way round can occur when money is easily obtained. I mean, when a person is rich from his birth .\nI think that money gained without much effort is possibly to be spent inadequately. In these cases, money turns out to have little value, and rich people can often appear as money-slaves. These people may create some needs that don't really exist. And this is a closed circle in which they have to consume more and more, but without feeling pleasure in this consumerism .\nMoney can also be a vice. The one who has money wants more and more, and no-one is happy with what he-she has .\nMoney is not bad in itself. But the way one uses it can make noney appear as dangerous. Money is behind the majority of murders, assassinations, robberies, assaults...\nRich Nations-poor Nations: And here it comes the exploitation. It is a serious problem. Money is in between too .\nThis exploitation is specially dramatic when it has to do with children. There are lots of children without hope .\nWithin every poor country, there are a few people, mainly the Governors, who are very rich, while the rest of the country is dying because of staruation, lack of water, diseases such as diarrhea and deshidration, due to contaminated food and water. Measles and tetanus, along with diphtheria, whooping cough, polio and other diseases, are preventable through immunization, again relatiuely cheap .\nCountries spend great amounts of money on military expenditures and, at the same time, people live at or below the poverty line .\nIf this trend continues, millions of children will die, most of them unnecessarily, of illness or famine, or malnutrition .\nThere is a neglection by Governments, more preoccupied with politics, guns and national debt, and they doesn't care .\nSome children, to escape from misery, have to work from a very early age. But the people uho employ them doesn't care. In some cases, the types of work these children are offered, are very risky ones .\nThe majority of them are low paid. They must work to stay alive. They have no option .\nDrugs are also a very serious problem, and it is in some way, related to money as well. Drug adicts need money in order to buy drugs. And it's a great business for drug-dealers .\nExperts note that passport and inmigration controls have never been very helpful in stopping drug-dealers .\nInmigration is due to lack of resources, lack of resources, lack of money as well. Poor people cross borders to escape from poverty. Although they know it can be risky, they take these big risks. For example, people from Cuba try to go to The United States by boat, and the same happens to people from Morocco trying to go to Spain by boat. Some of them die; others are taken back to their countries, and those who have better luck, succeed in their purpose .\nThey look for a better life, but it is not very easy. They'll find a lot of troubles and problems, specially at the beginning. Then, they'll get used to their new life, and things will go better for them .\n" + }, + { + "title": "430_SPM02011.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nJust a few words before...\nWhen we speak about feminism we always get very different opinions, even among those who call themselves feminists. Some of these opinions can sometimes be controversial. Considering myself a non - archetypal feminist, my own opinions could happen to be a bit contradictory sometimes .\nThe examples I'll mention in this essay will be mainly referred to feminism in Spain and England, as I have more points of reference with regard to this two countries .\nTalkinq about feminism .\nOne of the most important protest campaigns in Britain was the Suffragette Movement. At the beginning of this century women couldn't vote in British elections. The Suffragettes wanted to change this. We will never know how successful the Suffragettes were, because in 1914 the First World War started and the protests were stopped. During the war many men's jobs were done by women, because men were in the army. The war changed people's ideas about many things. When it ended in 1918 the vote was given to all men over twenty - one and to women over the age of thirty. A few years later it was given to all adults over the age of twenty-one .\nThere has been similar movements in other countries and women have been, little by little, gaining ground. But it's still true in some places that women have to carry on jobs which, historically, have always been asigned to males, like farming, working in the fields, etc, and have, at the same time, to do the housework, taking care of the kids, etc .\nIt's not only in the country that women have to develop these multiple roles. An average family nowadays consists on a \"he\", who, whether has or doesn't have a job, uses to let all the housework be done by \"her\", and occasionally gives a hand in enough simple tasks to keep his brain safe against headaches; and a \"she', who can sometimes stupidly assure, very proudly, she is a \"superwoman\", and therefore can afford all sacrifice and work twenty five hours a day, going to work, taking care of \"he\" and the kids, and showing everybody her shiny kitchen, and taking his time as well, to do the shopping, having coffee (or whatever) with her mates, and ocasionally having time to spend with a nice lover that offers her all that necessary things (???) that \"he\" can not give her .\nThis examples only come to show there is still a lot of work to be done, and what real feminists should try do do first is to change female's mind, and then do the same with the male's, ' cos there's no way we could change something unfair if we, women, are not the first ones who become aware of what is fair or not, and the only way of stopping them patronizing us, either considering us as fragile china miniatures, or simple \"bimbos\" (sexual objects whith an absolute lack of brains).\nAnd that's why, in my opinion, the first feminists did a lot of good to the cause of women, getting for us at least to be considered as people (that is, animals with a brain able to think and decide, for instance, which politician would, in our opinion, do less harm to our country).\nFeminism nowadays is another story, specially when talking about Spain. Objectives are not that clear, victories are not that convincing and there are some not too obvious points, like the abortion law, even for some who consider themselves as feminists. This law was a victory of feminism in England a long time ago. In fact, if that country advantages us in something, it is in showing consideration for women and respecting and even imposing women's rights, although it's still a long way off the day we will see thousand of us elected to ministers, to Parliament and the European Parliament, the day we won't suffer any kind of discrimination .\nAnyway, although I don't think feminists are doing any harm to the cause of women, I do believe the kind of propaganda some feminist groups of them use to display is not effective at all. Each womann has to realise she can fight her particular battle on her own, not showing everybody how week they are and joining groups to get stronger .\n" + }, + { + "title": "431_SPM02015.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nIt's obvious that the governments of all the countries in the world have to defend people from all those those things that endanger not only their lives but also their possessions .\nAll through the history of mankind there have been several ways of punishing murderers and thieves, depending on the different cultures, races and religions of that specific group of people. But I am not going to talk about the past. What I am going to talk about is the fact that today, at the door of the 21st century, men haven't been able to find a humane way of solving this problem .\nNowadays, when a person is found guilty of murder or robbery, three things may happen to him/her: \t- be released from prison by paying bail .\n-be sent to prison for a shorter or longer time .\n-be killed (death penalty).\nOf course, the third possibility is the least frequent, but it is sometimes carried out (more in some countries than in others) and, in my opinion, it shouldn't. It would be extremely risky to put someone to death because we can never be sure whether a person is completely guilty of a crime. I'd think of life inprisonment as a last resort, but trying to rehabilitate the criminal, not abandoning him/her in a locked room .\nI read somewhere, I don't remember in which newspaper or book exactly, that some of the murderers who are killed on the electric chair in the U.S.A. are mentally ill. I prefer not to investigate whether it is true. I would get depressed .\nWe must neither punish murderers nor send them to prison. We are all responsible for the existence of crimes and robberies in the world and we are the only ones who have the power to turn murderers in human beings. If they kill because they are crazy, we will take them to a hospital to take care of them, not to the electric chair. If they kill because of political reasons, jealousy, longings for power of money, etc... we will have to rehabilitate them, not to punish them. Death penalty and life inprisonment will never reduce the number of crimes (I even think that the number would increase).\nThe only problem is that this way of dealing with criminals requires a lot of money and a big effort on the part of the society, but I think that both the expenses and the effort would be worth .\nApart from all this, I'd like to add that the current prison system we have in Spain makes rich people not to spend more than three nights in prison. They are usually released in a few days by paying bail. Let's remember how many days Mariano Rubio spent in prison .\nTherefore, the society is letting people with a lot of economic power take advantage of a system that perhaps was created by themselves, and this means that the society is controlled by them, because unfortunately, the ones who have the money are the same as the ones who have the social, political and ideological power over the entire society .\nIn short, the current prison system is not only OUTDATED but also completely UNFAIR.\nA fair distribution of goods and a higher level of civic education will undoubtedly make a much better world .\n" + }, + { + "title": "432_SPM03020.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nPeople find their happiness in different ways. Some meet it going to different place from they usually live one. Others are happier buying an expensive car to fancy. Still others like to make presents to others for seeing how they are happy. Most people who find happiness meet it having a mint of money to not limit what they wnt to do each time .\nThe variety of ways to be happy in the life are nealy ever derivated from money since it is esential in many cases. Why do some persons say \"money is not happiness\"? They ought to add-happiness is easier by the aid of money .\nDoes \"giving your money\" make sense anymore? You do not want Isabel Preisley is going to lay on heating in the palace of her dog means by your money in some degree but yor can not do it is not being so .\nThe best path of the event is when T.V. notice us a new tax is appearing. You have to go down your dear dog because you are badly off .\nThe following month you are getting to know about the governor has just buy a beautiful cottage. Then you realize people are playing with economy .\nWhat can you do about it?\nIn order to have an important sum of money, people do barbs. Nowadays earning money is waging war. Firstly men of means scorn men without money then the last ones hate for well-off ones. At the beginning money caused a fight between men but after the bathing has increased and its spirit still animates both face up to themselves. Today it is not a fight today it is war. Otherwise you only think how earning money. Firstly you play a football pool and it may be you happiness but you are not lucky. The best thing is steady something such as a specualtion of jewels for instance, that is acquiring the jewels with certain money and after this selling it at a more expensive prize .\nBit by bit you do not know what to do for increasint this amount. It can arrive at the extent of being provide by someone with money When someone has a bit monely useually will be an ambitious person. Money always becomes little money. It starts being a big problem to try. You think the easiest approach to earn it. One comfortable way to make both meets end at home could be putting on sale different kind of drugs in suitable places for it .\nWhen the amount of money is going to become enough high you could work with very important people. People who can help you to earn more money and so it can become your obsession .\nTo sum up we can say that the main purpose from men in the life is being happy mainly means by money since money helps to leve better .\nMen want to earn money is the root of all evil, these are the words of the old song and of the one sad reality .\nIt seems men are not still very intelligent. Perhaps in the twenty one century they will be!!!.\n" + }, + { + "title": "433_SPM04003.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nIt has usually been said that feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good. This may be true, but had it been ever thought the reasons of this assertion? First, I would like to make a distinction between the concepts of \"liberated woman\" and \"feminist\": The former is the woman who has realized of her condition in this world and tries to improve it without wanting to replace men, whereas the latter is more radical and wants to replace men .\nMen had always been considered as the only one source of income and, therefore, of some stability in the family. This comes from the early times of the Humankind in the world and the constitution of the family. Since men were much stronger than women, they were suposed to be hunters for the group, whereas women were suposed to take care of the family, to take care of the \"home fire\".\nIt is very difficult to have the certain knowledge about how their feelings were developped and how all these feelings became what they were centuries ago and they are nowadays. We can see it in the language. The human beings have always felt the necessity of talking to others, which was stronger when they started to hunt. Language evolved very quickly, then. However, we cannot think that language evolved in the same way for men and women, as men must use a certain type of vocabulary related to hunt and animals, whereas women's vocabulary related to home, fire, etc .\nJointly with the question of language, a certain personality was developped, too. Thus, women were less socialbe than men were because they didn't need to communicate themselves outside their homes as much as their partners. So, from those times up to very recent times (we must remember the Middle Ages), women have been suposed to be silent, discreet and friendly:silent and discreet because it wasn't considered as well that a woman spoke and told great things about philosophy, etc.; friendly with the men, above all. It is a very complicate way of feeling. They must think that a friendly, complaissant woman gave them the rest they need: when the hunter came back to his cavern, he, a primitive man, would find a sort of real rest and home into this cavern, beside the less sociable, with a worse easiness to communicate woman and then, they got used to it, making an idealization of their partners .\nThe problem was that later women became sociable than before; this silent and prudence was beginning to disappear as well as men's structures. Woman have always had a very difficult access to the world of knowledge. The ones who wanted to investigate and become doctors were called witches; a woman writer is very difficult to find until the XVIII and XIX centuries. She couldn't say what she tought in public: a woman had to be silent. Men evolved, but they kept with themselves this idealization as a rest of their old work as hunters and family supporters. However, this work is not so old: they still were the strongest; the only ones who could work and say great things were them. Fortunately, the world has being continually changing, and nowadays we cannot think of such conditions of life for women, although there is still a rest of all this in our present world .\nAs the world was changing and women were feeling the necessity of communicate themselves, basicly in order to improve their life conditions, they had to use another language and therefore, change the structures long-time stablished. This was considered a man's work. We must remember the \"fin ' amor\", in which man had to challenge the marriage structure; later, it became a structure in the Middle Ages .\nUnfortunately, not only men had this structure: women had it, too. The mothers or grandmothers tried to make young girls follow it. So liberated woman had a double work to do:fight against men and fight against other woman carried it, too and try to make them realize of their bad situation. And because it was not an easy task for them to do, they had to persist very much in their aim. So the adoption of a language and behaviour strange in the female sex and the perseverance which they carried it with, had the whole world to marginalize them. Yet, the world got nothing because women continued defending their ideas. They often had to do it very hard against other human beings. This led some women to want to be in the places occupied by man, firstly, Men's \"ego\" got very hurt and so this prevailed until right now .\n" + }, + { + "title": "434_SPM04022.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nMost University degrees are theoritical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are, therefore, of very little value. Students graduates with excelents academic curriculums are not enough prepared for the job that it is supposed thay have to develop, because in most universities there isn't any practise at all, practically the whole of the classes are thoretical and fills the student mind with a lot of knowledge that, in the most of the cases are not practise. In fact, when these excelents students finish their degrees and go to asking for a job they are always asked the same question: \"and, what do you know to do?, do you have any experience or any practise?\". The answer in the most of the cases are \"No\".\nThere are some Universities that can not to offer any practise to their students for several reasons: first, there are too much students, and they can not offer practise to all of them. Second, this practise implies a cost that many Universities can not pay. Another reason is that private enterprises sometimes don't want to proporcionate facilities to the University for their student's practices, but, maybe, it is not a problem of the University but the private enterprise. In the cases that this enterprises accept students for doing practices, these students are not payed at all, and they are taking the job of the other people. The students are sometimes exploted, and therefore, they are not motivated. These preactices are not such practices in some cases, because the enterprises don't let the student to asume any responsability and s/he doen't learn very much. Sometimes the practices are not related with their degrees .\nThe University should be prepared for proporcionate all the students the necessary practice for developing their future work in the best way possible. In scientifices degrees, for instance, is very important that the student had enough practice. Do you imagine an engineer that does't knew what is a screw?!. It must seem like a joke, and it is exagerate, of couse, but it is true that students of scientific degrees haven't seen a laboratory the enough times that they need .\nIn the Humanities degrees the situation is worse, if it can be. These students have a very few practice. They have to memorize too much theory that it is useless. In degrees like Laws, the students have to memorize all the codes, all the laws, the civil law, the labour law, the criminal law, and so on. The lawyers don't need all this things because they are all in the books. On the other hand, they need to practice their knowledge in order not to forget it, and for being objectives in their work, and, in sum, for being a good lawyer. The students of Laws don't have any practice in their degrees, but they are exiged two years of experience to enter to the laboral world. How can we explain it?\nIn studies of languages, the University doesn't proporcionate the students enough facilities for studying in a country in which the language they are learning is spoken. That is essential for the preparation of the student. The student have to search and to pay for their studies in other countries in the most of the cases, excepting all those very good students, of course .\nIn fact, the practice is adquired with the years, and one is better in his/her job with the years of experience, however, one must have a minimun of practice when s/he finish his/her degree. Some degrees are too long and of very little value, in some cases is a waste of time to be in theUniversity five or six years, studying something that it is not usefull at all. I think that is urgent to find a solution for this problem. The world demands new graduates with a lot of characteristics and qualities that the graduate doesn't have because the University hasn't given it. That is not for the own graduate's blame, but the Educational System, the Goverment, or I don't know the really blamer of this situation, but, one thing is clear: it is needed a reform urgently .\n" + }, + { + "title": "435_SPM04023.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nFeminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good .\nI think that feminists have contributed to the improvements in the life of women .\nAt the beggining of this century, women in Britain couldn't vote, stand in public office, enter any of the professions or most well-paid jobs, be awarded a university degree, control their fertility, or share guardianship of their children. The brave women who campaigned for these rights were ridiculised and those who took vident actions were imprisoned. The campaign of these women over many years eventually won them equal rights. They were fighting not onlythe prejudices of their own times, but a legacy of thought which had for centuries defined women as inherently inferior to men and sought to control them by making them the virtual property of their fathers and husbands .\nFrom the early 1890s, the debate about the lack of political rights of women was a live issue on which most people had an opinion. Two groups of women made sure that women's suffrage was kept in the public eye .\nThe suffragists believed that law'abiding campaigning and appeal to reasonableness in men would eventually win women the vote. Led by Millicent Garrett Fawcett, they organised a network of local National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, arranged meetings and rallies, lobbied Parliament and published their own newspaper .\nThere were militant suffragettes of the Women's Social and Political Union, led by Emmeline and Christobbel Pankhurst, were more impatient with the lack of progress for women and organised more dramatic demonstrations. On Derby Day 1913, one suffragette, Emily Davidson, threw herself under the King''s horse and was killed .\nHowever, in the event, it took a world war to win British women the vote. Both wings of the suffrage movement encouraged women to engage in war work. Women responded in large numbers and by the end of the war 90% were doing work done by men, though far less pay. Having landed their efforts, it was difficult for the Government to deny them political rights, though initially the vote was only granted to women over 30, so they wouldn't outnumber male voters. It was necessary ten years before women won the vote on the same terms as men .\nWomen have for a long time been active in the organisations which have grown up to improve and protect the environment in which we live, physical and social .\nThereare now around ten million women in paid employment. Many women work part time. Those who work full time earn an averaged two-thirds as much as men. There are fewer women involuntarily unemployed .\nJobs done mainly or wholly by women are paid relatively low rates, perhaps because they are done by women whose bargaining powers have been relatively weak. Women work less overtime .\nIn education the great majority of class teachers in the primary schools are women. In 1960 a quarter of all university students were women .\nThe new women graduates of the 80s and 90s will probably soon change the balance of the sexes in the higher jobs .\n" + }, + { + "title": "436_SPM04033.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nThe aim of the present essay is to explain what reasons provoke nowadays the lack of dreaming and imagination in our society. In the modern world the advances in technology and industralization have imposed a particular life style that has provoked that people scarcely have time to do what they would like to. In spite of this, people find some time to do it .\nFirst of all, I'd like to point out the importance in the present time of the incorporation of high technology in most of jobs. New techniques are incorporated; for example, in the case of computers, new programs are created to facilitate the way people work. These incorporations oblige people to learn new things very frecuently in order to be prepare enough; so, besides of learning, they have to work and (usually in the case of women) they have to attend the house also .\nIn consequence to this, people are very busy and tired. Moreover, the pressure at work provoke competence between the workers. So they are worried because they have to work hard in order to get a promotion or simply in order to keep the job. This tense situation creates anxiety, stress and nervousness .\nThe next reason is related to the developments of cities in the modern world. Most of people live far from the inner city and they have to drive to the place they work in. So, everyday they have to wake up very early and have to suffer the huge traffic jams during at least one hour, what produces anxiety and nerves again. On the other hand, if they live near the inner city they will have to wait for the subway or the buses in the crowed platforms during the peak hours, if they decided not to take the car in order to arrive sooner at work .\nAll I have mentioned before implies that people are frecuently very tired at the end of a working day. All they want to do in this situation, when they finally arrive at home, is try to sleep .\nThis frenetic life style has made people worried about promotions, money, new techniques etc, and it seems like if they were no longer worried about anything else. But, in spite of this, I think people still today spend some time dreaming or imaginig. Everybody needs time to relax thinking about a good place to do to in vacation. Everybody needs to forget the stress and to escape, at least for a while, from pressure, hurry, noises, smoke... Otherwise, they wouldn't go to see films from time to time, they wouldn't read novels, they wouldn't travel or they wouldn't walk with a friend .\nIn fact, these frecuent activities is what most of people life to do in their free time. All of these imply dream or imagine in some way. This prove that eventhough our modern world imposes us a busy and stressed life people find time to do what they like to .\nTo sums up, all I have mentioned before lead us to the conclusion that if our lifes were a little \"easier\" and we wouldn't be dominated by a world that is constantly changing, due to new techniques and industrialization, we could enjoy doing things as dream and imagine more frecuently. Dreaming and imagining are human \"necessities\" and still in our stressed lifes we can go it; at least during the weekend or in vacation .\n" + }, + { + "title": "437_SPM04043.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nI can only say that this statement is completely true. I agree with this so much that I could not avoid choosing this topic. I am at a working with computers or other kinds of \"modern technology\". Well, maybe it is just that I am not really interested in learning much about it. Technology is the future and I recognize this. I know that, in the end, I will have to learn just like everyone else .\nTechnology has gone so far that the question is: Where does the man end and where does the machine start?. I do not want to be pessimistic, but progress is transforming us into machines. Nowadays, we do not think for ourselves. Everything is already done for us. It used to be that it was our brains that did the work. People used their imagination trying to explain misteries without visible solutions. Now, it seems like people have become tired of doing so much work in a day with only 24 hours. One of the principal roots of the problem is time. People felt that they did not have enough time so they invented computers to help them out. However, despite the additional help of the computers, people feel as pressed for time as ever. It seems that we spend so much time trying to get the computer to do what we tell it to that it would be easier if we just did the work ourselves. It is a long time since there has been no room for dreaming and imagination in society, and, in 1996, still less .\nCan we imagine a world without computers or without advanced technology?. Could people survive?. Personally, I think that I could. Just imagine for a minute that we have gone back to the 17th century. It is the century in which the first novels were published. People dreamt about them and they imagined fantastic vorlds where they were the heroes and the heroines of stories of wonder. They knew nothing about computers and I am sure that they were as happy as we are. I am not saying that industrialization is necessarily a bad thing. On the contrary!. The question is finding the balance between the time we spend dreaming, and say the time we spend enjoying some computer game .