Writing for Academic Discussion Do you think it is more beneficial for schools to emphasize winning in sprots events, or should the focus be more on participation and personal development?

In the context of school sports programs, here is often a debate between prioritizing winning and focusing on participation and personal development. Considering the impact on students’ growth, team dynamics, and school culture, do you think it is more beneficial for schools to emphasize winning in sports events, or should the focus be more on participation and personal development?

 

 

☆Let’s Read

Read the following excerpt from educauraa.com

 

What is the Aim and Objective of Physical Education    

The Aims are,

1. To keep the students active and free-minded

2. To help maintain a healthy life

3. To develop the body agile and flexible

4. To grow a sportsperson’s spirit within

5. To develop movement proficiency 

6. To have a proper appetite and sound sleep

7. To concentrate on studies 

8. To develop motor skills 

 

The Objectives are,

1. To generate behavioral changes; physical and cognitive 

2. To integrate the mental strength 

3. Teaches the student to respect the diversity among people

4. Improves body language and communication skills

5. Enhances creativity of mind and aesthetic senses 

6. Nourishes the mind with ethical values

7. Grows confidence and prepares for the future

8. To retain emotional stability during a crisis 

9. Teaches to love and respect Nature

 

 

☆Let’s Think

1.        What’s Olivia’s point? Do you agree? What’s Ethan’s point? Do you agree?

2.        Which policy will help make friends, focus on winning or focus on participation and personal development?

 

 

☆Hints for Points

Emphasis on Winning

1.       Contest, or competition, is one of the major elements of sport.

2.       It easily motivates students because passion for winning is instinctive.

 

Emphasis on participation and personal development

1.       “The important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win, but to take part; the important thing in life is not triumph, but the struggle; the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.” – Pierre de Coubertin

2.       “Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence win championships.” – Michael Jordan

3.       Ability to work as a member of a team is required in society.

 

Problems related to emphasis on Winning

1.        Focusing on winning can promote the “The-end-justifies-the-means” attitude, and this will degrade humanities like losing the spirit of fair play.

2.        Competitiveness is the core mindset of the capitalist society, where the winner takes all while the loser is not taken care of. This will weaken the population.

 

 

☆Sample Answer

【Thesis】If education is to civilize people, it’s to not stimulate instinct, and so physical education should not stimulate urges to win because it is barbaric and is often the cause of problems such as hate, discrimination, bullying, and violence.

【Supporting Details】The Unites States, which is plagued with these issues, is the case in point. It has dominated the world since the end of WWII with its military power larger than the total of the militaries of the rest of the world and oppressed peoples around the world to stay number one. The spirit is instilled in its people and in all aspects and levels of their society. The people, including the poor, respect winners, in other words the rich, no matter how filthy they are. This ethos of society has made the national character that lacks the warms and delicacy of humanity, and now its spirit is low as it has become No 1 in the developed world in all kinds of problems, including the rates of homicide and suicide. The right-wingers, whose mindset is based on maintenance of their dominance by hating others, are violent than ever.

【Counterargument-treatment】Olivia’s point that competitive spirit motivates students to excel anything and this nurtures discipline and perseverance in them could be true in individual sports, but in team sports, team spirit must be established before the team members get the drive to be the best. A team of individuals, each eager to win, fails to get good team dynamics and ends up being unable to coordinate each player’s strong point or even killing each other’s good point. It would be a miracle that a group of individuals, not a team, wins a team sport.

【Conclusion】Therefore, winning is should not be the goal. It should be taken as a result of positive actions and personal growth.

(301 words)

 

Writing for Academic Discussion What do you think is the most important subject for students ot learn in high schools? - revised -

Considering the range of disciplines traditionally taught in high schools―such as mathematics, science, history, and English―what do you think is the most important subject for students to learn? Justify your choice by discussing its relevance to students’ personal growth, their role in society, or their future professional lives?

 

 

☆Let’s Think

1.        Name main subjects taught at high school.

2.        How do the subjects you named in Question 1 benefit high school students?

 

 

☆Hints for Points

・National Language: Language is thought. – Noam Chomsky

・Mathematics: It nurtures logic and imagination.

・Science: It gives us knowledge of the physical world, which helps us think about where we are from and where we are now.

・History: You can learn why human society is as it is now.

・Geography: You can gain knowledge of how life is in each region on this planet.

・Civics: To build a true democracy, everyone needs to learn civics.

・Home Economics: Regardless of sex, students must learn to be able to take care of themselves and their family.

・Second Language: To learn new perspectives, to be well-rounded, and to be useful in the society of diversity in the 21^st century, it is necessary to learn other languages.

