- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
It is a fact that the Olympic Games will bring thousands of tourists to our country. I believe people from every part of the city will benefit with the tourists’ arrival, even people from the outskirts of the city. A large number of jobs (formal and informal) will be created during the Olympic Games and the poor people will also benefit from them. It is true that the event will not affect directly the sanitation problem in the outskirts of the city, nevertheless, as an indirect result of the large profit Rio de Janeiro will make hosting the Olympics, the authorities may use this money to the improvement of the whole city. So, in a way or another everyone will benefit from the Olympic Games.
There is another point to be raised about keeping guns at home. While some people would use it just to protect themselves from thieves, other people could use it against their own relatives. It is a fact that many women suffer domestic violence all over the world, and I believe that it would be even worse if violent people had the permission to keep guns with them. And, as said before, if a child finds a gun an accident is bound to happen. Moreover, I think a greater number of people would die for trivial things if guns were allowed, for example, a couple’s argument could easily finish in death or teenagers who want to take a look at the gun and show it to their friends could accidently shoot the handgun, as happened many times before. Therefore, I believe that having a gun at home is very risking and it brings more danger than protection to a family.
I agree with the people who said that we cannot generalize the dependency on technology to a whole generation, but I believe that the majority of people rely too much on the internet. For the ones who were born before the technology era, like I was, it is possible to live without technology, like Thais did. But, for the ones who were born surrounded by technology, that is, children, I think it would be really difficult for them to manage having fun, studying and so on without technology. To prove that technology is the main part of children lives nowadays, there are lots of examples of children who were forbidden of playing videogame or using the internet after having done something wrong. That is how parents ground their children these days.
Nevertheless I do not think it is their fault to be so dependent on technology. Our world is too technological nowadays, and we have to be able to use it, otherwise we cannot find jobs or even to study. So, I believe the biggest challenge for new generations is to make a good use of technology and learn how to do things without using it, however, it is extremely difficult for people who never lived without a cellphone or computers.
There is a better chance for the student to like a subject if this student likes the person who teaches this subject, that is, the teacher. A friendship relationship between teacher and students can benefit students’ development if the teacher is able to handle the situation. For example, in my school a group of students used to play soccer and basketball with a group of teachers every week, and these matches happened in the courts of the school, with the permission of the principle. This group of students started paying more attention to the classes after this interaction, but this happened because the teachers could separate the time to play from the time to teach. Therefore, if the teacher has the ability to play the role of a teacher in the classroom, not of a friend, this friendship is welcome.
Although I am against abortion, in the case the baby is anencephalic I consider it to be understandable. The nine months that a mother carries her baby are supposed to be happy, not to be nine months of torture. There is no point in obliging a woman to keep a baby in her belly once the baby will not live more than 24 hours. These 24 hours maybe cause the mother to suffer during the whole pregnancy, more than that may cause psychological problems to the woman. Of course a mother can wish to have her baby even knowing about the problem, what I consider to be a huge act of love. However, there are cases that the mother is not willing to go through such pain and, therefore, I think this mother should have the right to choose whether or not to go on with the pregnancy.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!