\nAnother subject that I think is important is the relationship between children and technology. When I was a child, I used to read short stories or watching cartoons. I was happy. Nowadays, children depend on television more than my generation did. They do not watc wholesome shows like Sesame Street anymore; instead, they watch shows based on violence like Power Rangers. They do not have time for dreaming because they are always in front of the television or playing with the Game Boy. Maybe this is their way of dreaming but everything that comes to their eyes is violence. The computer games are about fighting or race cars... Children like these games because they are the most entertaining. Does technology and progress promote competition between children?. Maybe it does but I think it would be a sad way to encourage competition. If the younger generations do not know anything about dreaming, how can we blame them?. They have not been taught by their parents but my machines. I believe that with the passage of the time, we will be dominated more and more by the very machines we thought would be of help .\nTo conclude I have to say that when I hear the words \"dreaming\" and \"imagination\", I think of books, of films, of all those fantastic realities that still survive. Of course there is still a place for these things in our everyday life. What we have to do is to be careful not to let computers gain ground .\n" + }, + { + "title": "438_SPM04048.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nFrom the beggining of the society there are the problem of the money. All the people wants to be richer than his neighbour. People accept jobs according to how many they pay him but not according to his preferences. People tends to think that the more important is the money but they tell you that it is the health .\nMoney is the real problem of the society in this world, because it determines the great real problem in the society nowadays: the avarice. But it is not a problem that only appears now, but it is a problem who begins since the man is a man. When the man thought like an animal, he still have the instinct of survice, with no matters if other person lived better than him. He changed his elephant peel for a hen, without thinking if, maybe, the the peel could have more value than the hen. He thought: \"I needs this hen in order to survive, and, as I don't need this elephant peel I could change it\". But, in a indeterminated moment of the history of the human beings - it would be interesting that the cameras had record this moment-, one man said \"my peel is most value than your hen, if you want me to give you this peel, you will have to give me two of your hens\" - even knowing that it would be worse for the three children of the man. This poor man accept the change, and from this moment begins the avarice. This fact could make us thing that the real guilty of the beginning of the greed was... the man who accepted the first avaricious treat, but it would be accept that all the humanity is guilty and... it's so true .\nIt's so true because only a very rather small group of people has denied to following the rule of the greeds. And we can see it along the history of the humanity, and it is the reason why we following with the rough history of the world .\nThe people who begin to restore the avarice in the world sow that the best vehicle to keep that has born: the money. We can think that the reason of the creation of the money was good, in order to value the things you need and to prevent people to buy things according to its prize, but as the good ideas uses to finish in bad results, as we can see with the invention of the powder, the result is a invention, that instead of help society, damage it .\nPeople left his desires and became to work in those work where they can buy more money. This wasn't very dangerous if some people doesn't follow this parameters, but the 99% of the population of the world begin to believe to this way of live \"less pleasure and more money\". This situation produces that people who coudn't earn the same money as their neighbours, get greed, and even they would not tell you nothing about it, they didn't mind if their neighbours didn't earn so much money .\nBut this fact doesn't finish here, because people, when they have a relevant and important work, they treats to better their entrances making \"dark business\". This phenomenon is relevant nowadays, as we can see in countries as Spain, Itally, EE.UU. or Great Britain, where politics, don't agree of what they want, prefer to put in dangerous his liberty in order to buy a luxury apartment with two hundred bathrooms. Then people thinks: \"if the politics, who had teorically to be honest, because they represent the whole country, they don't, then, why I cant do it!\". Then, people begins to declare to the government less than they really earns, and the snow ball begins to be more and more big .\nChildren will born in this state of greed, and from the beginning, they will prefer the money instead of the love of his family and this will produce a lost of the old values, than, even when we thinks that this values don't help us and it would have to be changed by new values, they help us to keep a bit of humanity in our souls .\nIf this ball keeps its rhythm, we will return back to the wilderness, because wars will be more frequent than nowadays, and we will live as animals, with only a diference, animals never hurts animals of his own blood .\n" + }, + { + "title": "439_SPM05011.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nThe aim of this paper is to discuss whether the prison sy system is outdated and what should a civilised society do with its criminals to rehabilitate them . Does prison system rehabilitate indeed ? What are convicts situation within the prison like ? Is there a real alternative to rehabilitate criminals ? Why does public opinion show no interest at all in this subject ? In my opinion it is quite clear that there must be found new means to deal with such a serious problem .\nAccording to researchs , studies , and statistics , most of the criminals are not rehabilitated by means of prison system , since during their time in prison , they are isolated from the rest of the world and society . Logically , that is not the best way of rehabilitating criminals for the society , by isolating him or her . Nevertheless , when criminals are released , they find themselves even more isolated than they were before . The isolation is due to people behaviour to them ; they are notsupported but rejected . Once they get out of prison , they find it difficult to integrate into society again so they have agreat deal of problems such as getting a job , and so on . Some former convicts' testimonies say that they do not feel very confident , and confortable when joining the society again . That is way the only solution for many of them is crime , breaking the law; thus probably , getting back to prison .\nEverybody knows that a great majority among imprisoned people are drugs addicted and some of them being seriously sick , even infected with AIDS . Some of this sick people are there because of their addiction . In many places they do not have appropiate medical care . There are differences between people imprisoned in the so-called third world , and those in the developed countries . Although , that should not be a reason to support prison system whereever it were . Those people imprisoned in the underdeveloped world , are living under subhuman conditions ; thousands of people piles up , struggling with hunger and without health guarantees al all . Besides this , in these places human rights are not taken into account .\nIt is obvious , there is no interest , neither authorities nor on citizens part , in solving this question or in presenting it to public opinion . So , we have got to wonder what is the reason for it . I suppose , the reason could be that neither conservative nor liberal people are interested in having criminals wandering around , thus being a threat for society . The society would be more confident having criminnals in a safe place , therefore , there would be no risk for anybody . I am sure, a great majority agree with the idea that prison is the best place for criminals to be and that there would be no better place for those breaking the law . Evenmore in some places still exist popularly supported death penalty. It is obvious that in in that places there is the thought that the prison system is outdated; ; since , those nations get rid of its criminals . So the conlusion is : the more criminals staying imprisoned , the better for the society . There is the feeling that once crimminnals have infringed law , they do not belong to society anymore . According to this toughts, politicians do not include the prison system question in their electioneering , at least including progressists proposals . Supporting such ideas is unpopular and would not be good for their images . Even , most of them may think there is no need to change prison system .\nAs far as I am concerned , there are not many proposals saying how rehabilitate criminals abolishing prison system . The proposals held , such as , engaging those infringing law in social works , are not accepted , indeed . In spite of it , we should continue supporting that imprisonment is not the right way of facing this problem . As we have seen , the solutions is quite difficult to find , evenmore when nobody looks for it. Maybe we should wonder what is going wrong with our society , when it produces people having to survive by any means necessary , even outside the law .\n" + }, + { + "title": "440_SPM07005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nIn our society, an university degree is becoming more and more important each day as it is very difficult to find a job, especially for young people .\nYou are asked for an university degree in many jobs, even though this has nothing to do with the work you must carry out .\nThis is the mean reason, I think, because of people, nowadays, want to take an university degree .\nThe problem is that most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. In most of cases, when you start in a new job, you are lost because although you have a good formation, this is a theoretical formation and probably will not be as useful as it should be. What most of firms do is to impart the courses that are needed in a particular job .\nI think that people should be formed in a more practical way when they are studing at university, so they can put into practice what they have learned in their theoretical lessons. In my opinion, this is one of the better ways of learning .\nHowever, in our educational system, this is very difficult because one of its greatest problems is the lack of money, and money is essential as it is necessary for the manteinance and improvement of the laboratories, the informatic rooms, etc, and for everything that is needed for a good practical formation at the university; and to realize another practical tasks outside the university (in a firm, in a museum, in a factory or in anywhere).\nThis is the reason because many people have to complete their education, after having finished university, with complementary courses or masters in relation with the career they have studied which, in the most of cases are not free, and eve many of them are so expensive that only a few people can study them. This makes that not everyone has the same oportunities when they are looking for a job, because if you have a master or a prestigious course in your curriculum vitae, you have more posibilities to be employed that if you don't .\nIn spite of all these reasons showed, I don't think that university degrees are of very little value, because they are very useful as a good formation .\n\"University is the school of life\". As this saying, I think that, in some way, university is the school of life, although this should be applied to the university of some years ago, when it was more difficult to take an university degree because parents could not afford to send their children to study at university .\nNowadays university is not the school of life in the same way as it was a time before, because it has become a school where many people study to pass and to take an university degree, and only a little minority studies to learn, to acquire a solid formation and to prepare to real world .\nI would like to say to conclude that, in my opinion, university degrees are of a great value as an academic degree and also as an important advantage when you are looking for a job, because, in most of cases, you will find it before than you have not an university degree .\n" + }, + { + "title": "441_SPM07011.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nMost of the people who is in prison can be rehabilitated and so they can improve their quality of life. There are lots of methods and a profesional equipment who is prepare to help them. But this doesn't mean that a person who has commited a crime isn't found guilty because he is insane, for example. In my opinion, a person who is in prison owing to a major offence, should be in prison the years he deserves. If we used rehabilitation with the people who are in prison, all of them would declare insane and none would be convicted. In this way, a person who has raped a girl, could be in his house after a rehabilitation in which the therapist is never sure this prisoner isn't going to rape any more .\nHowever, in many cases we can use rehabilitation with people that has commited a minor offence can go out of prison only when the therapist is sure that the prisoner isn't dangerous for the rest of the population. An example of this are drug addits. We all know that there are lot of people in prison because of drugs. Maybe they were only children or teenagers when they were offered a kind of drug that they didn't refuse because their friends didn't persuade him. At that moment they could feel that they need that substance more and more because it made them feel better .\nMany of the drug addits have legal problems because they steal money for buying the drug that is in many countries, like Spain, illegal. They have social problems too because people are afraid of them and the drug addits isolate temselves. Another difficulty is that, because of drugs, they lose their work and begin a life as homeless. All of this means that rehabilitation musn't only set out for distinguishing the drug habit but inserting this kind of people in society and in a job .\nThis example shows us that with rehabilitation many people would go out of prison and make a normal life besides it would improve our society .\nNone the less, in a country like Spain, is very difficult rehabilitation because it supposes a lot of money to spend on. I don't think that the prison system could change to introduce rehabilitation that is, in my point of view, an Utopian word, by now .\n" + }, + { + "title": "442_SPM07019.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nOur modern world is dominated by science technology and industrialisation. Many years ago, the men and women, were ruled by the forces of nature. They had to work very hard in order to survive the dangers of the nature. They had to hunt, for getting food. They depended of the weather, for being comfortable and hot. In case they had some disease, they would die, because they had not knowledge of medicine. They thought that the storms, the illnesses or any other power of the nature were prices or punishments of the Gods for being good or bad .\nMost of the time, they lived afraid, or working or fighting against their hungry, their thirsty, and their illnesses. Fighting against their need of hot, and shelter, in order to protect them from the natural elements like the storms, the wild animals, the absence of food and water, and other \"natural\" disasters .\nUsually they were always occupied with these hard tasks and dind't have any time for thinking or dreaming. In my opinion, their only dream how surviving this day and the next, this hour and the next, this minute and the next, this second and the next. Such was their fear and anxiety that they couldn't think in another thing than to stay alive one minute more .\nIn case they were quiet and without any danger, probably they could think and eat and sleep quietly, and in that case, they could dreaming and thinking about how to get food and store it, in order to protect them against the rain, the storms, the wind, the cold, the wild animals, and many others natural elements that threatened their lives .\nSo the humankind, began to habit in caves, discovered the fire and used them to warm themselves, and to drive away savage creatures. They invented primary weapons wich allowed them hunting more easily. So they had more free time for sleeping, eating talking between them and of course thinking and dreaming .\nThe more free time they had, the more they thought and dreamed, and the more thing they discover or invented .\nIn that sense, the progress of the humankind, has been continuous, but slow .\nThe human societies have been every century, more and more complicated. While some persons dedicated their time at hard woks, like building temples pyramids, palaces, houses, etc, others had more free time for thinking, dreaming and inventing more devices that gave them more free time .\nIn the last two centuries, the progress of the humankind has been vertiginous, specially in western societies. Every decade, more and more persons have more free time, and the hard jobs, is done by machines. In the last fifty years, every year, the men and women dedicate more time to intellectual task, and less time to manual and hard works. The expectation of life is longer and longer, and men and women have more time to invent, think, imagine, dream etc .\nIn that sense, I think that science, technology and industrialisation have done more opportuneness for dreaming and imagination .\n" + }, + { + "title": "443_SPM07023.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nIn the words of the old song \"Money is the root of all evil\".\nIt's not exactly what headline said, I think, but some of this is true .\nWe know God told to the man that he would earn his food with swear of his forehead; in other words, without work there isn't food. We must understand that food is between all necessyties men have. Consecuently everything men have more than they need are for their amusement .\nAnd here is where starts the trouble .\nIt's very good for men all kinds of amusements but when their amusements are more than thoses they need men start to try other things generally prohibitive. And ¿why men try to find other things they don't need? ... Because he has money .\nThere are lot of things men can buy, can do, can try, can ... etc... that aren't necessary either. But if men haven't money they can't do prohibitive things .\nOn the other hand, wasting more money meaning way to try to obten more. so it's going to be a circle that can not end .\nThen come the necessity to earn more and in this way it goes to ambition, and ambition is blind when it takes root in the man .\nThere is anything can stop then when men are blind with ambition .\nWe have heard sometimes that who has too much likes to have more and more and we always want more and more, because ambition never find his end .\nSolution for that kind of problem is given for us by lot of very prominent persons who tell us that in the middle way is where we can find virtue. So if we have more money we need what we have to do is to invent, to spend in something to help people or to make lif better. Why there are wars ... why there are hungries...\nIt's not because there aren't money but because we don't distribute well money .\nBut it is true that sometimes we have more money because it gives us security and, importance, etc... and we don't like lose that because if we lose that other will be over us. We have fear too. And it is true that when some people lose their ones gain .\nHow many wars, how many problems have had men with money...\nAfter a war men think, are more careful and goods are better distributed; but little by little, step by step, ambition gives taken root in men again .\nIt is a very serious thing to think about. We all have to contribute for that. We all have to take mesures to solve the problems in the best way we can .\nEvery rich country helping the poor one; every rich man to the poor one too. And not only with money but in all kind of things although money can solve lot of them .\n" + }, + { + "title": "444_SPM10005.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nMost university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value .\nNowadays, most of young people go to the university; some of them go there because of the prestige, others are obliged by their parents and so on .\nThere is just only a minority who decides to study practical subjects such as plumbing or carpentry. These kind of students know from the very beginning that the aim of their studies is to be prepared for the real world .\nOn the other hand, students, who go to the university, think that they are going to learn theoretical and practical aspects of their subjects. It is supposed that they will be experts in the matter of their studies at the end of the course .\nHowever, most of universities give theoretical rather than practical lessons, maybe because it requires an explanation, books, fotocopies ... Material which is finally considered easy to acquire. But give practical lessons is a difficult matter, because it requires specific didactic material, small groups of students, laboratories, etc .\nActually, there are some agreements between big companies and universities; they give the opportunity to some students to work as assistants. But the number of vacancies is limited and lots of students apply for it .\nWhat happens with the rest of students?\nThey have to look for some training by their own, in this sense, they are confused because they do not know how to prepare a curriculum vitae, to which department they must go or how to make an interview and so on, so forth .\nAlthough problems go on, when you find a job you are Iost because you have lots of information, but you do not know how to use it. For example a teacher knows things about teaching, but he/she does not know how to talk to the pupils. Or a doctor is an expert in medicine, but he/she does not know how to treat his/her patients .\nIn this sense, you can observe that theoretical knowledges must be supported by practical cases. However, these practical cases take you a lot of time and maybe you can not go every day to the university, and then you have a lack of theoretical knowledges. In other words, there must be an equilibrium between theoretical and practical lessons .\nThe lack of balance is directly related to some studies, but even more, students are not really prepared for the real world in any matter, for example, most of them do not know how to open a bank account and so on, so forth .\nFinally, it does not know which is the best solution, the problem could be a lack of money, the system...\nIn spite of all these problems students go still to the university .\n" + }, + { + "title": "445_SPM10006.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nIn the past, it is true that those people who had university studies could get a good job easily, mainly because there were not many people in the University due to economic reasons. Another important aspect is that there was not such a variety of studies and almost everybody became teacher, doctor, lawyer,... no matter if the degrees were based on theory. So, it was more a question of prestige .\nNowadays, finding a job is not that casy and lt is becoming more and more difficult even if you have recelved an universlty education. One of the causes of this problem could be the way university degrees are structured .\nlt is supposed that university degrees should he geared to professional future. Since many of those degrees have several openings, in my opinion, there should exist a practical specialization for each of these openings and therefore, students would finish knowing what they will have to do when they find a job. lt is obvious that to get this aim, the syllabus should be checked and corrected, or even, rewritten .\nThe ideal way of studying could be giving just the necessary theoretical keys so as to be able to apply them in practical situations, the more similar to reality, the better. For instance, in the case of language university studies, the syllabus should include, at least, one subject on that language per year, since languages are changing all the time and besides, by not practising it, students forget basically, vocabulary and expressions .\nAs far as my personal experience as an university student is concerned, I find necessary to have a deep look into the whole syllabus in order not to repeat any subjects, to reduce the number of them, to organize them in a way that the study of them is logical, whether it is chronological or simply a question of sense and, of course, to include a number of hours dedicated to practice .\nFor instance, lt is the case of that student of Chemistry who has never been to a laboratory. He/she may know all the formula and theoretic explanations, but, when dealing with a real experiment or investigation project, reallze that he or she is not sure of which formula to apply. Or the situation of someone studying journalism who has never been, for example, to a radio programme .\nlt is true that some degrees also consist of practical training in enterprises, schools, hospitals or wherever, as long as it is related to the studies, but there are many more which are just theoretical. The trouble is very serious because when you flnlsh your studies and have to ' face up to the world', you realize that the first thing you are asked in an application for a job is lf you have worked in that field before. Of course, if you are in your early twenties, lt is very probable that you have never had an employment. However, all those people who have had practical training after their studies can say they have experience or even have the possibility of keeping on working in that enterprise where they took their practical lessons .\nRecently, there are the so-called ' Módulos', which are more concrete and aimed at a specific professional opening. From my point of view, they are quite well structured, since they are about two years long and you do not obtain your title unless you fulfil a certain number of hours of practical training in real entreprises and dealing with cases of the real life .\nAs a conclusion, I would like to say that nowadays, to have an university degree is not a question of prestige but, practically, a need, since when looking for an employment, you are required as many titles as possible. Thus, the ordeno of the studies should be better established so that the title would correspond exactly to our level of knowledge, and thís includes practical knowledge .\n(NOTE: Although I do not agree very much with the syllabus of rny studies, I want to say that I like what I am doing.)\n" + }, + { + "title": "446_SPM10010.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nFeminism can not be considered as a movement with a concrete beginning and a concrete developement. There has always been something of a feminist in all those women who all along the history did not submit to their excluding role of mothers and wives. Women who aspired to get something more in life than a happy husband and a tidy home .\nUnfortunately, during many centuries those women were not understood, not only by men, but also by other women. Other women, whose minds had been so deeply influenced by society, and by society here I mean men, that they had get to believe that was their only place in life, that they were not independent persons with own aspirations and objectives .\nWomen have always been opressed, in different ways and different degrees, and ignored as valid \"thinkers\" and \"doers\", and still are today. This situation, as all unnatural and forced situations, was condemned to explote one day or another .\nAlthough, as it has been mentioned before, feminist tendences have been observed in all periods and societies, it can be considered that the movement as such was born at the end of the eighteenth century in the frame of the French Revolution. Feminism was, from its origin, a social doctrine that admitted that women have the same capacities and, therefore, the same rights as men .\nThe majority of women never questioned the position that had been imposed to them, and accepted it as normal and natural, overall because nobody ever asked them for their opinions and so, they did not feel in the right to express them. But after centuries of opression and unjustice some women started to think that maybe they also had something to say, not only about their own situation but about life as a whole: politics, history, economy...\nObviously, these new proposals, and even exigences, carried out by these women were not listened nor respected. And it was then when they had to start fighting to defend those rights that they considered they have and that society was denying them. Their ideals were vindicated with words, but as these words did not produce any effect they started to be expressed by deeds, and often, violently. Violence can hardly be justified but sometimes it is the only mean to be listened and taken in consideration. All groups of opressed people, all minorities in some moment or another had to recur to extreme means, as violence, to attract attention, to be heard, and so did feminists .\nAs all social movements, feminism had some radical and extreme manifestations, women who thought that in order to defend their rights and ideas it was necessary to reject men. This led to a misinterpretation of both the term and the movement, and because of that, many people (of both genders) during many years have had a wrong concept of what feminism was, and is nowadays, and have thought that feminists were just a group of crazy women or lesbians (or crazy lesbians) who thought men should be eliminated from the Earth because they were all unfair, uncivilised and unnecessary and, of course, inferior to women .