 

 

☆Sample

【Thesis】I think National Language is the most important subject because language is thought according to Noam Chomsky; the person’s first language skill decides the performances in the other subjects; and, last but not least, the mother tongue forms the humanity of the individual.

【Language is Thought】Noam Chomsky, who is the Einstein of Linguistics in that he made the subject totally new in the 20^th century and presented new perspectives about Language, says that Language is not just a means of communication but also our thought itself. Thus, to help each student to have their highest possible language ability is the most important to make their lives as fulfilling as possible.

【Other subjects】Also, the level of the person’s mother tongue affects the level of other subjects of the person from literature to history to mathematics to science. Not to speak of literature and history, subjects that require high level of syntax and vocabulary to study, science and math depends on the command of the mother tongue in understanding and forming a concept or an image that is neither visible nor tangible.

【Humanity】In addition, as language is thought, mother tongue acquisition is in line with the formation of the mind of the individual. In other words, language acquisition forms the wiring of the brain of the person. Therefore, the level of literacy decides the level of the humanity, and in the end, of the society.

【Conclusion】High school years is the last years of the person’s brain development and therefore, training in reading and writing of the student’s national language is the most significant. (258 words)

          

 

Your Sample Structure

【Thesis】

 

【Supporting Details】

 

【Conclusion】

 

 

 

☆Speech Time

Make a speech on this topic. Don’t worry. Everybody speaks at the same time.

Writing for Academic Discussion Should there be stricter regulations reagarding freedom of speech on the internet? - revised -

The internet has become a vital platform for free expression, but it has also been a medium where harmful speech can flourish, including hate speech, misinformation, an cyberbullying. Considering these issues, should there be stricter regulations regarding freedom of speech on the internet?

 

 

☆Let’s Read

Read the following excerpt from The New York Times and take notes of related cases that came up to your mind as you read.

 

Canada Wants to Regulate Online Content. Critics Say It Goes Too Far.

A bill introduced by the Canadian government to safeguard against online harms has stirred opposition from free speech advocates.  By Vijosa Isai   April 9, 2024

 

… The comprehensive bill calls for civil and criminal penalties on hate speech, a move that has provoked the strongest opposition.

One provision would, for the first time in Canada, establish hate as a separate crime that would encompass both written and physical acts. Currently, depending on the circumstances, hate can be added as an element to other criminal offenses but cannot be charged as a separate crime. The government argues that making it a separate crime would make it easier to track offenses.

Another measure would allow people to seek the equivalent of a protection order against someone they accuse of targeting them with hate.

The bill would also restore a regulation repealed by Parliament about a decade ago allowing Canadians to file complaints to an existing human rights commission that can ultimately lead to financial penalties of up to 50,000 Canadian dollars against people judged to have committed hate speech.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association criticized the bill, saying it would lead to “overbroad violations of expressive freedom, privacy, protest rights and liberty,” and would give a new regulatory agency the power to be “judge, jury and executioner.”

The government seems to want to “create a much more sanitized internet and that’s very harmful for free speech because it’s the controversial stuff we need to be able to talk about,’’ said Josh Dehaas, counsel at the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes civil liberties.

Mr. Virani, the justice minister, rejected any suggestion that the government was trying to limit free speech, saying the bill seeks to protect people from hatred.

“Free speech in this country doesn’t include hate speech,” he said.

Some experts and tech companies praised the bill, saying that the stiffest penalties were reserved for the worst forms of content and would not trample on free speech.

“It’s an incredibly thoughtful piece of legislation, if you’re looking at balancing protection from harm and protection of fundamental rights,” said Emily Laidlaw, a professor who focuses on cybersecurity law at the University of Calgary.

As the bill is in the early stages of the legislative process and criticism has been robust, changes are likely to come before a final vote. Government officials said they expected that amendments would need to be negotiated.

The leader of the Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, has questioned the need for more bureaucracy, saying online crimes could be dealt with through expanded criminal enforcement.

But some supporters of the bill say it would provide a faster way to tackle crimes on the internet since tech platforms could be ordered to remove content within a day.

Some supporters say the bill provides regular online users a way to rein in content that can sometimes have tragic consequences.

…

Carol Todd, who lives in British Columbia, knows from painful personal experience what it means to confront sexual images of children online.

Her daughter was 15 when she died by suicide after a Dutch man, using some two dozen fake accounts, shared sexual images of her online and demanded money. He was eventually arrested and convicted in 2022 for sexual extortion, and is imprisoned in the Netherlands.

Ms. Todd said it was hard enough finding a place on Facebook to report the images of her daughter. “It was just so much work and it defeated my kid,” she said. (The posts were eventually removed, Ms. Todd said, though Facebook never commented on the case.)