\nAnd that has nothing to do with reality because a movement that is trying to prove that women are equal to men can not be claiming that men are inferior than women. If the aim of feminism would have been to demonstrate that women are better than men, it would have been excluding one of the genders again and, therefore, placing women in an isolated position once more, which is exactly what they were trying to avoid .\nSo, this interpretation of feminism is wrong, and has been the one which has given the term a negative and peyorative aspect, and maybe, according to this interpretation \"feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good\". But if we consider feminism as what it actually is, it can not be denied that it has done much more good than harm .\n" + }, + { + "title": "447_SWUL1001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nIt is difficult to imagine this world of ours unimaginative and dreamless. In fact I would think it to be quite impossible to excist in this techologycal world without any kind of dream or imagination. I would say that it takes a lot of it to even live in it .\nBut the question is, do we have the time to dream, is there any place for it in our lives? Well, to find this out we must compare our modern world with the times before it turned into what it is today, industrial and technologycal .\nIn the earlier days people did not have all the stress on the assembly line like we have today. I guess that that gave them more time to think and dream. They lead a more simple life with out any interference from the world outside their own and I am quite sure that this is affecting our dreams .\nOur dreams may have changed, our wishes is sometimes quite different from the earlier days, but I guess that we still have some dreams in common. We still dream about true love, fortunes and eternal life. These wishes are not fulfilled more frequently today than they were berore. But some of the dreams and the wishes we have today are fulfilled thanks to our modern technology and I think that we should be thankful for that. For there is no point in dreaming if you can not get one single dream realized in your whole life .\nModern technology has damaged our childrens ability to imagine things. They are incapable of playing with things like LEGO and bricks and other toys that demands a bit of imagination. Today toys has to be developed in detail. Everything has to be formed in plastic with strict playing rules and instructions on how you should play leaving no room for you own imagination. With commercials and advertisements you are told what is inn and cool to play with. Disney figures casted in plastic, Barbie and her friend Kent, Ninja Turtles, Batman and heaven knows what!\nChildren can not be blamed for their lack of imagination. They can not help all this garbage is being thrown upon them. Business men in the industries should be blamed for it. They are the ones who are making big profits selling interior decorations for Barbie one year and miniature Batmobiles the next .\nMen and women dream about different things. Men are dreaming about their careers, money and red sports cars! Maybe I'm being a bit prejudiced and not very deep. But I have not yet meet a man who would not like to change his car to a newer and faster one!\nWomen they still dream about children and homes. Again I am taking the risk of being accused of being prejudicedand I would therefor like to point out that women have approached a few male dreams. Like the dream of a great career and being independent .\nWe all dream about the future and try to imagine what it might bring us. Dreaming is hoping and hoping means faith in life, so if we stop dreaming we will stop living .\n" + }, + { + "title": "448_SWUL1003.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nThe world of today is basically demythologized, still quite a few people are interested in myths because the myths have a message for them. As a matter of fact they are stories about rules of living. What we learn in our schools today are not words of wisdom. We learn technology, we get information. Our world seems to have been drained of spiritual values. People feel powerless. That is precisely what I believe is modern society's curse, this powerlessness, the weariness people feel, the alienation from the world that they live in. A social stagnation with artificial life and false life span, which has taken over. Maybe we need a hero that will give expression to our deepest yearnings .\nDoes society need heroes? Yes, I think so. Because needs images that will keep all the disrupted tendencies together and gather them into a purpose. The myths help us to realize that there is a possibility to achieve completion, to be able to use all our strength and to bring joy into the world. To kill the monsters and the fire-spitting dragons is to defeat darkness .\nWhat happens then, if society does not have any powerfull mythology anymore? Our teenagers loose faith in the religions in which they have been raised and turn inward. They often do this with the sopport of drugs. Society has not assigned any rituals that will make them members of the tribe and the community. This is the essential meaning of the initiation ceremonies. In primitive societies they strike out teeth, inscribe scars on their bodies and practise circumcision etc .\nIn modern cities like New York for example teenagers create their own rites. That is why there is graffitti all over the city. They have their own gangs, their own initiation rites, and their own laws. But they are dangerous, because their laws are not the laws of the city. They have not een taken up in the society .\nIs modern society so devoid of hope then? I do not think it has to be that way. In our technological society where most of our dreams and fantasies are represented in films and videogames, there is a growing tendency to create new factasies of our own. People are getting tired of having everything served on a silver plate. We need to create new myths and at the same time to look back in search for old lost ones .\nIn the myth, there is no argument against industry and science. When you plunge into a totally unknown adventure and make a path, Wheater it is some sort of technological breakthrough or simply a new way of living, you run the risk of getting too enthusiastic or to neglect certain mechanical aspects then you will most certainly fail. When assenting to one's longings, enthusiasm, and feelings you have to keep your head cool, so that it will not lead you straight into calamity. I cannot recognize any opposition between science and mythology. Science itself is now drawing nearer the dimensions of mystery, soon it will have reached the border. The border between that which can be understood and that which will never be clear, because it is a mystery that is beyond the reach of human reseach. For instance; we do not even know what a nucleus is, if it is a wave or a particle - maybe it is both .\nWhat kind of myths will incorporate the machine into our new world? The cars are already there in mythology that is. They are in our dreams. Airplanes too, play an important role in the service of imagination. The voyage of the airplane represents the liberation from earth, in a way pretty much like birds symbolizing freedom. And now it is also time for the computor to introduce itself in the world of fantasy. The computor that many people regard as omnipotent god, with its software going in and out of it, as if they were angels bringing information from earth .\nNot only do I believe that there is a place for imagination in our technological society, but furthermore I am quite convinced that it is neccesary for us and future generations to keep on dreaming. Really one of the most important differences between machines and humans, is that humans are capable of imagining things, while a machine is directed by certain signals and commands. In order to be master and inventor of our technological devices, we must continue doing what humans have done for several thousands of years - that of dreaming and imagining .\n" + }, + { + "title": "449_SWUL2011.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nOur world today does look a lot different from the world a hundred years ago. Not only are there more people populating the earth but the terms of existing have also changed rapidly. To people in the western world these changes have usually meant that new technologies have been introduced, mostly in order to facilitate life. There is no denying that much of the technology has facilitated life. For example cars and planes, but also telephones have shortened the distances and made places accessible with, relatively speaking, little loss of time. If we move into the kitchens of modern homes many of the appliances visible there are indeed time-saving (e g the microwave oven) and do facilitate life to many busy people .\nNow, I have talked a lot about time-saving and facilitating technologies because indeed I think that is what much of modern technology aims at today: to make it possible for us to save time. But then the question arises, what are we saving time for? The simple, but somewhat dejecting, answer to that question is, I think, we do not know what we are saving our time for, or rather we have forgotten why we started to save time in the first place. The next question then to demand an answer is, how does this time-saving menatality affect us? My opinion is that it has affected our way of thinking, dreaming, and imagining in quite a serious way .\nI do not want to maintain that our ancestors had a more refined manner when it came to dreaming and imagining. Neither do I want to argue that modern men and women do not dream and imagine things at all. I am quite convinced that most of us nurture dreams and hopes for the future just as people always have had dreams and hopes for the future just as people always have had dreams and hopes for a better future for themselves and their children. In short, the content of our dreams and imaginations has not changed, but the manner in which we dream and imagine things have. The reason for this could be traced back to the impact of modern technology .\nAs I mentioned earlier, today's technology aims at saving time. But, in doing so it also makes everything go faster. And, in going faster it makes us believe that it is a good thing if we manage to get more done in the same time. This is the crucial point, because I believe that our dreaming and imagination have changed along this line so that we do not take the time to finish our trains of thought because we try to \"stuff\" our dreams with as much input as possible .\nThe problem isn't that there isn't any place for dreaming and imagination; the problem is that there are far too many places, and far too many ready dreams served us through the television and videos and far too little time to finish our dreams. Although technology has made it possible for us to save time with different kinds of machines, it has not enabled us to take the time to slow down and spend our saved-up time on finishing our dreams in our thoughts .\n" + }, + { + "title": "450_SWUL3007.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nIn our world where technology is an important factor it's hard to believe that there's any place for imagination and dreaming, but in my opinion there is. Science and imagination go hand in hand and it's thanks to scientific progress that some of our dreams can come true. If we look at the things that science has accomplished to satisfy the needs of human race they are innumerable .\nA long time ago when man realised that he couldn't walk on water he invented something that could float on the surface so he could cross the watercourse without getting wet. If people in those days weren't able to imagine themselves going over water staying dry they would continue to swim over. In our time era the old raft has turned into a yacht but it's still because of our imagination. If we didn't have time to dream we would have kept on crossing rivers with a raft .\nThe train is another example of what dreaming and imagination have provided us with. The general opinion is that speed and dreaming don't go together at all when they in fact do. It's possible to dream away even at high speed. To go by train is actually quite pleasant. You can lean back and just watch the landscape pass by and daydream. The only thing you have to worry about is what station you're getting off at. This shows that not only can technology provide means of transport but also places for us to dream in .\nThe ability to fly has probably been man's greatest dream ever since he was put on this earth. We have always envied the birds and their freedom to fly away wherever they want and whenever they want. For many years men and women have pondered over how to make it possible for man to fly and they succeeded. It's now feasible for us to fly, not by our own machine though, but with a little help. We can sit in an airplane and travel around the world thinking about life's mysteries at the same time. It's a great combination! There's almost never a dream that technology and science can't turn into reality. But, of course, it depends on what your dreams are and I can only talk for myself .\nThe fact that many people claim that there's no room for dreaming in this world has very likely derived from fear. They're afraid that technological advances will take over too much and leave them without something to do. People are afraid of feeling inadequate and no longer being needed. Dreaming is one way to get away from it all and since they can't relax they have to blame it on something, namely development. Technology doesn't keep us from dreaming, it clears the way for more and higher striving dreams .\nThe reason for people feeling that they don't have enough time for fantasies and imagination is all our obligations. Everyone of us has things that we have to do, whether we work or go to school. So even if we want to devote a large amount of time to imagination it's just not conceivable and it has nothing to do with our well-advanced world .\nSomething that has to be taken into consideration is why technology is moving so fast. It isn't something happening by itself, we are all a part of it. Our aspiration for a more convenient and carefree life is a reason for the fast-moving progress within technology. Since we're helping science on it's way to become dominating, maybe without knowing it, we can't blame it for not giving us enough time to dream away .\nAnother aspect to have in mind is why we feel the need for imagination? Is it because we like the idea of imagining things that can never be for real or is it to dream about things that actually can happen if we just put our minds to it? If the last reason is the most probable or common one there is no reason why technology and imagination can't be two parts of a united whole. After all, society would not be so high developed and advanced if it weren't for our imagination and striving for a better world .\n" + }, + { + "title": "451_SWUL3027.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nMany people claim that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialization there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. Those who do, however, lack even the most basic knowledge of what our western society in fact is based upon and what it is that actually urges people to go on in their lives. It is fairly obvious that they know nothing about the close connections between people's dreams of individual success, their needs to \"dream away\" and scientists ability to use their imagination, and our modern high-tech society. There is no exaggeration to say that society is based upon these two factors and that without either of them it would not be as extremely advanced as it is - it would be a completely static one .\nEver since the beginning of the history of humanity the main issue has been how to find ways of surviving under the often very harsh conditions that earth exposes its inhabitants to. Today the problem has been more or less solved, however, and this is mostly due to the fact that people throughout the centuries have used their imaginative skills to develop more and more advanced tools to be used in everyday life. A side effect of this is that more time has been allotted to dreaming .\nTwo of the major dreams in our modern age are to be successful at work, or to become financially independent. But in order to reach these goals people must use their imagination and dreams since they are what spurs them in their stives towards their goals .\nBut dreaming and imagination are also useful tools to \"get away\" from a dreary job or the conflicts with other people that modern life often subjects us to. In these cases they work as \"healers\" in which exhausted human souls can find peace and which allows them to dream away to other more exiting jobs, or into a world of sympathetic fellow human beings .\nEven though personal achievements form a large part of the purpose of dreaming and imagination in a modern society, they are also useful in areas where society as a whole benefits from them. Scientists can be said to belong to a category of people of which a genuine interest to satisfy other people's needs is their guiding light. But to reach success in this area a true interest in helping is not enough, a \"free\" mind - one that has the capability to develop entirely new trains of thought in fields that have never been explored before, is demanded. Perhaps the most significant difference between a good scientist and a genius can be said to be their personal capacity to use their imagination .\nDreaming and imagination are natural parts of the human character and people's ability to use these resources are in fact what distinguishes them from all other living creatures on earth. They in themselves are important forces which help people to go on in life, assist them in their need to escape from a sometimes too demanding reality, or participate in exploring entirely new areas of science and technology. Yet, scientists are ordinary humans with dreams of money and fame, and perhaps it is not only their wish to aid humanity which spurs them, but also the dream of making the ultimate achievement and gaining public recognition - the dream of one day being rewarded with the Nobel Prize .\n" + }, + { + "title": "452_SWUL4001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nOur world is dominated by technology. Not a day passes without us being reminded of this fact by what we see or use .\nThe fact that science, technology and industrialization are so dominating in our society is a threat to our future happiness. The dominance makes us feel safe, since it is we ourselves who have created it. This feeling of security is false. Progress does not only bring good fortune, however we, with our blind faith in the future, seem to be wearing blinkers .\nFor instance, industrialization does not always bring progress of a positive nature. Think of the workers who are being made redundant as a result of it. Having to work under the threat of being made redundant is not living a life at ease. Consequently the employees perform badly due to their uneasy existence. Thanks to science and research new projects are being launched everyday. Projects which lead to several new places of employment in the end .\nYou see, we are all puppets in a theatre, and whoever pulls our strings does so without thought to our mental keep. Driving to work, working in the treadmill, keeping quiet and doing as we are told, that is how we live our lives .\nThe scientists come up with extraordinary, new findings. However, the truth of the matter is that it is no longer a question of developping new machines for our needs, but of developping new human needs for the machines. Of course, technology has given us a lot for which we are thankful, e g air-conditioning, and other things which we do not find that necessary, e g the egg-boiler .\nIn the hectic society of today the room for imagination is not as large as perhaps it used to be. People can not survive without any recreation or amusement and consequently find different ways to cope. There are, I find, three different categories, as follows: \tFirstly and largest is the category of people who have to look for ways of expressing their imagination in their spare time, since their trade gives no oppurtunity during working-hours. Therefore, even if they go at it from dawn to dusk, they always find themselves some diversion in leisure hours. The negative aspect of this is that due to the shortage of spare time, some of the diversions found are not good for them, i e alcohol, drugs. To take care of these poor creatures a whole industry is created in the form of health centres and spas. At these centres the \"guests\" are encouraged to give a free rein to their imaginations and get to know themselves in order to submit to their fates .\nSecondly, there is the category of people who need imagination to be able to perform their work, e g designers, architects, artists. Those who have creative jobs have the advantage of being able to unfold their dreams during working-hours. Consequently they do not have any imagination left when they come home after a hard days work. They get bored easily and look for diversions, which they easily find at each other's cocktail-parties. And the result of too frequent partying is a visit to a spa .\nThirdly and finally, there is the category of people who have a balanced degree of imagination divided evenly between working-hours and spare time. This is where the majority of us belongs. The people who keep the society going, pay our taxes and take care of our fellowmen of the other two categories .\nTo conclude, there are pros and cons with the dominance by technology as it is with so many things. I am certain we do not want to be without it. Imagination will always have its natural place in our modern world. It is only through our imagination that technology and science will find further progress .\n" + }, + { + "title": "453_SWUL4026.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nSome people hold that there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination in our modern society. Sadly, I must admit that I agree with them .\nFrom my point of view, the deprivation of imagination starts already in early childhood. Parents buy ready-made and elaborate toys for their kids, instead of encouraging them to create their own. The children get used to being provided with playthings and thus gradually lose their power of initiative and inventiveness. I also believe that television can have devastating effects on children. Today a lot of kids prefer watching television to playing games or reading books. I fear that this development will deteriorate their creativity and reading ability even more .\nSince efficiency and productivity are maxims of our society, there is no time and space for imagination in people's professional lifes either. A case in point is the situation of the industrial workers. Not only have they got monotonous and stressful jobs, they have also been deprived of the creative satisfaction and pleasure of manufacturing. In our society the pursuit of profit is considered far more important than creating stimulating jobs .\nIt is also disquieting that we have become so dependent on scientific expertise. An illuminating example is our faith in Western medicine. In former times people believed in knowledge based on experience; today everything has to be scientifically proved. Is medicine made by artificial means more reliable than Nature's own resources? I don't think the women used Thalidomide in the 60s would agree with that. As far as I am concerned, it's a con, and behind it is the pharmaceutical industry, trying to manipulate people in order to make more money. Thus a lot of innocent people are being deceived and prevented from using their own intuition and imagination when it comes to healing .\nFinally, as for dreaming, some people might claim that it is not possible to deprive a person of his dreams. i venture to say that it is. Mass media and the advertising industry are constantly trying to influence and form our dreams. They decide how to dress, what to eat, how to furnish homes, where to go on vacation; they even decide what kind of friends and partners you should have and how they should look and behave in order to please you. Eventually you get so confused that your no longer know of your choices and values are your own or if they have been affected by the advertising industry .\nTo sum up: I don't believe there is a place for dreaming and imagination in this vacuous society of ours, and I doubt there will even be one if we don't stop submitting to this oppression of our spiritual needs. Only when we cease living up to society's expectations will we be able to fulfill ourselves .\n" + }, + { + "title": "454_SWUL4029.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nIn the beginning man was nothing more than a quarrelsome animal which had the ability to speak and think but did not exhaust himself in doing either .\nThen one glorious day, one man invented the wheel and although his neighbours probably complained about his usage of the sacred symbol of the sun, he kept using his invention and one by one his neighbours became convinced of the advantages of the wheel .\nMany thousand years later the first cars began to use the roads in Europe. In some countries legislation forced the driver to have a man with a red flag walk ahead of the car to warn the road-users .\nNowadays, some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialization, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. But that complaint is totally irrelevant. Imagination has given us technology and science and they have in turn furnished us with time saving gadgets, fastfood, nuclear power-plants and genetically manipulated tomatoes-to name only a few inventions. These inventions have two side-effects, the first is that we have more time to dream if that is how we elect to spend the time we have saved and secondly, imagination has become more important than ever in almost every line of business .\nFurthermore, technology provides us with a large portion of the stuff that dreams are made of, for example: in the film Jurassic Park technology both makes it possible for us to get an idea of how dinosaurs looked like and it also gives us the reason to believe that the resurrection of the dinosaurs really could be done, which is half the thrill of the film .\nTechnology can also be used to make our dreams come true by finding cures for diseases which cannot yet be cured, and many other things which we only have to conceive to realize. As a character says in Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle: [Quotation] In a wider perspective technology may be seen as our only realistic way of achieving a kind of eternal life, of course not for ourselves but for the intelligent robots we might produce in the future and thereby continuing the evolution that created us .\nUnfortunately, technology does have its drawbacks, especially when it is handled carelessly as in Chernobyl or viciously as in Nagasaki, but it is not technology in itself that threaten us, it is the inherent malevolence in each of us. If there were no weapons we would be killing each other with toothpicks-if there is a will we have always had a knack of finding a way! It seems as if imagination is a bigger threat to humanity than technology is .\nStill, there is the question of industrialization, a thing that frightened people at the end of the 19th century, because the machines took their jobs and often made their places of work perilous since safety routines were non-existent at that time .\nHowever, nowadays industrialization only takes away boring and unhealthy jobs and if anyone complains about that, it is because he is in urgent need of money and not because he likes the job .\nAccidentally, this brings to my mind the technocrats, who during the 30s, 40s and 50s had a persisting dream to replace bank managers, civil servants and other bureaucrats with impartial, logical and unselfish robots that would do their job swiftly and efficiently and with little cost to the tax-payers. It is a beautiful idea that certainly deserves to be tested .\n" + }, + { + "title": "455_SWUL4032.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nIn a world dominated by technology, science and industrialization some people think that there is hardly no place at all for dreaming * and imagination. They claim that technology has a checking effect on dreams and imagination. But there are from my point of view less things supporting than opposing this theory .\nTechnology and science has originally come from peoples' dreams and their ability to imagine things. Take for example the aeroplane. People have been dreaming of flying for centuries, and they have tried to invent wings for just as long. Finally someone invented an aeroplane. And the dream grew bigger and today we can even walk on the mon, all just because of an old dream. Most inventions, I guess, have been developed like this .\nNowadays people have everything, some people say, but if we did there would be no more inventions, and there defenately are. There are new inventions every day, big or small, and I do not think there would be if we did not dream anylonger .\nThanks to modern technology we can today share our wildest imaginations and take part of others' with the help of for example films, music-videos or pictures. A hundred years ago there was no such way of showing one another personal thoughts like that even if they wanted to. Today we can do that(with the help of for example special effects), thanks to technology and science .\nDreams are something that nothing or nobody can stop, I think. People will keep on dreaming what ever happens. There is for example an apparent piece of evidence which proves this: lottery. A lottery works well no matter what times are like. In fact there seems to be more people betting on different lotteries when times are rough than during good times. People dream of becoming millionaires; of traveling around the world; of having a new car and so on, and that has nothing to do with technology or science. We have been dreaming of the same things for ages, but nowadays there is a bigger chance of these kinds of dreams coming true. It is easier and not so expensive to travel or to get a new car today than it was for about a hundres years ago .\nI have known people who are afraid that people of today, especially children, do not think enough by themselves. They think that for example video-games or computer-games are dangerous for their childrens' minds, and they think that their imagination will stop developing. Others think that these sorts of games are helping our imagination to develop There are actually no evidence at all that they are not imagining as much when they play video-games as when they play with dolls or with toy-cars .\nEven though I agree with the later statement I would like to add that imagination and dreams have to be nourished, not to survive but to develop. They have to be nourished not only by watching films, reading comic-books, playing video-games or such things, but also by reading books .\n" + }, + { + "title": "456_SWUL5017.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nThe science and technology of the 20th century have made it possible to study and explore the world we live in from the minute parts of an atom to enormous cosmic phenomena such as supernovas and black holes. This knowledge has helped us understand how the universe works and made our lives easier by preventing disease and famine in many parts of the world. Our understanding of the world has made us re-think the way we look at it. Things that were previously regarded with fear and superstition are put in a context which make them understandable and natural. But perhaps modern science has also taken away some of the magic and mystique of our world. Maybe our increasing knowledge of things has made our world a smaller and duller place to live in .\nThe author Samuel Clemens, better known as Mark Twain, spent a large part of his childhood during the mid 19th century in the small town of Hannibal, close to the Mississippi river. To the young Clemens the great Mississippi river represented beauty and excitement; his greatest childhood dream was to work on one of the river boats that were sailing on the Mississippi. After a series of odd jobs he managed to fulfil his dream and became a river pilot. Later in his life Samuel Clemens described this choice of career as a big mistake. No longer would the Mississippi be the romantic and exciting place of his childhood, instead he know saw it with the professional eyes of a trained river pilot. The river had been transformed from a fantasy inspiring playground to a workplace where everything had to be evaluated and measured. Maybe we all lose something when we get our romantic impressions altered by changes in our life .\nDoes this mean that knowledge and experiences destroy our dreams, and that we in this technological age are entering an era where there is no place for dreams and imagination; a time when everything is explained and analysed into insipid familiarity? Personally I think that if there is anything that is losing ground in today's society, it is reality .\nScience has been able to explain to us the way things work, unfortunately this is not the way most of us would like it to work. We know that the world's energy resources are not inexhaustable, that faster-than-light speed is not possible and that our current way of life is destroying our planet. But knowing this has not made us less inclined to dream of things that cannot be, or imagine how thing could be if the impossible was possible. People's need to escape reality has not diminished with time, and never before have people had such a wide variety of ready-made escape routes available to them. Science and technology have provided us with designer drugs, computer games and cable TV with quintillions of channels .\nTechnology and scientific progress have not changed peoples need for dreams and imagination, or made it harder for them to create dreams or use their imagination. However, the form of the dreams or fantasies have changed; gnomes and trolls have been replaced by aliens and UFOs. The increasing specialisation has made it harder for laymen to understand the theories behind the scientific advances, and the scientist has become to be regarded as modern day magicians: doing things very few people understand and accomplishing amazing results The dreams and imaginations of men and women will change with the time they live in, but I am convinced that no matter what society look lik people will always make a place for dreams and imagination .\n" + }, + { + "title": "457_SWUL6001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. If he was alive at the beginning of the 21st century, he would replace religion with television \n \nKarl Marx once said that religion was the opium of the masses. One does not have to be a Marxist to understand what he meant; that religion was an escape from the hard everyday life, making people ignorant and insensible to the wrongs that existed at that time. Religion thus made it easier to control the masses - even if that was not the purpose of the rulers. Today, our society - at least in our western world - has become much more secular than in Marx's days. We could thus conclude that the masses have been liberated from their \"opium\"? Alas, if it were so good! The days of religious dogmas and conformity may be gone, but a new altar has emerged that has taken religion's place as an opium: television. In the four decades that has passed since the TV set first appeared, it has become an indispensable part in the daily lives of most people. Today, small children find it hard to believe that mankind had to live without television less than a generation ago - how could one live without such a \"necessity\" of life?\nThe average time spent watching television is about two hours a day, and it is augmenting. This is probably one of the reasons why the problem of overweight is increasing in our society - especially among children. The time that used to be spent outdoors playing, is now spent in front of the TV set. The time used in from of the box is, however, not primarily used for enlightenment .\nWhen television - and before that the radio - appeared, it raised great expectations among some people. The new medium of communication was to be an excellent tool for education and enlightenment of the masses. Theatre performances, which used to be performed before only a minor part of the population, could now be broadcast into every home. Education would change, since there would be less need for the interested audience to be physically present in the same room as a lecturer - now, a lecture could be broadcast to all who were interested but who could not afford to move to a university city .\nSuch hopes have not been totally unfulfilled, but in general, television has become a different medium than what once was expected. Most programmes are produced to provide cheap entertainment for an audience as large as possible, thus maximising the income from advertisements. The outcome consists of soap operas, that provide an escape for the masses from the everyday life, quiz contents and - for children - cartoons. Television has become almost an addiction - like opium - that prevents people from taking own initiatives and keeps them indolent and \"uneducated\".\nIt would be rather straightforward to assume that Karl Marx, had he lived today, would have said that television is \"the opium of the masses\". Although television does have some good sides, those sides are not the primary use of the medium today. In our democratic society, it may not be the purpose of television to function as an \"opium\", but we must be aware of this side effect if we want our society to remain democratic .\n" + }, + { + "title": "458_SWUL6004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nHow do we obtain a society with equality, not only in terms of the freedom of religion and the same legal rights for people of different colours and different sexes, but also in everyday life? I will here focus on the sex equality. There are a number of different ways to proceed in this work. One way is the feminists' way, by trying to build a wall between sexes and to accuse the men for the history. To say to a man that he as a man is responsible for all evil that men have done and do, with sexual abuse, war and violence, will not help anybody. Even if the feminists might not think that they really accuse the single man, I know men that feel accused for what other men have done, but do not feel more responsible for that than any woman. Instead, they themselves feel trapped in a role that they have not chosen, like many women feel this way. Therefore, I feel that in some respects the feminists have done harm to the cause of women, even if they by doing this have focused the problem, which of course is of importance .\nEven if the feminists' way was the right to start with, to make people aware of the problem, their way is not the right anymore. I don't feel that it is leading to my goal in this question. My goal is to get mutual understanding and respect between people, independent of sex. For me, it is important not only that women get the same chance in working life, but also that men get the chance to take care of their children. In this chance is of course also a responsibility for women as well as men. Women have to take and get responsibility at work and dare to take the chance when for example offered to be promoted. This includes that the other women at the workplace support the woman that dared instead of saying that she is not good enough, because I think that there are higher demands on women than on men in the same position. It also includes that men accept women as bosses and accept to give them responsibility as well as pay them the same salary as they pay men with equal work. At the same time, men have to take more responsibility for the every day things in a household. This is a question of women letting the men take the responsibility as well as a question of the men taking it. If we respect each other as equal and try to help each other and to take responsibility in all aspects of life, I think it will do good to the cause of women as well as the cause of men .\n" + }, + { + "title": "459_SWUV3004.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nHow can one say that feminists, who fight for the rights of women and against all kinds of discrimination against women, have any harm at all to women?\nIf it weren't for feminists, women would probably still not have the right to vote or to decide over their own bodies, to mention only these two issues. Today we find it ridiculous that women, half the population, should not be allowed to vote. And what about their own bodies? Well, not too long ago, during the 70s I think, a woman could still be raped by her husband and that was not a crime, in Sweden .\nIn my opinion, we still have some way to go regarding the freedom of women. It makes me furious when I hear how young girls and women are insulted and mistreated because of their sex, their looks, their way to behave and dress . \"She was asking for it.\" - words to explain why a young man has harassed a young woman. Can it ever be OK to hurt somebody? That day will come when women will be able to walk home at night without fear of being molested. However, things don't change by themselves. You have to point out where the problems are to those who can't see them. That is why we still need feminists to do that .\nIt's definitely my opinion that equality between men and women, when it comes to the same possibilities for both sexes to make choices in life, has not been reached yet. More important is that we must not take for granted the gains in \"equality up to this date. Human rights and democracy must be fought for. The debate must continue. The awareness must be transmitted from generation to generation .\nAn example to illustrate: A couple, a man and a woman, with small children. Both parents want to work on their careers. Who is likely to stay home with the small children? Do they actually have the same possibility to choose as we think they do?\nLet's say both parents are offered fantastic jobs. Who will take the responsibility for the children?\nNowadays it's unfortunately not only the echo from our parents' generation which speaks of the natural thing about being a woman, which says that it's natural for a woman to take care of the children. This has been the tradition and female role for generations. This means that being a woman implies following convention and tradition, to stay Woman. Then, if you don't take care of the children, you choose your career instead, you are not a woman, in that sense .\nI couldn't disagree more. We need feminists, men and women, to keep this debate alive, to keep a look-out for when the winds are changing, because in the end, this is a matter of human rights and discrimination. We all need to be awakened now and then .\n" + }, + { + "title": "460_SWUV3008.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney is necessary to survive. That is a fact in today's society. Money can do a lot of good We need money to buy clothes, and food for ourselves and our families. Money can help us pursue our dreams and travel around the world, in the hope that with a greater understanding of other cultures we can hopefully be able to avoid conflicts. This is not all, in return for money we can get medical aid and send a letter from one part of the country to another. Sending money to charity organisations is an easy way for us to help people in need, who lack all that which we in the West take for granted. We can also buy fancy cars and have plastic surgery to make us look better and to make us more attractive for the opposite sex. We can buy swimming pools or spend money on Beluga caviar. This is where the problem begins. When you have money you can buy beautiful, expensive items to impress your friends. However, they, in turn, will also try to make as much money as possible to become even more rich, more powerful and to be able to be looked up at by more and more people. Greed is known as one of the mortal sins, and it is fairly easy to understand why. If everyone could make as much money as they wanted to, its value would quickly be lost, which is why the amount of pounds, dollars and yens in the world hardly changes. Thus in order to get really, really rich, you have to get your money from someone else. In our greed we look the other way while the earth's natural resources are depleted, the rain forest destroyed and the polar ice melts, only because we simply must have that mahogany desk since it would go so well with the wallpapers, and because we would not look half as attractive if we tried to survive without the hair spray containers. The fact that they contain CFC:s is of no greater importance. Unfortunately, what we seem to have forgotten in our hunt for money, and the power that comes with it, is that the most valuable commodity of them all is the one that we walk on every day. That is right; Earth. So far, we have not managed to invent a way to leave this planet to settle on another one, once this one has been completely destroyed. So until we have found a way to evacuate the entire population of earth, we ought perhaps to think twice about what we are spending our money on and how that item can help, not only ourselves but Mother Earth .\n" + }, + { + "title": "461_TRCU1001.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Capital Punishment \n \nIn the world, most of the countries have death penalty, especially the countries which are in the east. The countries which are in the west don't apply this punishment for a crime .\nIn Turkey, we have death penalty. When a person made something illegal which are spying, killing someone, trying to separate their countries, the government have rights to use capital punishment the government punishes the guilty who is punished with death penalty by the government. Instead of applying this punishment the government put the guilty in jail until die as a punishment. The government don't hang or kill the guilty .\nI think the reason why there is death penalty, the people who lived at the past wanted to teach the rest of the people what would be them when they do the same crime. They wanted to warn the people .\nOn the other hand, the people may thing that who has right to kill someone because of his crime. In my opinion, nobody has right. Killing someone is a crime, when someone kills somebody he is guilty, but when the government apply this punishment, it's not a guilt. It means that it's unjustice .\nIf a human being has a brain and hearth, he can't accept this punishment. The fact that a person has brain and hearth so him may feel himself in trouble .\nIn spite of punishing the guilty the government should research the reason why the people commit a crime. Everybody has some kind of problems, because of this problems the people commit a crime. At this point, the role of the government is to find the solution of this problem and then according to the founded solutions the government should solve the main problem. It may cause to decrease the crime rate .\nIn the undeveloped, uncivilized countries, especially in the east apply death penalty to punish the guilty. The government also announces to the public to invite them to watch the guilty while he hangs on. They meet together and the guilty is hanged in front of the public. None of them say something they only watch. But what they can do. It's related with their government and their rules. Maybe that's why all the people in the world call them undeveloped and uncivilized .\nBesides that the developed, civilized government in the west have human rights. According to them everybody has right to live. Nobody can interfere the other's right. If a man attracts to interfere someone's right they are first warned then they may apply some punishment. But it's not death penalty .\nAt the same time, there is another factor that death penalty is unacceptable which is the religious and conscience part. We all know that we are created by god and we believe god. None of us can deny this truth. Therefore nobody can judge someone because of its crime by themselves by hanging or killing them. There is no human being in the world as right to punish the people by giving capital punishment. God gives us this life and only god can take our life whenever he wants. There is nobody much more powerful than god and god doesn't give mission to punish his creation. In addition we all afraid of god, and all religious books say there is hell and heaven in the other world. In hell we will burn and in the heaven we will live in wonderful world. If it's like this I think no one can wants go hell .\nTo some up, god gives this life and only god takes again. Anyone who kill someone will be punished by god in the hell .\n" + }, + { + "title": "462_TRCU1046.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nIf people are asked what the most important thing in life is, most of them give the same answer: money! The response to the question what their aim in life is, is somewhat different: happiness. Here, one might think, \"where is here the similarity?\" \nThe answers are similar, in that for most people happiness depends upon money. In a way this is not very surprising, as generally happiness is received through power, comfort, pride, and popularity .\nFirst of all, to achieve these aims a lot of people are ready to make a hard and merciless journey through life tasting the bitterness of ambition, fraud, jealousy and lies, which in this case seems very sweet to them. It is obvious that all these features have negative associations. But how can a person leave the fingers from money when you can not even make a step without it? \nSecondly, some people just want to make so much money as to stay alive. Therefore they are ready to work hard, and sometimes this readiness turns to unconsciousness. People forget their real aim in life and being unaware of it they glide in to a vicious circle without an escape...\nA next issue to be taken to consideration is need. There are a lot of people in the world who do not even find a piece of bread to stop their hunger. What shall these people do if they can not find a job to work in and if the government do not have the power and organization to support them? It is a fact that these people do not think of the moral aspects of their decision. These people find an only way for solution, and this is theft! \nAs a result, it can be said that the proverb \"Money is the root of all devil\" in the original meaning of the word is right. However, it depends on the propriety of its use .\nIf people are after money just because they can not get enough, and if they lose control over themselves then the devil is at work. And in most cases stopping this devil is nearly impossible. The more money is earned or \"not earned\", the more is wanted by people. It is just the ambiguity that awakes the devil, not the money itself. And this ambiguity is created by people, not the money. In the business to make as much money as soon as possible, people forget their real aims in their lives and suddenly they find themselves in a competition against the whole world. The will to be better than the others, to have a more luxury life, to own the most expensive things and thus to be more powerful than the others, leads people who are not able to keep their limits to deeds that are not well - seen in the society. But as long as every individual knows his or her limits and do not lose the control over his or her life, money will just serve for peoples' advantages .\n" + }, + { + "title": "463_TRCU1047.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nMoney! For some is everything and for some is nothing. What can be done with money and what can't be done with money is always a question in mind. Can we say that money doesn't effect our life? Or can we say that every thing is based on money? Another question which is always asked is ;can money alone bring happiness? All of these are always asked and people always wonder the answer .\nIt is usually said that money is the root of all evil. When thought about this deeply I think everyone will agree. Can we think or a life without money? Of course no. Nothing can be done without money. If you have money you are everything. You can do anything you want and nobody can question you because you have money and you are the king. Every body bows in front of money and people can do many things for money. If you have money you are respected by everyone and have prestige in every encounter. We can see this in everyday life very obviously. When a well-dressed person enters a shop every body tries to help and respect that person. But if a very ordinary looking person enters the shop no body bothers to help unless they are asked. Another thing is if you have money and if you are ill all the doctors work for you. Nothing would be impossible. You can see the best doctors and be cured in the best way. Your children can get the best education opportunity and all doors would be wide open for you. They can go to the best colleges, have extra lessons, attend many social activities and even if they cant enter a good university they can go to private ones. You can buy everything your child wants and let him life the most comfortable life .\nWhen looked from this perspective everything is fine but there is the other side of the story. What about the poor. Don't they have the right to live a well life. But no, if you don't have money you are nothing. You are not respected and always seen as a third class. When a poor person is ill his only opportunity is to go to state hospitals and as we know there they act as if we are animals. Why? Because you don't pay so they don't care whether you are ill or not. Every time the doctors do the same things. Just examine you a few minutes and say \"you have nothing\". Your children don't have the right to get a good education. Because they pay little to teachers in state schools and so the teachers don't care. Why should they work hard for so little? There are many families that can't afford to send their children to universities. They can't make life worth living for their children. Doesn't this annoy the parents. Of course they feel sad not to be able to do what their children want .\nAs we see the great contrast between the rich and the poor we can easily see the bad effects on money. Poor people when realize the things that can be done with money they would want to live in the same way also. And what are the ways to be rich quickly. Of course stealing or killing for money. People would rob, steal to have a better life. They may kill each other to get money. They may give their soul for money even. So very bad things can be done in order to have more money and these are evil things .\n" + }, + { + "title": "464_TRCU1051.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nThe problems have started by the use of money-which is much more practical instead of settling method. As time passed, with the developing of societies and with the increase of needs, that is, when the living conditions have got harder, money's become the root of all evils. At this position, it has gained importance how money is earned and for which purposes it is used. If a person gives harm not only to himself but also to the others and neglect social and ethic rules, it means that he earns money in wrong ways. When we think like this, money has become the reason of several evils. This is because of that money is a magical key which opens many doors. This is also because of the conditions of today. In today's conditions, they aren't nearly given any right to live like human-beings to the poor. However, people living in a society have the same basic rights such as to be educated, to be cared by hospitals and like these, money spoiled this equality and cause inequality. That is, in every stage of social life, the one who pays the piper calls the tune. People give bribe in order to be the owner of many things and to conceal their offense. If there's a need to give an example, a person who commits a traffic crime and gives bribe to conceal his crime will be a good example. This is only a small example. This kind of impropriety has taken place even in the government, which should be the most respectful institution. At the same time, people are murdering each other, they are smuggling narcotic and weapon. This means the complete ignorance of social and ethic rules. In other words, money has taken the place of humanistic values. For the sake of money, people sell their bodies, children and wives. Moreover, in order to survive, they sell their organs, such their kidneys, which has a vital role for their survival. These are organized by groups which are named as Mafia. In other words, this has become a sector .\nWhen people aren't able to achieve the necessary conditions to survive as human beings, that is, when they aren't able to bring bread to their homes, when they can't shelter in appropriate conditions, when they couldn't send their children to the school, when they couldn't respond to his family's needs of health and when they couldn't respond to other needs of their family and most important, when they haven't got a job to achieve all these kind of needs, in societies people can be dragged to suicide. People even commit theft. I want to state that the sanction of social rules isn't important when people find themselves in these conditions .\nBecause of that money is an important commerce tool, it is an important element of our lives. In other words, in today's hard conditions, people venture everything in order to earn money and survive. They can easily make concession .\nAs I stated before, it is important how money is earned and for which purposes it is used. So, it will hinder people to suffer if it isn't used in the way of its purpose .\n" + }, + { + "title": "465_TRCU1064.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \nI do not have any specific information about the education system of other countries and the basic features of their universities. But it is so clear that anyone from any other country foreigner can see that the education system and most of the universties in Turkey are theorethical and do not prepare the students to the real life. It is easily understandable that the universities in our country have two main problems; Monetary problems and the other one is the education system in our country .\nThe first reason which do not give any right to prepare the students to the real life is sourced from the state universities in Turkey have very low aid from the government. They do not take enough money to povide real environment to the students. The monetary problem is limited the practical sides of the science. For instance; The classrooms are not decorated appropriate for using real means interested with the lesson. So, most of the time the lesson has to be passed over lightly. Absolutely, this problem is not sourced from the teachers or the students, the real responsibility is in the government's hands. Surely, the government wants to do some regulations to broaden the rights of both the teacher and the student. But they do not mention the payment that they should give the universities. Most of the time the students passed over their training period without doing extra studies interested in their field or do something for themselves for pleasure except passing the exams. It is really a big problem that the tutors only full the student's mind with mostly unnecessary things which only works with the student job, they do not add maybe can not add anything except this .\nOur second problem the education system in Turkey apart from the monetary problem of the state universities, is a big problem which must be handled immediately. The system in education is very strict, it uses the student only as a model. It does not wait or want any aim from them. If you are in class and can answer the questions which directed to you at least half of the questions, you are expected to be a hardworking student. Your social life, your expectations are not mentioned and have no importance most of the time. It is really a teacher and lesson oriented system .\nAlthough the government in Turkey has some sayings about education as \"the education is our necessity like food and water\" it is a real observation that it has been never ever given the real importance to the education even from the first grade to the last grade. With this perspective we can still see our second problem about the universities are theorethical because of the education system in Turkey is right. If the government do not do any payment and if the students are not rich enough to pay high taxes (in reality, in Turkey it is taken in low rate while many European countries do the opposite, they give allowance to the students) the tutors, teachers have to obey the rules and use the means that they have in their hand to enlighten their students .\nIn conclusion, in Turkey most of the universities are not prepare the students for real world it is so clear that all of them are theorethical. The young generation in Turkey want much more reality in their lesson and real environment. Only if the government can help the universities and provide healthier systems and regulations for education, be the universities on the right way. Parallel with this right way the enrichment of the people and the country will be in a better line much more quickly .\n" + }, + { + "title": "466_TRCU1065.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nToday, universities whose numbers are more than thousands all over \nthe world are significant education institutions that educate people\naccording to profession fields. So which factors make these education\ninstitutions so important? Maybe the first factor is that it educates human, \nthe other one may e its professional education, and third one is most\nprobably its academic characteristics .\nThe quality of education of a country goes together with the \ndevelopment level of that country. If universities' goal is to prepare the\npeople according to their professions, their first target should be to make\nthese people professionally competence. Therefore; the education system\nis very important . \" How to supply education to the students? \", \" Should \nthe students be directed to the memorization? \", \" Should the students deal \nwith unnecessary items? Or \"Should they take knowledge related with the \nreal life and abstain from extras? \" \nIt is wrong to put all universities in the same boat. I am talking\nabout the most of them. Today in many universities the education is \npresented to the students theoretically. The students are rather passive\nmany times. They come to the class, just listen the lesson and then go .\nAt the end of the lesson most of the knowledge they acquired is staid on the\nnotebooks. However, if they were presented the lesson practically not\ntheoretically, the knowledge will be more permanent in their minds. They will\nbe willing to have that lesson again, get more pleasure of it .\nIn my opinion the knowledge which is learnt theoretically, is exposed \nto be forgotten and its permanence is very little value. However, I think if we \npresent education in a practical way and enable their participations to the\nlessons, it will be more permanent .\nThis example will enlighten you. Suppose that you are asked for your \ncomments about a country or a city which you have not been and not seen .\nBut you are limited what you have already read about it. Besides suppose \nthat you have been or seen that country or city and had experience of it .\nIn which way would your comments be effective? Can you see the \ndifference? \nWe can see this difference in our country ' s universities more clearly .\nMany lessons in most departments are unrelated with preparing the\nstudents to the real life. The students are surrounded many unnecessary \nknowledge. So how much of these knowledge will be acquired in their \nprofession life? When will the individual apply to these unnecessary\nknowledge? This is nothing more than consuming time and labor .\nI have mentioned about the balance between the quality of education \nand development of a country at the beginning of my essay. Let ' s talk about \nit some more. There is no need to discuss the importance of the education in\ndetermining the fate of the country. If you look at the improvement projects \nof the countries, you can see the innovations that will be done in the field \nof education at the top of lists. The universities whose aim is to educate \nqualified people should set up their own education policies regarding to \nthese criteria. Unfortunately, this lack of the universities effects not only \nthe fate of countries, but also the history of human. Have you thought \nabout this problem before? \nWe are in the technological era. We are making our lives easier and \nmore practical by means of the innovations of the technology. So why do not\nwe enable this practicality in the education system? The universities' aim \nshould be educating people for the sake of the development of whole world .\n" + }, + { + "title": "467_TRCU1072.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nThe education in university is important for many people all around the world and so many people are giving effort to take a place in university classroom. In addition to this three questions come in to our mind. Firstly, why do people want to go university? And then is the education given in universities enough? Does the universities really prepare students for the real world? I will try to answer these questions in this article .\nThe answer to first question is having a better job. The university degree provide people a statue and a chance to have a job wherever they want. When you apply for a good job, in a company the first question is wheather you have university degree or not. I think the reason of this is having many unemployment people and this is a good way to choose which person is more qualified. That's why you need a university degree. In contrast to this, having only degree is not a criteria . also, you should develop yourself too. When it comes to the second question which asks whether the universities' education is enough or not. Answer is both yes and no depending on department and quality of the university. Students learn everything about their department in class environment. Mostly they don't use what they have learned practically. In exams mostly theoritical questions are asked and students recite and answer .\nEducation is enough in regard to theoritical knowledge, on the other hand when it comes to practising they fail. Of course it isn't like that in each department of the university. For instance in Medical Department students take both theoric and practical knowledge. Especially during last two years they start to behave as a doctor. But in Engineering Department students make every projects on a paper. I didn't see an engineer candidate make a real robot or machine . If we think about teaching department practicum education is not enough. Whatever students learn important or unimportant, they have less chance to use them. They also attend practicum school but i think it is not enough. In lessons most of them can tell the course but it is different to teach young learners then advanced ones. I don't know whether there is a solution to this or not. Of course experts know better then me. As you see from the examples education in university are different in each department .\nThird question looks for whether the universities prepaire students for real life. My answer is yes. Students cannot have practical knowledge. But university is a good chance for a person to grow himself and to learn how to stand on their own foot. University life have both happy times and tough times. Students may feel themself alone, bores , sort of money, crazy, strong, weak...etc. I have encountered all these situations in my university life. Moreover, students are trying to have a relationship with the people who have different characters. So that they learn hhow to tolerate people, not to trust everyone except themselves. However the most important thing is whatever you face, you learn how to stand on and how to survive .\nTo sum up, university is a part of our life. We have taken theorical knowledges and we have gone to school just the purpose of going but what we have gained is we have learned many things in university life without realizing. I don't agree that universities doesn't have value. In contrast, university has so much value in all over the world. Otherwise why do people spend so much effort to be able to a university student? \n" + }, + { + "title": "468_TRCU1103.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "C1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Capital Punishment \n \nThe death penalty is a necessary evil that has a positive effect on society today. It is an effective deterent of crime as well as a safeguard for society. It also helps to keep order in our cities. Furthermore, I fell it is a just and effective punishment for those who have commited crimes heinous enough to deserve death. Does the death penalty truly deter crimes and murder? This question is at the heart of a heated political controversy over the punishment. Opposers to the death penalty say no because of the large amount of people on death row today .\nImagine, a good friend of yours. Better yet, imagine a loved one, perhaps a little brother or sister or son or daughter. Now try to imagine life without them, simply because the murderer thought that he was above the law. Who knows, maybe he or she was just bored and decided to take a life. What if someone took the life of your child or loved one? What are we to do about the person (s) , such as these murderers who decide that they can take a loved one's life. Obviously, anyone who takes one's life, other than self defense, should not ever be let out into everyday society to function in everyday life, because such as this are from normal. Those that prey on the weak will always prey on them. A majority of those convicted and sentenced to capital punishment were repeat offenders that continually prey on the weak and innocent\nI think the capital punishment is applicable in cases involving murder, but it becomes clearly easy to come up with this suggestion of punishment in cases involving the murder of the ones put in charge of protecting us and our community. Killing a cop is like shattering or killing that thin blue line that seperates between civilization and anarchy. Police officers are the ones who keep the streets safe for our society and uphold our society's beliefs. It is just I know better than anyone else and nobody is going to tell me what to do .\nThe deterrence factor is the likeliness of one not to committ a crime as a result of being aware of the consequences of the crime. Many argue that the death capital punishment does not deter. However, by simply convicting a person to confinement for a certain crime with an easy sentence, is much like receiving a simple slap on the wrist for committing serious crimes. Punishment, when speaking on serious terms, is socially valuable because it deters criminals from repeating their crimes and may keep others from repeating the same acts. If in fact the deterring effect misses its point, it is the fault of the justice system the all the red tape found behind it. At its current standing, the system is viewed as a joke because no authority is taken, no one believes, let alone fears, the system. Both the lengthy time and the high expense result from innumerable appeals, including many technicalities which have little nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence. If these wasteless \namount of appeals were eliminated or at least controlled, then the procedure would be much shorter, less expensive and more efficient .\nMany argue that the capital punishment violates human rights, yet, they do not question the reason or action that got the convict on death row in the first place. Every person has an equal right to life, until they take another's life, then all bets are off . Society does not understand that when a convict on death row is executed it is because they, themselves took some innocent person's life which caused them to be put there. The only impression given about the capital punishment should be the fact that murder is a crime punishable by death. The capital punishment is in no way hypocritical it simply shows a country that murder has very serious consequences and has a fit and just punishment. The main purpose here is to instill fear in other men, to show that this will not be tolerated and justice comes first, always .\nAnger is simply an expression of caring about one's moral community and society needs more men and women who care for each other and who do for the sake of others. It is passion which allows us to act for reasons having nothing to do with selfish or mean calculations. Nothing but the simple desire for justice to be served influences the upholding of the capital punishment. Punishing is the only way we have any chance at preserving our moral community and passion also acts as a protector. The capital punishment is not a settled issue and, indeed, continues to an issue of enormous emotion and importance. It, therefore, will always accompany controversial and difficult debate .\n" + }, + { + "title": "469_TRCU1104.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Capital Punishment \n \nCapital punishment is one of the most controversial topics of the world that effects the international relations of Turkey. It is a form of punishment that has gone on for many thousands of years. There are some countries that have abolished this form of punishment because they say it is inhumane, and immoral. Also religious people have fought against this sort of punishment. And some people believe the saying \"blood for blood\" . And some say that the people are getting what they deserve. In Turkey there are basically two groups of people. One group is abolitionists who are opposed to capital punishment and the other group is retentionists who support capital punishment .\nFor the abolitionists , the main reason they are opposed to the capital punishment is that because it is morally wrong and it is irrovocable. And besides, they believe that the criminal can be used for restitution to the victim's family .\nIn spite of all; capital punishment is a very essential issue of criminal punishment because our country does not rich enough to feed those criminals all his life and the government must protect the society from those dangerous people . And we are living in a country where there are millions of people classified as \"poor\" and thousands of people who are starving and in need of bread. In such a case, the government should spend the budget for feeding the poor , educating the children and by this, prevent them becoming a potential criminals for the society not waste it for feeding a hated, sinful person and even spend more money to make him/her good citizen .\nFrom my point of view, spending the budget for improving the general wealth of the country is certainly much more prior to spending it for a criminal sentenced to life imprisonment .\nBesides, there are different definitions of murder I think. Some people believe that killing anyone or anything is murder. Some of them say , murder only applies to killing humans. My definition of murder is more strict. I think murder is the killing of an innocent human being, not in the attempt of self-defense. This is important because there are many people that are against capital punishment and argue that the government is committing murder. But I say \"not so\", because , the person who is being executed has convicted of a big crime and he/she is no longer \"an innocent human being\" . Therefore the execution is not an act of murder any more .\nNow let's get deeper into the issue ; If one asks what the purpose of any punishment is , the response should be to rehabilitate the individual. The reason for any punishment is to change the individual and so that they can go back into society and be beneficial for the society. Now, if someone cannot be changed , is most likely to going to be changed , then the state can lock them up for life and they would still be no threat to society. That is the argument most often used by the people against capital punishment . I would like to know , what benefits can that one person who is locked up for life can do ? ? ? And those people locked up in maximum security prisons take up over thousands of million Turkish Liras a year .\nI think that price is ridiculous to spend on those that have killed others. I mean, the government does not even spend that much money on the common good citizen, how can it afford to spend that much money on those that have taken other people's right to live? \nTo sum up, I should say that capital punishment is necessary for our country so that the government can spend the budget trying to feed the innocent people and educate the children and there would not be killers out there . . . . .\n" + }, + { + "title": "470_TRCU1106.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Capital Punishment \n \nAll around the world people are punished when they commit crime or do \nsomething illegal. There are many punishments. One them is capital \npunishment. There are many ways to kill the convicted as Hunter claims in his \narticle . -There are many kinds of killing a convicted: Hanging is one. In this \nmethod death comes quickly. The electric chair is another way. The exact time \nof death is unknown but four to ten minutes is reasonable. Firing squed is \nthe most disgusting. The gas chamber takes various minutes of misery agony \nbefore the convict dies. Lethal injection is another way of killing the \nconvicted. When used guillotine, a french invention, death comes rapidly. As \nthe last method of killing is stoning which is used in Muslim countries-. No \nhuman deserves to be killed by any human. Whatever s/he does s/he has right \nto live. governments may have to punish people who commit crime but the \npunishment should not be killing them. In addition to this cost of a capital \npunishment is much more then sentencing a person to life prison. Also life of \nhuman is given by God and it is right to be killed by God. On the other hand \nsome people believe that paople should punished according to the rule \"eye \nfor an eye\" but it is very cruel .\nIn every where people are given capital punishment because of their \nillegal behaviours such as murdering and adultry. However it is not a good \nsolution to prevent people doing such things. This is just made because of \nman's blood lust and need for revenge. As [Reference] But killing \nsomeone is not a human behavior .\nPeople live and may do illegal things through their life but it should not \nmean to lost your life because of your only one wrong behavior because we \nare human and we may make mistakes, we are not God! So all human beings \ndeserve to live as [Reference] \nThere may be some crimes to be punished severely, but the punishment \nshouldn't be a murder . [Reference] .\nThe cost of a capital punishment is higher than a life-sentence in prision \nfor the government . [Reference] \nLife is a present from God to human. God gave it and God should get \nit . [Reference] \nBy giving capital punishment, also the government make a negative effect on \nsociety as [Reference] \nAnother reason not accepting capital punishment is that the person who is \nsentenced may be innocent. A person's life shouldn't be relied on a person's \nwords coming from his/her mouth. In countries where capital punishment is \nused, this means that the value of their lives depends on their race and the \njury's opinion of them .\nOn the other hand, some people claims to give punishment with the rule \n\"eye for an eye\" for the people who commit crime . [Reference] \nEvery human has the right to live whatever their crime is. Giving life \nsentence in prison is a good alternative punishment instead of capital \npunishment. Also this punishment (life sentence in prison) much more cheaper \nthan capital punishment for the government. In addition to these God has \ngiven life to human and its His right to take his life away. Nobody can \ndecide another's ending. Capital punishment is very cruel and inhumane .\n" + }, + { + "title": "471_TRCU1107.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nAll human beings always find reasons for all the happenings. May be it is the easiest way to feel ourself better in negative situations. We blame money for all evils since it can give people a comfortable life. Most of the people want to get it in an easy way and they commit all kinds of crimes for the evil money. Money enables gaps between people, it leads people to commit crimes; it causes deaths, it is the reason for people's losing their human values .\nMoney enables gaps between people. Yes, there are really gaps between rich and poor people. Rich people are respected by all the people around them. People address them restpectfully. It does not matter whether they are good or bad. The only important point is their being rich. People do not respect to poor people. Even poor are insulted by people around them. I saw people behaving tovards people according to their wearing. This is really a stuation to pity on. We are human beings but we neglect human values because of this evil money. I belive that rich people are lack of important values. They only order. They do not think the problems of people around them. This is not valid for all rich people but for the general. This situation is the same for all the rich nations too. They do whatever they want. They win the wars. They have more opportunities in agreements after the wars .\nMoney leads people to commit crimes. Everyday we are reading from the newspapers or watching on television the crimes committed for money. There is nothing that human will not do for money. Some people are robbing banks without hesitating. They do not care whether they injure people working there. Some are robbing people walking on the road. There are people who are breaking into houses to steal something. They are again giving harm both the people living in those houses and the goods in that house. They are doing all tese for money. People are sometimes committing crimes for very small things such as something to eat or something to wear but these are again because of being lack of money. Everyday such crimes are getting more and more commen. Because there is an economy problem at everytime in everywhere , so people are committing crimes. There was a broadcast on TV which was wery tauchy and a stuation to think about deeply. There was a family: parents and three children. The \nyoungest child was very ill. He need an operation to survive and the operation was costing too much money to this family. Father was not earning enough money to pay for this. He tried to rob a bank but he could not achieve his goal. Police caught him. After this new, a few rich people helped them and the child had the operation. Some people are committing for they really need, but some are doing this for they have endless demand for money. Drug sellers are the best example of this situation. People are making smuggling or they are selling drugs to earn money. They do not think whether the drugs they sell giving harm to the young bodies or not. They only think the money they will earn in this illegal ways. As we see from the examples the demands are also killing the human values .\nMoney causes lots of deaths. We are again hearing and watching the people committing suicides because of the money. People especially businessmen who go bankrupt again finding the suicide as the only solution. People who have big economical problems are trying to solve their problems in the same way. In such situations people are living a great depression. They hate living. And they hate all the people around them too. They do not want to live anymore .\nMoney is also the reason for people's losing their human values. Especially rich people are lack of all the nice emotions. They only order they think they can solve all the problems with their endless money. This is general idea for rich people but it is not for all the rich people. People are also behaving each other according to their richness. Rich people are more important than poor people. Rich people are more respected ones. They are luckier everytime then others. I have heard that people are deceiving eachother by seeming as a lovely friend to steal eachother's organs in order to earn money. Yes, people are so bad when the subject is money .\nConsequently everybody has a demand for money. This is normal because we need it to live, but the important thing is not to lose our human values for this evil money! \n" + }, + { + "title": "472_TRCU1108.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: In the words of the old song: 'Money is the root of all evil' \n \nWith the invention of new things and the development of technology, some values like honesty, respect, kindness and friendship begin to lose their importance day by day. People give importance money than the other things . They are filled with desire and ambitious , and they become like doing everything to gain the money .\nMoney is the root of all evils. We will examine this under different categories. There are some people who have to do harm, for they are in a bad condition . They are indeed not bad people but as life is very difficult , it drags them into a bad situation . They do crime in order to survive. On the other hand , there are some who want more and more although they have . They are full of badness. In spite of everyting , they do not become satisfied. They can think of nothing else except money, they like it very much. It becomes their friend, in another word, it is everything for them. Money is like a breathe for them. They are excessively fond of money. There is a proverb about this situation; there is something about money that\nis very alluring .\nVariety of crimes like murders, robbery, theft, bribery, gambling, smuggling and prostitution are the result of money. People do these crimes to gain the money and become rich in a short time. We see and hear a lot of things on TV every time that many people kill even their relatives and friends to take their money .\nI think that money causes not only crimes but also the destruction of the relationship between people. It can cause friends to lose their friendship . Nowadays, since money takes place everything , they do not care about values like friendship. If you have money , you have many many friends, you are the boss and you are the most important and valuable person in the world. For your money , they serve you with utter faithfulness and obedience; on the other hand, they can sell you even your friends .\nUnemployment is the most important reason that people may do a crime. Because it drags them into a depression. As a result, they commit a suicide to go on living. Last week, while I was watching news on TV, I saw a man who was arrested because of robbery . His excuse was known; he lost his job owing to economic crises, so he had to do this. He took the responsibility for his wife and three children .\nWe can give Argentina as an example , too. As we know, Argentina had an economic crises last year. The most important result of economic crises in Argentina was the social deststruction. There were many crimes like plundering . People attacked to the shops and plundered the things. Furthermore , for years , money have caused the countries to lose their relationship. That one country thinks of what will benefit itself and wants to enlarge their land, causes wars, \nI will give an another example about theft. I read a news on newspaper that two men who wanted to take the bag of a pregnant woman attacked her. Also , the sister of the woman who tried to help her was attacked. The woman was taken to the hospital, because she was seriously injured. She was about to die and had to stay at the hospital for days. As her life was in danger , doctors did not let her give a birth . Otherwise, she would lose her life. I do not understand these people , how they can attack a person to take her money .\nAs we see , all of the bad things are the result of money. It has become our most important need like water and food. People speak most of the time about it, because everything depends on money. The one who pays the piper calls the tune. However, we do not know how to use. As we give importance money than the other things , everything becomes unbalanced. If we can balance everything and use the money properly , there will be no badness in the world .\n" + }, + { + "title": "473_TRCU1125.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \nWe are living in a very big world as a human beings. There are many new things which appear every second in our life as a technology, science, math, etc . . . So we must be ready for all those conditions to adapt easily without hesitating . In this section, the universities enter and play an important role in our life for adaptation. They have got many aims but one of their most essential aim must be include to prepare quality graduates. Now, we will analize whether the universities have these approaches or not .\nIn our country or in abroad there are billions of universities which have got billions of students. Each person goes to university for different purposes. These aims can be to have a job, to have knowledge for the rest of their life or to earn money. Here, maybe the most important idea comes to the minds like these companies prepare their customers to the real life or not. When we ask this question to students we got many responses. Some of them said that they were given enough information for the future and the education was not only therotical . However there are some similar answers, a large number of student claimed that the education was not good to be ready for every circumstances in their coming life .\nThey have got some reasons to have an thought like the universities are not enough. First of all, they argue that they have not got any modern lab as a visual aids. Even though they learn theoretical information it is meaningless without doing any practice in labs or in any other conditions. Some of them also added however there are some labs but they are not equipped with the machines of their fields. Morever there are not enough seats to sit down, they can not attend to the classes . This condition is really serious for a university because the meaning of education must include every circumstances and be able to give every single knowledge to the students. So, the labs must be an important issue and donated according to the recent improvements in technology. Especially the students of Engineer Department claim that a lot of problems are waiting for them when they graduate .\nWhen we continue to talk with students we meet with a different subject which is related again with the little value of universities. They said some unnecessary lessons make them busy, so they spend their time with meaningless subjects. According to them, these kinds of lessons are just for doing something silly. In addition to this they said when they look at the subjects in textbook they can not see any useful information which are related with their department. Also when midterm or final exams come they have to memorize all those things for nothing .\nIf we continue to ask the same question , maybe we will get similar or same\nanswers. Therefore the universities claim that they have not got enough capital, it must not be a reason. The world needs human beings who are aware of their environment and be ready for every chancing. As a conclusion we do not see defending people with the events, in contrast logical and smart people who adapt themselves to every conditions. Knowledge might not be only therotical but also practical .\n" + }, + { + "title": "474_TRCU1130.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \nIn all nations and education systems. universities are one of the favourite topics which are always criticized. Some says university degrees are therotical. some says not. But to say that they have totally little value in our lives will be a very faulty belief. Therefore. there are some points that explain us why they can be therotical and some points that prove us having a university degree a good helper all time. In this study . you will see all these points related to both of these sides from perspective of a university student .\nWhen we look at its positive sides. firs of all. we see that therotical lessons must be included in evey department. It is nonsense to think that university students should only learn practical lessons. Of course. we study our lessons therotically. and the area we will practice them will be our lives. For example. in ELT Department. there are some pedegogial lessons. in which we learn about psychology. especially psychology of students. Since we will be english teachers. we will practice them in schools. If we don't have enough knowldge. what will happen in the future. in our bussiness life. So. theory means that enlarging knowledge about our own area and practice means that applying these knowledge into real life .\nAnother side. which prove us university degrees are not therotical. is that a peson have to know all the details of his/her job. Again for our department. only knowing the language is not enough itself. We have to know literature and cultue of the country that we teach its language. Practicing these in our lessons will be very benefical during our teaching life after the university .\nAlso. there is one more positive aspect of having univesity degree. Universities are a good chance to enrich our knowledge about life. A person graduates from univesity with a lot of expeinces; not only about his/her profession. but also about people and social life. In our country. a freshman comes to school about 18-20 years old so this is the first step of him to real life. He experiences living far away from his family. He learns how to struggle against life on his own. He meets a lot of people and lives a lot of thing with them. He transfer new information from them to his own pesent life and keep some of them to use in his future life. Because of all these reasons. it will be wrong to think that having university degree has little value. and doesn't prepare us to real life .\nOn the other hand. if some conditions musn't be provided. university degrees become therotical. First condition is that. lessons given in universities have to be suitable to the nation's characteristics. in which univesity is settled down. For instence. in our department. we have Material Development lesson. In this lesson. we learn preparing materials suitable for classes contain 20 or 30 student. In contrast. in Turkey it is almost impossible to have classrooms in this number so we will never use information that we learn in this lesson .\nSecond condition is that . some departments need some equepments. If goverment doesn't provide them these tools. teching university becomes therotical. For example. Could it be thought that a computer engineering department without computers? What will do they in the lessons? Only they get some infomation from their books and unfortunately. since they don't know how to use information. they will fail in real life. And people among them think that going to university useless. university graduates don't know any thing .\nThirdly. a university has to change itself accoding to time. While eveything is changing and new things are being invented. for a university staying at the same point with same information will be a big demolition for its students. If a student gain new things from shool. it will be easier for him to practice them in real life. But if university give him infomation from his big . big grandparents' time . it will be end both university and student. Because he got therotical knowledge from university which he never use. And again university become therotical and its degree will have little value in student's life .\nAs a conclusion. universities are not valueless institutions that never prepare their graduates for real life. It is us that make universities therotical. When we - nation and goverment-give enough importance toour universities . we will have sophisticated university graduates who have enough knowledge about their job and life .\n" + }, + { + "title": "475_TRCU1131.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nI agree with the statement that most university degrees are theoretical and don't prepare students for the real word and therefore they are of little value. However, this never means that university education is not so useful and important. Conversely, it is necessary and it is the base step for the real world since it supplies students with jobs in their future life. However, because of some reasons the value of most university degrees decreases .\nFirst reason is that most universities give importance to only theoretical information. They don't pay attention to practice. Although they are both necessary in a sufficient and efficient education and they are a unit together, they only supply the students with the theoretical part of what they need. However, in such a system the students are led to memorize and especially in the exams they do so only to pass the class. But, such a system never works. Because, theoretical information is easily forgotten after a time when it is not turned into practice. That time, the student are deprived of both practice and theoretical information. So, many lessons they have taken become meaningless and therefore university degrees become of little value since they don't reach the aim of preparing students for the real world .\nSecond reason is that some universities provide a chance for students to practice what they have learned, but I think they are not valid. Because the students practice in nor real conditions. As an example, I can give the teaching practice made in education department. Because the students make a role-play while practicing. I mean, instead of real students who will learn the subject, they practice with their friends. Therefore, they don't meet a real problem that they can face in real conditions. They don't have a chance to see their weak and strong sides in teaching. Everything seems all right although in real conditions it may not. Besides the materials they use in teaching may not be available in their teaching and so they may be obliged to tell a lesson without some materials. Therefore they can have some difficulties. Expect these practices made in classroom, the students also go to training to the schools. However, I don't think they are enough. Because they go to training only one \ntime a week in their second year of education and they only observe what the teacher does. They get a chance to tell a lesson in real conditions only in their fourth year, but they don't teach everytime they go to training. It is sometimes and I think it is not enough for the students to be well-prepared for their real teaching .\nOne more reason of most university degrees being of little value is due to some students and teachers. I think, many of them don't pay enough importance to education. For example, the students don't attend the lessons regularly. They either don't do their homeworks or copy it from their friends. They memorize the theoretical information given to them only to pass the class, instead of learning them and after a time they for get many of them. Besides they can also cheat in the exams. So, all of these things decrease the value of university degrees. On the other hand, some teachers don't make their responsibilities properly. Some may not come to lessons regularly and some only come, tell the lesson and go. They don't make the students to learn better. So, the teachers may also cause the value of university degrees to decrease .\nTo sum up, most university degrees don't prepare students for the real world because of some reasons. They don't give a chance to students to practice what they have learned theoretically. Although some of them provide such a chance, sometimes it may not valid and enough. The teachers and students themselves, also can cause the university degrees to be of little value. Therefore, the universities should make students to practice properly to be well-prepared for the real world and the students give very much importance to their education since they are responsible of their own life. The teachers should also help them as much as possible .\n" + }, + { + "title": "476_TRCU1138.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Capital Punishment \n \nFor centuries, capital punishment has been performed all over the world in order to punish criminals. Capital punishment is a legal infliction of death as a penalty. In fact, the death penalty is the most controversial penal practice in the modern world . Whereas some of them object to this punishment, some support it. The some death penalty methods mainly used today are hanging , the electric chair, firing squad, the gas chamber, lethal injection, guillotine and stoning. For some people, capital punishment is necessary, because it is a way to provide peace in society. Unlike them, many people against to this cruel form of punishment because of several reasons .\nFirst of all, everyone has the right to live and everyone should respect to this fact. There are many people around and they have different characters and behaviours. Although it is natural and necessary to punish the illegal behaviours for peace of society, nobody deserves to kill because of his/her behaviours. The punishment of murder shouldn't be killing, for example. It is not right the extermination of human beings in the name of justice. The government should find another way instead of death penalty such as sentencing someone in prison. Life is a present to us from God and only God should take it away from us .\nSecondly, the methods of capital punishment are so cruel and they are not accepted as humane. In 1977 Oklahoma became the first U. S. state to authorize execution by lethal injection. Lethal injection is when a lethal gas is place into the convict strapped down to the table. In addition, there is recent news; a woman who has been punished by stoning in Iran, because she has a baby without getting married. This kind of penalty is cruel and inhumane and also it is contrary to Islam. Furthermore, if you watch \"Green Mile\" on cinema, you can see its brutality. There is a man punished by death penalty and he is strapped into electric chair and electric current is passed through his body. It is really inhumane .\nFinally, there is a question comes to our minds. Is capital punishment really effective? Does this death penalty really prevent the crime in society? In fact, it doesn't work because the rate of crime is increasing day by day. Death penalty is not a prevention for criminals. For many criminals, being killed is better than sentencing the rest of their lives in prison .\nAs a conclusion, people who commit crime should certainly be punished in order to prevent crime in society and it is also necessary for peace of society. But capital punishment is not an acceptable because of the reasons written above. Meanly, Everyone deserves to live and nobody, including government, decides on someone's life. Capital punishment does not really prevent the crime. It is the another reason of opponents of capital punishment. Finally, because the death penalty is a cruel form of punishment, it should be abolished in the world. Today 80 notions have abolished the death penalty and they use imprisonment instead of it .\n" + }, + { + "title": "477_TRCU1177.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \nI am a third class student in ELT department and when I ask my self about the quality of the education that I have been taking , I realize that it is mostly full of theoretical information and university education does not prepare me for real conditions. In an other word university education does not provide me with the necessary experiences for teaching satisfactorily in the future. This situation decreases the value and importance of university education in my mind. So in some aspects I agree with the idea that most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for real world. They are there for of little value. The main reason for thinking so is poorly designed lesson plans of universities .\nThe chief reason decreasing the value of university education is insufficient lesson plans. I think being a good teacher has some important components such as knowing your subject very well , knowing how to teach it to the students , being able to sympathize with students , being able solve different problems etc . . . Sometimes I ask that how many of these features we will have when we graduate from the university as English teachers. As first I think of our subject , namely English. It could be possible to accept that at university we learn English in a sufficient way. In an other word we have the first feature , adequate knowledge of our subject , of a good teacher. But when we ask about the other components of the ideal teacher it impossible to say that we gain those features during our university education , because lessons such as teaching methods and education psychology taught at universities are designed in a poor way , and so these lessons can not go further than providing \nstudents with theoretical information. They are just theoretical because , these classes are designed just for the ideal situation , for situation that is supposed to be , but not for the real situation .\nFor example; in method classes we are taught a set of teaching method. We study what these methods aim , what kind of activities they consist of , but we do not cover what kind of problems we will have while using these methods. Moreover we do not have the practicing these methods in real situations. In order to practice these methods we have some micro teaching experiences. But these micro sessions are so far from real conditions that we get nearly any profit of them. In this sessions our objects are our classmates so the level is very high and we do not have any problem while experiencing the methods. Every thing goes in a perfect way so we are not able to learn what kind problems we will face while using these methods , what kind of questions we will be asked , in which part of the subject students will have difficulty to understand etc . . . . Since we do not have any problem in micro sessions , we do not know what to do when students come up with an unexpected question , how to answer it. When I start to teach in a school and when I face many unpredictable questions , reactions etc . . , since at the university I am not prepared such kind of situations we will have to produce our own method and we will keep the methods that we study at university just as inadequate information .\nAn other example of poorly designed lessons is education psychology classes. These classes aim to teach us sympathizing with our students , understanding their psychology, feeling etc . . . In these classes the general image of our object , namely the image of our students is thought as the perfect children who are eager to learn whatever we telling. But in real situation we will deal with many different personalities and it certain that all of them won't be wonderful children. We will have problems with our students and we are not given any advice about what we should do when one of our students breaks the concentration of whole class in an unacceptable way or how we should react when a student reject to listen to the lesson , etc . . . Shortly education psychology classes just provides us with insufficient information \nAs conclusion I can say that as a result of poorly designed lesson plans of universities , we will graduate from university as insufficient English teachers. When we face a problem with our students , our inadequate method an psychology classes won't be able to help us and at this point we will try to remember what our primary or secondary school teachers used to do to solve problems or to teach a subject etc . . . In an other word we will probably be a apprentices of our ex-teachers rather than university graduated teachers as result of theoretical lesson plans of universities .\n" + }, + { + "title": "478_TRME3006.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \nUniversities, as we all know, are the intuitions that supply a power of human, in many fields, to the society that they live in. A university student has the chance to learn about his or her personal development, environment, society they live in. In universities, there are many social activities for students that they can enjoy in their free time. Also psychological field help students to overcome their problems whenever they want. Beside, this institution help students to see what he wants to see or what he wants to do. But, all the while, many of us think that university degrees are theoretical and do not preparing students to the real life . Therefore they are of little value. If so, what can be done? Both as students and teachers. In my opinion, university is the place or institution that has pink clouds covering it, as real life requires many responsibilities. Being a student gives us the feeling that you don't need to search for something, you will have to teach. I can say that, as a student, we don't \nlike searching for something or trying to know, just somebody will give the order and then we try to learn about it or search for it. So if a graduated university student doesn't have any or enough knowledge about everything, this not only the fault of the system but also the students. For me there is no lesson that is useful to the student. All the informations are, even the minor ones that are seen unimportant, are the chains of each other. Maybe the problem is the way we teach a lesson. It's the teachers turn to make the lesson funny or boring! I want to give example from myself: in prep class I had a listening&speaking lesson. In high school almost most of us did not have any speaking activity. Grammar was the only skill that we deal with, but in my prep and first year this lesson was the most interesting lesson for me. I was finding some documents from internet and presenting them. The teacher didn't want me to speak unvoluntarily, she just give me a chance to speak and i have tried to use it in the way that is beneficial me now and in the future. Beside developing my speaking skill i have learned how to control my anger in front of the people in the class. Also i have learned many useful and interesting things from the documents that I searched from internet. İ will be an English language teacher but i do not want to be a typical one-giving a lecture, quizzing. İ want to teach my students maybe funny, interesting or useful thing about the language they learn. So this lesson is related with real life, I think. İ also want to give an example from my second year: Language Acquisition lesson seemed to me a boring lesson but time passed and İ began to understand the beneficial point of this lesson. It helped me to understand how the language is acquired by new born babies and adults. I have to little nephew and İ can see their language development by the help of this lesson. I can say the same thing for the other lessons: Literature and Culture helps me to understand or learn about the people whose language I'm learning and so on... Shortly, I don't think that the university lessons have little value. You may not use it tomorrow but there will be a time to use it. These lessons are related with people and I will be a teacher, means I will be with people. University teaches me to be able to think from other perspective, to look from other people's side. The way of life and the lessons complete each other and this is what makes university beneficial...\n" + }, + { + "title": "479_TRME3019.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of little value. \n \nUniversity degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real life is a common lament of students which exactly represents human beings desire to find everything has been prepared by someone else for them to take the pleasure of. When it comes to the argument on the value of the university degrees , to make the value judgement we should make clear the answers of the following questions: What is it we name real life? What is main task of university education? And as the last question, what is the task of the student during the university education?\nThe term which we referred to as real life defines a complex structure within which a person may get into contact with different people with differing expectations and point of views. This variation in exectations and point of views causes various problems to come to the surface. Then if we want to find a solution to the above complaint about the universities inadequacy we need a university which gives the students a list of the possible human expectations and point of views. Furthermar, it should also be included in the list that which expectation and point of view brings about what sort of problem. Still, it is not enough. The solutions to verying problems should also be listed with a simple easily comprehensible style. That is not it! Such a thing can not even be called as utopia. Then what should be the contribution of university education to a student?\nThe surface responsibility of an university schedule is to supply the students with the theoretical knowledge of their department. This is the most visible but the least important task of a university education. The others, making the students gain critical thinking and problem solving abilities are the least visible but the most vital mission of university education. Students should be expased to as many different point of views about as many subjects as possible. Other than imposing certain truths the system should let the students to realize and criticise different views and construct their own point of views. The tendency of accepting all the things written on a piece of paper as changing truths should be demolished. If a person gains the ability of critical thinking then she becomes able to see the gaps not only in the point of views at other people but also in her own way of looking at life. Realizing the gaps and criticising meself brings together the change and development. A person who can develope oneself becomes a fully functraining person for the society and it beers at the same time personal satisfaction and happiness .\nAdditionaly, education in a university should not be taken as exposing students to a mass of knowledge to memorize. Students should not be lacked at the affective domain, they should be given the chance to apply what they be expanted to cognitive domain. This brings together the maturation of education process the role of the students also very big .\nThe first responsibility of a student is to determine the exact purpose of her university education. She should be able to apply her knowledge into her life and should be open to new ideas and should work really hard. She should also understand that nothing beautiful comes as ready in a big ornamented package in the real life. If one wants something she should give time and enough effort .\nAs a conclusion, the thing which we call \"real life\" is something really difficult to cape with to learn how to come over it no university programe, even the best one, is efficient enough on its own. The cooperation of the education system with students results in qualifed and skilfull students to graduate from university departments and any problem that they will come face to face in reality seems them as impossible to be solved because they would be skilfull enough to find alternative solutions to problems even the ones that seems to be impossible to come over, then the university degree becomes the most valuable thing to passess on the earth .\n" + }, + { + "title": "480_TRME3029.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nToday more and more people from young generation are struggling in a competition in order to win the university entrance exam. Since it is their most challenging and desirable target to become a university student. When they reach their goal and begin to attend it, they see that being there is not the end of the competition. Exams continue till the graduation, till the most basic aim-getting the degree. Although youth expect a great many things such as a good future, a good life and a good career from their degree, most of the time a degree means nothing. Due to the fact that taking a degree does not mean anyone is ready for the real difficult life which gives so many responsibilities or anyone has developed appropriate character to start the new life or anyone is qualified enough to get, deserve a job in my opinion there are a few main reasons that result in these realities I have mentioned above. Firstly, most of the university students study only for passing the exams. Secondly, generally except from private universities, universities are lack of many facilities. Lastly, students do not make any effort to improve their knowledge, skills or any hobbies to add something new into their personality. These are the basic causes I will mention about which decrease the value of the degrees according to me .\nTo begin with we can talk about the students' studying habits. Mostly their only aim is to pass the exams. Therefore, there is no regular studying style, on the contrary, there is last night studying till the morning. What can be expected from such a studying? Because of this type of studying everything is being memorised which can be forgotten in a short time or even during the examinations namely, the knowledge of studied field is useless and futile. Students do not contribute information about their field so much to themselves .\nNext, qualities are not qualified enough for the students to have an opportunity to improve themselves. Even some universities are made up of only one, two or three buildings, nothing more. Yet a good university should have a large campus which consist of illuminated libraries, laboratories, searching centers with computers and leisure centers that enable students to develop themselves. There should not be time for them to stand lazily. In contrast time should be worthy and the students should evaluate their time with beneficial interests .\nFinally, students are effortless. They do not struggle with difficulties. Even though universities aren't well qualified individuals especially young individuals can achieve everything with their ambitions. Only if they can add new knowledge to their existing knowledge by making much research, new skills to their existing skills, new hobbies to existing hobbies they are well educated. All I count require curiosity. University students should be curious about all new things, but not about unnecessary things .\nAs a conclusion, if a graduate wants his/her degree to carry importance or real valve, he/she should have made so many efforts to deserve it. Otherwise it cannot be something other than a blank sheet .\n" + }, + { + "title": "481_TSKC1292.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nI don't agree with the above topic because criminals do what ever they do intentionaly now why should they be taken to rehabilitation; some people have to endure the pain that they cause so they have to suffer also so that they learn what they did was wrong .\nLike in our community if you go to the Kimberley General Hospital on weekends you will see that there are too much cases of assult; too much stabbing and not forgetting rape; so how can we forgive an forget so easily; when you commit a crime you have two choices eather you do that or you don't do it; they are some criminal who will say I did not have a choice I was hungry or I needed the money there is not such a thing; there are people whom don't work or are not employed but they make means of making money. God have given everyone a brain so you can think for yourself what you can do best and set your through and energy on that so that you can achieve that goal .\nFor example in the morning news a man have chop her mother and niece with an axe it was brutally now we the community have to let it go and take that man to rehab; that man is not sick what if that man goes free again because he was not sick he knew what he was doing and goes on to have more innocent lives on the list; these criminals have to face the consequences and go to jail not rehabilitation .\nCriminals have to go to jail and when they are there they have to face hardship so that when they came out of jail they should have repend and know that they are previous live was a sin; most criminals came out repend so they can make right for the wrong doings they did; In some case criminals don't think what they did was wrong so they go on doing crime now for those criminals they do things intentionally and are proud of it .\nLike last year the Goverment let all the under age criminals out of jail saying the jails are full which was wrong because those criminal are back to the street again and are doing what they did but only this time they are doing more crime than before; they are saying that they are now man enought; the Goverment should have build more jail these is a serious problem the Goverment is using money for other things which we the community don't benefit from it they should use money for important things .\nNow what if the rehabilitation also get full where are they going to take those criminals set them free again no it's wrong very wrong; Let them go to jail and face what they did .\n" + }, + { + "title": "482_TSNO1009.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nPersonally I partly agree with the above statement when it says \"the prison system is outdated. The way the police treat prisoners is uncalledfull. The initial establishment of this institutions, I believe was to correct these people, that is why it is called correctional services. Hence they seem to be ignoring the fact that these people (prisoners) are supposed to get out of prison, and go back to the society .\nIf the constitution of the country would be revisited again; the courts law or decisions be amended, maybe it would serve the purpose and accomodates, satisfy every involved party. After the judgement of the court, The magistrates together with the prison wardens must sit down and agree upon the treatment of prisoners. They must treat them equally, they must not look at which criminal offence did the person commit. Because they appear to be overlooking matters and personalising things. More that correctional services does not have the vivid information pertaining cases they only appear in picture after the person is already sentenced .\nApparently what is happening in prisons its devastating, its making matters worse. The prisoners feel they are being isolated. But they must be given reasons as to why, them specificly are placed where they are. They must be given a reason to understand, to want to see themselves again as members of the society .\nConditions within the prison cells are really harzadous, they must be impoved. Even amongst them (prisoners) its not good, they jeopardise each other's lives. Should they be given reasons to treat each other decently, there would not be killings in prison. The thing is these people lack information, they do not have hope, they need to be assured of the good things that they will be able to do when they come out of those prison doors .\nThe reason why I say the constitution should be revisited is that, Immediately when a person is sentenced or have a criminal case, automatically in the eyes of our country is labelled a criminal. This person cannot be granted a permission to work anywhere even if his or her qualifications allows him. Meaning is not being taken there to be rehabilitated but to be punished. That thing affects the entire life, because every single application form that you fill asks if you have any criminal case. Automatically you are not given a reason to behave well in prison, you have already lost confidence in yourself. More especially when you are sentenced for many years .\nTo have a criminal case it is not what you choose deliberately. It might be a conspiracy by your enemies. People should not be judged by the criminal cases that they have, rather be judged by their behaviours or the way they conduct themselves, inside and outside prison. Though there are those prisoners who a willing to change, but being influenced by others to be who they are not .\nHowever the society plays the biggest role in determining who these people really are, after leaving prison. The society distance itself from these people, they see them as criminals, without evaluating if these person changed. Even family members they isolate you, when you are sentenced automatically they forget all about, take you out of family plans. This is really immoral its unethical. It is against the norms and value of the society, there suppose to be unity amongst people no matter what .\nIn some instances they cannot even be given food, they now resort back to bad things like stealing. What lead to this? The way the society Perceives them. Sometimes they even decide to make prison their homes because they are not welcomed at home. They do not see the neccesity of belonging somewhere. Sometimes even if they are at prison family members and friend do not pay them visits .\nIf maybe the legislature, Correctional services and the society can emerge and implement an organisation which will deal with problems and matters relating to these conditons it will serve a purpose, not excluding prisoners from this alliance, so that they can raise their concerns and grievances. Together we can make or build a better nation .\n" + }, + { + "title": "483_TSNO1068.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "NA", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nThe prison system is troubling our sisters and brothers. Just think of the darkness and the treatment at the prison. The police themselves are likery to change their attitudes towards these people. They make them their slaves by washing their clothes and these Prisoners have to make sure that these prisoners do their job well before they gave them something. I would say the prison system make these people feel that they are not human beings, part of them belongs to animals now that they are treated like animals .\nFor example the treatment that they receive at the prison some of them end up commiting suicide. Their minds began to change, others end up being mad asking themselves where did everything went wrong, why did She/He did that?. Other lost trust in themselves, like asking themselves how will the society take me, my family and my friends will they believe me when i say i don't know how it happened .\nPrison system makes people worse, your mind function faster. You fail to believe that there is an unlocked door just waiting for you to open it .\nAs a result i think Society should not punish the criminals but rehabitate them. Rehabilitation is the best because You will meet professionals who knows better about human beings .\nSome of them know why people behave the way they do, some of them know people think the way the do and others know why people feel the way they do .\nWhen that person who has done something wrong enter there one of the professional (Psychologist) should ask that person to tell the truth if he/she want to get help. That person must answer Questions that the Psychologist is going to ask. Possible Questions will be why did you do that, what came into your mind, Did you know the effects of doing that? What do you want us to do? What are you going to do when you get the remedy .\nThose psychologists i think they are going to make sure that the patient is cured and they will decide when to release the patient .\nFinally to add on the issue of rehabilitating the peoples the psychologists there or Psychiatrists are the ones dealing with human behaviour, human emotions human mind they know better on how to deal with the person concerned .\nBe .\n" + }, + { + "title": "484_TSNO1145.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nTo start with, for something to happen; there must have been a cause, like wise, for prison system to be established, there were a considerable number of factors which were mushrooming, therefore the following are some of such factors; theft, rape, tribalism, Poverty and many more others, not mentioned .\nFirstly if I was cought in the act of stealing, the first thing and the best thing that the low think of is imprisonment, whereas precoution measures should have been applied, For example. I Should be asked where I come from, why I diceded to do that, and if possible be taken home so as to analyse why I came to steal. Maybe I stole becase I wanted to feed my family. If its from that angle, then I Should not be taken to prison, insted I should be given a task or work, even if I'm not educated so that I will be able to feed my poor family. If I'm doing it out of gratitude then I must be taken to prison on harsh. Conditions and if posibble one hand should be Cut off because its the one that does the stealing, if I Continue, one leg should be taken off becase its the one that does the walking. Secondly people who rape should be counselled and maybe tought with literal examples of the damage they have done on somebody, if this is to no avail, well I suggest no imprisonment, what I think should be done is cashation for both male and females to end this unclean behavior .\nHowever this are just Ideas, but Can be of help if taken into Consideration. In Iraque I herd such punishment are used; and Rumour continues that in that Country even if you walk alone at any hour of the night, you will have peace around you; get me right, I m not saying there is no crime in that country, but minor crime is strictly dealt with, that people being packed into prison camps for little crimes .\nLastly trabalism is also a contributary factor, in that, in one Country there are two tribes with different belives, Culture, and history, and when it comes to power, however, one tribe is not fully representd, this leads to that tribe in power, electing only its own people to power on the contrary to the other one, this result in fighting, gansterish and more people being taken to prison, Some for the crimes they did not comit, but just because they belong to the minority tribe. thus prison camps are wrongly used. The fact that the prison systeams are outdated, moreover they are old and not habitable, for instance, you find that a cell or a room is in one place with a toilet, how does one eat or even sleep with a smell of stench all around him. Moreover how do fife people sleep in a cell meant for one. you will find that we are trying to solve a problem with a problem, because in those cells prosioners develop bad behaviours like a male having sex with a male, and this result in incouraging diseases like H.I.V aids and other sextually transmitted diseaseses .\n" + }, + { + "title": "485_TSNO1303.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "NA", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nSociety should not punish its criminals because when they take the law into their hands by Punishing their criminals they end up killing them. These criminals must answer for that bad things that do within the society .\nIf someone did wrong we must take him/her to the Police station and the court will - see whether this crimal is the one that cause the crime. If there is a lack of evidence then that crimals will set free. Some people do crime because they are short tempered. For an example a husband and wife maybe a wife can do many mistakes that her husband did'nt like it, and the husband keep on warning her. At the end he kill her. That husband he must not taken to court. He must be taken to People who will help him. Members of his family should comfort him/her. He/she must be taken to the psychologist/social workers, so that they can talk to him/her and he/she will saw his/her mistakes rather than taken to court .\nWhen she/he will taken to court he/she will be out of bail. Then the society will Punish him/he for his/her wrongs. We should talk to him show him/her wrongs. Then I think at the end she/he ask for mercy because he/she will saw that he/she had done wrongs .\nLook at the case of Mamokgethi Malebane of Katlehong Location of Gauteng Province. Someone came to fetch her at school and then he rape her. After weeks the society knows that he is the one who raped the child. Then he lives with fear. He knows that he is going to be killed at anytime .\nThen he was at Prison for almost a month then out of bail. Then society did not like that thing because the child suffers some injuries the time he rapes her. For him to Protect himself One day he goes to school where child is a learner and taken her to the bush raped her again and kill her. But at the end society knows that he is the one who is responsible for the child's death .\nI think that the first time when that man rape this child, he must be taken to the Psychologist so that he can speak out his problems. I think that if it was so the child will be still alive this time. We the society we must not rush into things. Let the law and Psychologists do their work. If we take crimals to the Psychologists they will try to show him/her that he/she had done wrong and show him the rights and wrongs then I thought he will came back to the society. He will be the right person again .\nMany deaths occurs because we the society we do not rehabilitate that criminals instat we want to take the law into our hands .\nI thought if we can Proceed on rehabilitating criminals high rate of crime will be less. No One will be afraid of one another. We can go whatever we want to at anytime. Nowerdays we live with fear. I am afraid to walk there at Mafikeng town carrying my wallet on my hands because everybody looks on it. Because if they saw it they will ask you to give it to them or they will kill you .\nSo I thought rehabilitation will decrease the crime and death rate. Society should not Punish its criminals let's try to talk to them. Let us show them the right way. To Punish them will not solve anything. They will keep on doing the wrongs. If you know someone with high criminal rate Please took her/her to the people who will help him/her. Don't just leave them that's why they carry on doing the same thing .\n" + }, + { + "title": "486_TSNO1308.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them\n \nSociety should not punish the criminals but try to motivate them or to bring them to their normal lives. No one is allowed to be punished, but to advised about what she/he was doing. This can be solved by inviting psychologists to give them free lessons about their behavior and also the society should be invited to tell them about how they behave in their community. As an individual, you can avoid yourself in many things for an example to be a criminal, youth group and sports should be formed .\nIs a responsibility of the society to motivate the criminals, not to bring them to prison because they are human beings just like anybody. They have their needs in life, they are normal. The society should councel them about how are they doing to be in future. This, can affect them in their mentality. They can be given life sentence if they don't behave well for example if the society tell you about the advantages and disavantages of what you have being all along then you don't take them into consideration, is then that you are judged for a life sentence .\nThe psychologist should also invited to councel them about what is going to happen in future .\nIf you are a criminal, there are some forces that forced you do that, for example if you see a beautiful car, you will steal it for the purpose of money, simply means you are under pressure. They are various ways of getting money not to put yourself in danger. You can go to school and become educated and finally you can get a job .\nYouth groups should be build by the society so that many people could take part. There must be some dramas or music so that they can keep theirselves busy. The aim of this youth groups is to avoid people to misbehave .\nAlso the society should build sports. The sports offices should be there to help people in sport activities e.g. soccer, netball, tennis, high jump etc. People should take part on this activities to keep themself healthy and strongly, because their muscle are working every day .\nAs a person or an individual, you have to avoid yourself in doing wrong thing. The society can call psychologist, youth groups and sports can be formed but if you don't want to change your bad attitude to people, there is nothing we can do. A person should chancge by his or her own mistakes .\n" + }, + { + "title": "487_TSNO1403.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nThe notion of prisoner rehabilitation implies that the inmate needs to be changed. From this notion, it follows that the prison is an ideal place for this change to take place. It is assumed that intensive techniques that will reconstitute the offender so he will live \"responsibly\" in the freeworld can be imposed on the inmate in a highly structured situation. Such notion are not illogical if one believes there is specific factors that can be administered to bring about REHABILITATION. And it is helpful if one ignores basic inconstencies in the environment in which these programs are to be instituted in an environment of fear, aggresion, totalitarianism and exploitation\nTherefore, the society should not punish their criminals but rehabilitate them, because imprisonment is a waste of money. The government uses a lot of money building prisons and employing people who work in prisons. For example, in South Africa, over 3000 people are being trained to work with crime. Futhermore, the government is trying to ensure that there is no overcrowding in prison, which means it has to deal with money. In Empangeni, Qalakabusha Prison has been made bigger and the government is planning to increase also the size of Kokstad Closed Maximum and Devon Pre-Release centre near Springs .\nSimilarly, prisoners are bought food and clothes. In Botswana prisoners are well fed and more money is being spent also in their medical expenses. Moreover, they are bought soccer kits as their teams are in super league. In addition, their shelters are being comforted by nice beds and the houses they live in are electrified. The money the government spent in prisons could have been used in charity societies to assist disadvantaged people like old people, blinds, crippled people and orphans .\nFurthermore, people's dreams are being defered. In other ways, talented people are denied the opportunity to expose their talents. For example, musicians like Mzwakhe Mbuli is now imprisoned and he is no longer singing. This is a waste of people's talents .\nPrisons system exploits people in which they are separated from their families and friends .\nChildren miss their parents and they are being expelled from schools and they do not have anyone to pay their school fees. Some children leave school because they do not have good parental advice. Moreover, they do not have anyone to tell them how good education is .\nSimilarly, if we take Zimbabwe's land reform, innocent people are being arrested because they failed to heed deadline to leave their farms. The government could have asked farmers to share their land with poor people not to take it by force. All These lead from the goverment who stepped its efforts to seize white-owned land as it rounded up more farmers defying eviction notices .\nIn conclusion, I urged that criminals should be rehabilitated to avoid waste of money by the government in criminal premises. An after rehabilitation criminals should ignore basic inconsistancies in the environment as it has been suggested earlier. This, as I think will decrease poverty and the country developments will not be affected as such .\nPrison people are also our problem because they affect our progresses. As people we have to think about prisoners as being criminals or decrease crime rather than labelling them by name of criminals. Words like murderers and thieves should not be used as they are offensive, negative labels that demean and devalue the person as a whole .\n" + }, + { + "title": "488_TSNO1410.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: The prison system is outdated. No civilized society should punish its criminals: it should rehabilitate them \n \nOur prison system is an ideal place for killers, rapers and all those other monsters, instead of being a refuge for them, thus helping them to change their wicked ways. For their own good and our peace of minds, criminals should be converted into better human beings than be made into the worst and indecent human beings .\nGoing to prison, for most criminals, has become the best way of acquiring skills to help them be better at their deeds, when come out. Some of them commit crimes when they come out of prison because, they had been used indecently in their cells, by their in-mates or even the prison wardens. They had either been raped, burnt, or even beaten up, so they become rebellious. Others learn bad habits in prison, like smoking dagga, stealing, killing people or selling drugs. Thabo, an ex-convict, is now a thief, a gang-master and a drug dealer because that is what he learnt from prison . \"The warden, Thembela, who was my buddy, used to sell drugs to us and I learnt from him, the channels and ways of acquiring them\". This clearly indicates that our prisons are higher institutions for criminals .\nFuthermore, James, another ex-convict who sells second hand cars, said he got his skills of hijacking cars and completely covering his tracks from a police friend, who gets thirty-five percent of the profit . \"Morake has taught me well, now I can even do it without holding a gun and you would never know what hit you, then I just relax and enjoy myself with a prostitute\", he boasted. Seeing the look of disgust on my face, he adds wickedly, \"When the money is real good, I prefer a threesome\". Despite the fact that AIDS messages are being preached everyday, he seemed not to care. As if that was not enough, he told me that the reason why he is never worried is because the victims run away without taking a good look at him or they are \"never there to pull shit on me!\", meaning that he kills them .\nIn addition to that, he said \"if it's a man or an ugly woman, I kill them before they know or realise what's happening, but if it's a beautiful woman, I have a taste of that forbidden fruit first and when I've had enough, he has to die, I don't have any choice\". He says that with a shrug of the shoulder as if it doesn't matter. The way he explained the whole thing to me, without even feeling guilty almost made me want to vomit. Prison has robbed criminals of their consciousness, they don't even have feelings anymore. Hurting other people or killing them is just playing soccer or playing chess to those criminals. To them, it is just normal .\nOne would actually ask-questions like; \"If our prisons are like that, where are we headed as a society?\" \"When is it all going to stop, if we are making the situation bad instead of correcting it?\" \"Don't we think that instead of punishing those criminals, we must rathe rehabilitate them?\" According to reseachers, punishing them, only makes them more rebellious, but correcting them by giving them some form of education and counselling may help them to be better members of the society. They should be taught how to earn a decent living out of the little that they have. For example, they could be taught to make hand crafted objects, or plant crops and sell them for a profit .\nLastly, I would say that not all prisoners are criminals, so, the society must not treat them like outcasts because, instead of making them it would break them. Just like new born babies, they need nurturing. They also need to know that we do care and they are our fellow human beings, our brothers, our sisters, not monsters to hate and be afraid of .\n" + }, + { + "title": "489_TSNO1425.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nThis is quite a dodgy issue. First of all we need to understand the initial intention of feminist before concluding wether they have succeeded in their mission or not. Again we need to examine wether these feminists we males of females. It is no argument that the majority of feminists are women which gives rise to the following question:\"why?\"\nTo answer that we begin by defining feminism in lame man's terms: \"It is the kind of process or action that primarily concentrates promoting women issues, their rights as human, their desire to be recognised and respected, to be considered and accomodated in their society.\" NOW for the fact that there is a need for women to be recognised, it clearly indicates that there is a lack of such. This then ushers us into examining why there is a lack of recognition for women in our societies .\nIf memory serves me correct, the plight of women is only but one of the most recent occurances. You should remember that it is only a couple of years ago, when South African women went to some women Empowerment conference in Beijin (sp). That caused a lot of noise, suddenly the nation leaders and civilians were flushed with mixed emotion. Some felt demascubted, some proud of the fairer species taking their stand in the global society. And then there was a commercial craze over the matter, the music industry cashed in on it. American, South African and other European music writers and produces came up with groups Like Spice Girls, Destiny's Child and the likes .\nWith songs like \"scrub\", \"Independent Women\" ' men now really started to feel intimidated. It was the very industry that first started with the retaliation, a coolision led by male musicians against the women generation. I am sure u can still remember the song \"scrub\" and Mandoza's hit single \"50/50\".\nFrom that point, the snowball began. There is nothing more dangerous than a man who feels like less of a man. Women were in parliament, the government is on the women's side, Company's top executives are on skirts, stalkings, high heels and guess what, they wear lipstick, Yes lipstick and eye shadow. To make matters worse for the Adam generation, some Adams now wantedto be Eves. What a blow to a man's ego!!! Well, the real question here, is wether what women started with good intentions, has done them more good than harm .\nI would say that at this point, it still stands an untold mystery. Consider the crimes committed against women, the unspeakable violations against the girl-child. Mental prisons created by the man-people against us women is all physical. It has nothing to do with Intelligence, Integrity or any form of Godly intentions. It is all physical, it a who is stronger than who game. Men in every society have always had an upperhand and wether we'd like to swallow it in or not, even in today's society they still do. It is a sad and heart tearing idea but it is true .\nIt all biols down to this communication. The message women in Beijin were trying to convey to men got misinterpreted by men, No guess who is responsible, the entertainment industry. Who said we didn't want to respect our Fathes, our Future husband, our brothers or our boyfriends? It is certainly not us. But because the message was interrupted, it never did what it was intended to do, instead, it did the opposite .\nYes! Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good!\n" + }, + { + "title": "490_TSNO1426.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nIt is true that our modern is filled with scince technology and industrialisation. But I tend to disagree that there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. Look Science and technology exists in the real world, so I don't see how can it hidder something like adream or imagination which is not for real or those not exists in the physical world .\nInfact the world of Scince technology and in dustrialisation help the main concept of the dreaming and the imagining world in abig way I'll give you an example, 30 years ago people wouldn't dream of communicating globaly with their counterpart from anywhere in the world. But thanks to the dreaming of people like Bill Gates who dreamnt of one day owning his own software / Computer Company which today is possible for us to communicate via E-mail of his computers .\nWe can travel anywhere in the world because have airplanes thanks to some one whoinitialy had a concept in his mind that one day he want to Create an airplane in order to assist people to travel anywhere in the world. So we can say that thinking and imagining is part of Scince and techology .\nThey go hand in hand in order for thinks that are good for industries to be established so that we can live better as people is this world .\nI mean even Cellphones, telephones they were created by people out of their imagination before they were established physically. Any were Science and technology plays an important role in our lifes I may elastrated even of electricity it is amiracle that was initially part a humans-imagination or adream of saying someday I want to establish some like that .\nImean things become more easy even for people who comes from previously disadvantaged communities, door of thinking more and more are opened for thanks to Scince and technology even ifrestructure is accessed easily unlike in previous years were by if you had a poem you would have to write on a tree or stone to keep it in record .\nNow you can write it on a piece of paper or preferably type in using keyboard ofacomputer thanks to technology. You see things and dreaming is no longer just unreal thing on a humans mind but they can come real this time more easier because of the concept of Scince and technology. If want to design a Car I just draft it on my P.C. and Email / it to a certain Car manufacturer if they find it interesting then my dream has now become a visual reality and changes of me getting rich are more and doing that work of designing did not cost me a fortune thanks to Scince and technology. Even lives are being save in operating theaters because if a doctor has said to practice a certain operation but he is Germany but these skills are required here in South-Africa he can be contacted by video phone or other means of visual communication so that he may assist doctors in S.A. with out being travelling all the way from Germen all in all Science and technology is good for our every day lifes .\n" + }, + { + "title": "491_TSNO1428.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nTruly speaking, yes indeed feminists have done more harm to the cause of women in than good in our country. You get a case reported of assault everyday. I once made a research with my friend after a discussion of feminists. Immediately we went and asked why was women beaten so badly by men .\nWe got different answers and the most popular one was that they were not cooking and taking care of children. Rights of women, as the men said, are the once breaking the marriage, mostly these days especially at nights they forget that they have work to do, cooking and satisfying mens needs. They go out with other men while living their husbands in the house. Its not a right thing to beat a lady because she'll underestimate you as man. On the other side men are only looking for themselves, their rights. They like to exercise their rights than women. Ok women are oppressed by men in most cases .\nI can say again feminist have done more harm to the cause of women than good. Sometimes men would like to have sex with wives, their wife don't feel like doing it then that's were problem start, men goes outside looking for another partner and his wife will be upset. Women have rights and men really need to take that in to consideration. The problem is, men feel like women are controlling them. Sometimes the culture, I mean the way women grew, sometimes she feels like it was rudeculous, and after marriage she finds and learn a lot about her rights, because sometimes, but always you mustn't do something that you don't like because its not going to do any good to or satisfy your feelings. Women are treated like animals and the things without them I don't think men can live without them .\nIts not only that feminists have caused harm to women now; early before 1994, women were abused by men but it wasn't out like now. I think men and women should sit down together and think about their rights and what do those rights really mean and how to use freedom. Indeed rights are breaking the marriages. Women are threaghtned by men that they will divorce them if open the case against man. In most of the times women think they don't have a choice when they'll arrest their husbands because they are the only breadwinners in the house, If the husband is arrested who will support them .\nAs men say: the women sometimes pushes them to beat them; they will attend some occasion without telling them were they go and sometimes they'll go out with other men. Rights are really killing both women and men .\nBoth the other one wants this and the other one wants that thing. Maybe if will well talk to each other and try to know one another before getting into the marriage that will help us not to fight but live precious life .\n" + }, + { + "title": "492_TSNO1431.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nI am very much for the idea that the world has been so technolized so much that there is no room for conventionalism. It is sad so see that the younger generation is so hooked onto these man-made devices, they have become dependent on modern technology such as tv. games, computers, calculators, telephones etc. to such an extend that if you asked them to perform certain tasks using basic tools they would not be able to finish those tasks .\nSocially, people used to communicate by letters and word of mouth. whereas these have been replaced by telephones, computers and most recently electronic mail and cellular phones. Youngsters are now unable to utter a simple English phrase without slopping in some slang words or township lingo?s. It is my opinion that when, in the days old, people practiced languages by writting letters and so forth they improved their language skills considerably more compared to today. I believe that these inventions have spoilt the human race because we are so dependent on them we can not see ourselves doing manual things such as washing the dishes, we have to have a dishwasher to survive. This is pathetic of us, we are simply and purely becoming lazier and lazier by the day .\nEducationally, when I was growing up it was my parents? duty to teach me about the world. They had time for me ? even after coming back from strenous work situations my father would sit down with me and teach me basic Arithmatic using butter beans or seeds of some fruit or sorts. When I began my Grade 1 in 1984 I could count, add, subtract and even write my name, never mind the writting of an ancient egyptian but at least I knew what letters of the alphabet constituted my name. Today?s generation need only one tool in mind, the calculator! They just punch away their little index fingers on the keys and out comes the answer. This affects them because they hardly exerase their brain cells therefore their brains become dorments. This makes it difficult for them in future because even if they knew the answer they would not how to present it because their brains have been inactive for a good part of their lives .\nIn the days of old kids learned by playing together in the street but today they just stare at their tv sets and instead of learning things of value, those that build character and instill good morals they watch violent cartoons which do more harm than falling while playing outside. They don?t have people who would teach by story-telling - this helped children to exercise their brains and intelligence by providing a platform for dreaming and imagine the characters in the stories told. They don?t even practice the culture of reading books for entertainment, they only read a book if its prescribed for their curriculum of when they need to research for an assignment .\nOne American study proved that about nine (9) out of ten (10) teenagers consume more electronic media than their counterparts ten years earlier and this proved detrimental as 60% of them ended up with offences ranging from violent outbreaks and unacceptable social behaviour some went as far as becoming juvenile deliquents. I understand, with the invention of mordernised devices, technology was meant to play a vital role in our lives, a role that would benefit the human race positively but seeing that it is doing more harm than good I think we should abolish it .\nThis is evident in the events of September 11, 2001 when the world remained static simply because of what happened in the U.S.A. South Africans were affected by witnessing the downfall of their currency. I believe that we should pack up all these man-made machines and go back to conventionalism. In conclusion man can no more be called the human race but the ?techno race? or ?the thumb race? as one chinese documentary puts it!\n" + }, + { + "title": "493_TSNO1434.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Some people say that in our modern world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination. What is your opinion? \n \nI can believe with people who say that in our modern world dominated by science and technology and industrialisation there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination, because this is what is happening in out daily lives. Now these days is seems as every-thing is now being under the technology ideas. Each and every day some scientists are trying to find some way in which they can use by means of technology. They are doing some researches, and even at some schools some students are encouraged to take some science subjects, starting from the primary level .\nI think that in the late centuries there were no auto-bank machines, traffic light, Computers communication device (eg telephone lines, mobile phones radio and television) but life was good to those people who live by that time. There was a way in which they can communicate and receive information of what is going on. Now these days we have some telephones lines, mobile phones, emails, ect, is which we can stay in touch with anyone around the world. And all of these has been developed by a human being, whom we can call a scientist. By radio and television we can receive information of what is happening around as and around the world. This is by means of technology bcease the television and the radio uses siginals. These signals has been developed by some scientist .\nIn every day of our lives we use technology, even when we are not aware of this. When we go to the automatic bank machiens (A.T.M.) to deposit or to withdraw money, we have used our knowledge of technology to operate that machine (A.T.M.)\nSome of the jobs that are advertised in some newspapers by some employees will need only you if you are computer literate. Some big industies in todays lives uses some technology to operate some of the machiens. And this means that they will not need more employers to work the because some of the work need to be done will be for done machines. It is therefore I agree with thoso people who say our modern world, is dominated by science and technology and industrialisation and there is no longer place for dreaming and imagination. I?m saying this because if you have dreamed to be in a sertain position and that position is operated by means of or technology your dreams are good for nothing .\n" + }, + { + "title": "494_TSNO1439.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nWomen are thought to be the weaker sex. It was believed that a woman?s work is to stay at home and take care of the household and family. In the Old days women were not seen in offices or did not acquire higher jobs, because it was believed that only men were suitable for those jobs. Some women did not go to school at all while some went but never finished. At that time going to school was a waste of time because they were told that they had to help their mothers with the household chores and also prepare themselve for marriage .\nI agree with this motion because women were not given chance to make something of themselves. Even if they went to school and finish, they could not study for the courses that they wanted, because men ruled the universe and told the women that some courses had to be done by men only. This harmed the cause of women because they were not allowed to do what they wanted. At that time women felt that they should not question what they were not allowed to do, but ended up believing that men were the one?s in power, because men were the breadwinners of the families .\nThis became so simple to the feminists because they had women where they wanted them, they were like party in their own hands. The whole world also came to believe that women were weak and could not do a man?s Job or think actively like a man. This harmed women in a way that they could not do anything for themselves except to take care of the family. Women were often abused by their husbands but they never asked for help because they believed that their husbands were the men of the house and it was okay for them to beat their women if they misbehave or try to make an opinion of something. Women started to believe that they were not clever and they can?t stand up for themselves .\nWomen are special in our lives. They bear childrens for their husbands and takes care of the whole family. A women knows when something is not right with her family and can make thing better. If feminist continue to harm them they will end up destroying them and will have no one to take care of them .\n" + }, + { + "title": "495_TSNO1448.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nGender equality is what we aim to do, there will be no sexism. This is what feminists preach on a daily basis, but they never practice what they preach. Little or no change has been done .\nA lot of women have been given bad treatment, and treated unfairly because of who they are. If you?re strong willed, and ambitious that is when people try by all means to bring you do. Gone are the days when men were regarded as the heads of houses. Gone are the days when this world was regarded as a ?man world?. If a woman makes it to the top, in this day in age, people still say they ?slept their way to the top?. If you?re a woman and have a high position, the men below you feel they don?t have to answer to you. As far as I?m concerned people who still think that way, have absolutely nothing going for them. They?re also disgustingly ignorant and narrow minded .\nI?m not saying women should be given more power over men. All I?m saying is gender equality is what most women what. I don?t think you should be treated badly because of your gender, because you?re regarded as the weaker sex. People should learn to realise your values, your personality, they should look past your skirt. They should take time to analyse who you are, what you?re offering and why you?re really there .\nInstead of being treated equally, they?re treated harshly. Because even today people are still living in the stone age, its sad but its true. I think the whole situation has gone worse. The more equality is preached, the more things deteriorate .\nSomething as brutal and ?spine-chilling? as rape still exists. Do you know why?, because women are regarded as weak, and the men as strong. Weak in this case because she couldn?t fight back, weak because she actually got raped. I?m not generalising, but unfortunately some people?s brains are pea-sized. So this is how they still think. Some women?s ego?s have been bruised and battered, their self esteem gone down the drain. Because subconsciouly this what they believe, that men will always be in control. That is why even today, for some women to actually make a decision they have to get the go ahead from their partners .\nSome tswana cultures are to blame, to a certain extent. In some tswana cultures, you are by no means supposed to ask your husband. Where he?s been its rude, not to mention disrespectful. As well as when he verbally abuses you, you?re meant to keep quiet. Things like that were probably considered in the olden age. They shouldn?t still be considered today. Becauseb I?d like to think things have changed since those days. Or rather things should change, because if they don?t change... Then we shouldn?t ask for equality, and a better world .\n" + }, + { + "title": "496_TSNO1457.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nMost of students when the leave the university they seem not to know what to do when they are exposed to job situation. In most cases one will find that much time is spent on re-training them trying to equip them with relevant skills for whatever job they are to take as a career. Supervisors and other concerned parties are forced to leave their day to day activities to come to the rescue of the poor graduate who meets bottlenecks in practical exercise .\nWhen people or colleagues find that a graduate is posted to their institution, they fill very happy and proud thinking that they are going to gain a lot from him because he would come with new ideas since he is fresh from a higher institution. Only to find that the person is vague, unskilled and expecting more from them, there is no exchange of knowledge since he knows close to nothing. He cannot perform any duty allocated to him by himself he needs close supervision which makes other people leaving their work to suffer and help the poor fellow .\nSometimes it takes time for the person to cope with the work situation, he needs time or even workshops to assist him. There would be a problem if one is posted to an istitution where members of the staff are not collaborative, they would leave him to suffer saying that let us see what he is going to do because he poccesses a degree. The graduate would feel that he is incompetent and decides to run away from his career because the university did not equip him with real work situation but theory .\nSome fields such as agriculture, nursing, teaching etc need a lot of practical skills time and again during studying period at the university. Students should be taken to their relevant fields to be exposed to the work not just to be stuffed with assignments that do not do them any good at the end of the day. Expose them to the patients that they are going to nurse, to the students/learners that they are going to educate to the farms that they are going to work on .\nSo all in all we can say that the university is doing only 50% of the work (theory) and leave the other 50% (practical) for people in the field to finish it which is time consuming and delays productivity .\n" + }, + { + "title": "497_TSNO1462.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B2+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nThree years of one's life is spent reading reading and reading, if one is at a university. Where is the fun in it if all you do is read and don't get practical?\nOther people may say that it is precise. True. But the only time you get to experience what you have been reading about is only when you have completed your studies, and some degrees take four years to complete even five if necessary. An example would be the LLB degree. It has a four-year curriculum and a five-year curriculum, and do believe me when I say after you complete your degree, you still have to go to a law school in order to be considered \"qualified\". But that does not guarantee you a job, you still have to hunt it down. How are companies going to recognise your capability if they do not know about you? That is what I think practically tries to emphasise, \"your capability\".\nI consider university theory sacrete. I mean, whether you pass with distinctions and understand your studies very well, who knows about it hah? Only when you have completed your degree may you be considered to be \"semi-qualified\". Why \"Semi\"? Because experience plays a major role in one's ability to get a job. So if you don't have experience, people might as well refer to you as an \"amateur\". One would just crack thinking of the hell one went through, all those sleepless nights, trying to get it right .\nAnother thing about universities is that the cost a fortune! Some may say it is a challenge that one faces to study hard and get distinctions so that one can receive a bursary. Also true. But what happens then to a B-aggregate student hah?! The only way one can get a bursary is when one gets more than three distinctions. And what do we call this \"psychologically\"? We call it pressure!\nJust because some students manage getting more than three distinctions does not mean \"One can, all can\" As individuals, we are all different. That is why we are reffered to as individuals. We all have our ways of doing, observing and understanding things and those ways aren't all the same. That is why we also have another concept called \"perspective\" which is defined as one's mental window through which one looks at reality. That's also why our population groups are divided into two groups, the other being rich ant the other being poor. This shows that not everyone does the same things, have the same things and has the same things .\nIn conclusion I want to say, students should be given an opportunity to explore you know, get practical. This will serve as another way of making it in life for students, especially those who cannot afford tuition fees. At least being practical and studying has a point. This point being that one gets more educated and becomes more better at what one does. Eventually all this leads to every worker's favourite word, \"a raise\".\nThere is a difference between knowing and understanding. When you know, is when you have seen or read something. But understanding is a whole new different concept. Understanding entails experience. That is what learning is all about, learning and understanding and in my opinion, universities contradict what I have just said. Afterall, how does one know something if they haven't really understood it???\n" + }, + { + "title": "498_TSNO1482.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nMost of the University degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world / their new working place where they will be employed. University is different from the colleges and Technikon because they offer a practicals on their second and last year .\nTimes have changed its unlike the past years where you will be asked for a [?satain?] qualification and be employed. Today the situation is different the government and most of the private sectors require a practical experience and of at least 2 to five years. Think of all the hard time's you go through and the [?expeneess?] you lose, after all the hard work for four to five years at you institution then you graduate. After all the hard work of educating you self then you go and look for a job, when you get there they ask if you have [?ana?] experience of you Qualification .\nDuring the segregation era people where encouraged to go to School now people have the education but they are not employed. Its even worse for the university students - because they have no practical experience even their refferences can not recommend them for a working experience, unlike Technikon Students. That is why people say universities are therefore of very little value for today's life time .\nIt's about time all the universities starts to consider this problem or the department of education, who ever is in charge must make sure that all university starts benefiting the students. Our government says its working towards a better life for all, if thats the case they should starts with the unemployment issue first because most of our brothers and sisters are educated but their at home and I am affraid that we might fall in the same trap .\nI am very concerned about the problem because it might affect some of us. The government and the private sectors must stop asking for the experience that we don't have. How can you have a working experience when you have not worked before are still fresh from the university. I Think they are the ones that have to come up with a solution to the problem e.g. when they have vacant post's they should go to the different institutions and look for student who are busy with their last year and appoint them for different positions in different departments of the government .\nIf these issues are to be considered the problem can decrease with a high rate and some of the students can be motivated to work hard so that they can also get a chance to be short listed for the vacant post in certain companies or at different departments of the government .\n" + }, + { + "title": "499_TSNO1488.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1+", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Feminists have done more harm to the cause of women than good \n \nIn the time past women were oppressed by men in many ways than one. They could not be independent or even express themselves because everything or situations back then did not allow them. But now since we are living in a global world things are changing. Men did not allow women to be who they wished to be because it was [?t a worm?] that a woman's place is in the kitchen. So men generally were there main culprits as far as feminism is concerned. Even in places like a church, women were nor allowed to occypy leadership positions by men .\nToday things have changed dramatically after the democratic changes in South Africa even in the World. But in Some Countries feminism is also a problem. In Communists or totaliterian countries women are still oppressed, in a way their talents are wasted. These led to women to unite against their governments .\nIn South Africa, during the apartheid regime women were oppressed by the government even in their communities. Bur they played a [?pivotent?] role in gaining their freedom and for their rights to be recognised. Culturally and traditionally women were oppressed by their husbands and the chiefs. It was a widespread problem for them. But they continued to fight for their independence and for to be treated as equals in the society .\nAfter democratic elections in South Africa things changed. Women fought for their rights. In democratic countries or civilised societies women are treated as equals. Their independence helped them not to be treated as an inferior beings to men .\nUnfortionately these independent women are misintepretting equality and independence as freedom. Some women feminist are out to prove a point that they can do things on their own. They don't care who gets hurt along the way. This is causing problems in the society or in many homes. Many families are broken or destroyed because women (feminists) cannot obey their husbands or atleast be mothers in their homes. They still want to exercise their new pound power over their husbands or families. So this is doing more harm than good to them because nobody wants to be with them let alone marrying them .\nIn Civilised societies, feminism is practiced by both men and women. We are now doing in an upnormal society because of these [/anisisfeprefations?] . Some women feminists are going for revenge against men or those who took away their independence for so long. Some spend the rest of their lives unmarried because nobody wants to be with them. Men choose to be with the less educated, rural women than with those who have many degrees / or more educated. They are bringing hot coals over themselves because of their egos. Education or [?Oudating?] big companies by these women is causing problems for them. They are materialist .\nThe heartbreaking issue is that of their kids. They grow up without father figures to look up to. They want to have control over everything. They are unable to distinguise their role as women in their homes as in the society. This is a problem not only for them but also for those who are close to them .\nI believe women should be given a free role in the governance of the country and in their homes. But they should always remember that they are women. They need men to make things [?wornel?] for all concerned. Oppression over women is not good at all. Women's rights should not be violated. They are of course the weaker sex but they have rights and they should be respected by every body. Life is becoming unbearable because of feminism. It is doing more harm to men and women than good. We should respect each others rights. God created men and women to live together. We need each other to complement and fulfil each others abilities .\n" + }, + { + "title": "500_TSNO1489.txt", + "lang": "en", + "source_name": "icle500", + "format": "document-level", + "category": "learner", + "cefr_level": "B1", + "license": "CC0 1.0 (Public Domain)", + "text": "Title: Most university degrees are theoretical and do not prepare students for the real world. They are therefore of very little value. \n \nMost university degrees are theoretical in so much that they do not prepare students for the real world. When thinking of theory part of it things seem to be more difficult because children learn by doing. So I am in an opinion that students be given as much practical work as they can because from the university one need to help the society he or she is going to meet in many different ways. If you are given more practical work, you will be able to deliver the content without problems, supposing you do nursing, and just do it theoretical, how is one going to handle different people with different deseases. Teachers at all levels can't teach without apparatus for pupils to understand the lesson very well. They will be made to handle the objects so that they click in their minds. They wont even forget what they were taught at a certain standard even when they are old men and women. Practical work in an important tool. It makes one to be more capable and sure of what he or she will be doing to the nation .\nThere are some subjects which need more practical than theory i.e. if you take science, Agriculture and Computer lessons. You can't tell a student that there is an instrument called thermometer which is used for body temperature. How is that very particular person going to identify it if she did not handle it and use it .\nMost of our work demands a lot on practicals so let this method of being theoretical come to an end not meaning that it should be abolished altogether but be limited. Students should be taught exactly what they are there for because things will be more easy for them when they go back to their work station. This is the time whereby we are going to be called dead woods because one cant be a degree holder who cant even show the lower position holders that this is what I know and what I want you to do .\nYou cant teach pupils how to use an instrument which you dont know and you have never come across. I stress a point of not doing practicals as a concern. Let students be given their chance. Let the concerned people not deny student their chances of being capable and knowledgeable of performing their duties satisfactorily .\n" + } +] \ No newline at end of file