Lianna McDonald, the director of the Canadian Center for Child Protection, said the government’s proposed online regulations could prevent other tragic outcomes.

“We’ve lost too many children,” she said, “and too many families have been devastated by the violence that occurs online.”

Both Canada and the United States have a three-digit suicide and crisis hotline: 988. If you are having thoughts of suicide, call or text 988 and visit 988.ca (Canada) or 988lifeline.org (United States) for a list of additional resources. This service offers bilingual crisis support in each country, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

 

 

☆Let’s Think

1.       Share cases you know of the three kinds of harmful speech the professor mentions.

・Hate speech     e.g. Online right-wingers amplify hate against an ethnic group or women.

 

・Misinformation  e.g. In the first 72 hours after Noto Megaquake that happened on January 1^st, 2024, some politicians wrongly advised that volunteers not go to the affected areas to avoid traffic jam, which never happened. As a result, help was not available for those who were in need.

 

・Cyberbullying   e.g. Monomanias make hundreds of catfish and obsessively and incessantly send nasty messages to a target individual.

 

 

2.       Who do you agree with, Kristy or Matt? Why?

 

 

☆Hints for Points

Agree

1.       Fascists will take advantage of hate speech to agitate the public to discriminate against a certain group of people to wage war on the country that the people belong to.

 

2.       Misinformation and disinformation increase on the Internet because anyone can send information on it. It is dangerous especially in emergency. So far, restriction depends on users’ common sense.

 

3.       The scale of slander and libel on the internet is incomparable. Bullies will mentally harm the target individuals and drive them to commit suicide with impunity in the worst-case scenario.

 

Disagree

1.       The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects any speech, including that on the internet. 

 

2.       Platforms restrain themselves by letting users report violations, and this is more democratic.

 

3.       The media are controlled by the government and big businesses. Restrictions will only be imposed negatively on the public.

 

 

☆Sample Body Structure

【Thesis】Although I mostly agree with Matt in that restriction of the freedom of speech on the Internet can compromise democracy, I have a caveat regarding the speed and the algorism of the Internet.

【Supporting Details】It takes only two or three hours for a group of a few thousand people connected on an online platform to pass around a piece of information. The speed is too fast for a piece of misinformation or disinformation to circulate and too slow for correction to come around. Usually, there are individuals affected by the wrong information by the time the truth is revealed. Also, especially in the case of unfounded gossip, lies are impossible to erase and the people who were victimized have no way to reinstate themselves. Concerning the algorism, tons of information that all people must know reach only a part of the population because most people do not search information related to politics. As a result, in the case of politics for instance, many voters never know the truth of a candidate or learn it only after the election is over. Similar cases are found in other areas like healthcare and education. Thus, I think there should be some government intervention on the quality control of the online information.

【Counterargument-treatment】Matt’s concern about the inviolability of the First Amendment is understandable as it supports democracy, but the fact is that those who are ill-intentioned are taking advantage of naïve individuals through social media to get political results they want with impunity by using social media, and this situation must be dealt with.

【Conclusion】Thus, I believe that harder restriction is necessary to prevent destruction of democracy.

(251 words)

Writing for Academic Discussion What do you think is the most important subject for students ot learn in high schools?

Considering the range of disciplines traditionally taught in high schools―such as mathematics, science, history, and English―what do you think is the most important subject for students to learn? Justify your choice by discussing its relevance to students’ personal growth, their role in society, or their future professional lives?

 

 

☆Let’s Think

1.        Name main subjects taught at high school.

2.        How do the subjects you named in Question 1 benefit high school students?

 

 

☆Hints for Points

・National Language: Language is thought.

・Mathematics: It nurtures logic and imagination.

・Science: You can gain knowledge of the physical world through learning science.

・History: You can learn why human society is as it is now in detail.

・Geography: Knowing where you are is fundamental in life.

・Civics: To build a true democracy, everyone needs to learn civics.

・Home Economics: Regardless of sex, students must learn to be able to take care of themselves.

 

 

☆Sample

【Thesis】I think National Language is the most important subject because language is thought according to Noam Chomsky; the person’s first language skill decides the performances in the other subjects; and, last but not least, the mother tongue forms the humanity of the individual.

【Language is Thought】Noam Chomsky, who is the Einstein of Linguistics in that he made the subject totally new and presented new perspectives about Language, says that Language is not just a means of communication but also our thought itself. Thus, to help each student to reach their highest possible language ability is the most important to make their lives as fulfilling as possible.

【Other subjects】The level of the person’s mother tongue affects the level of other subjects of the person from literature to history to mathematics to science. Especially, in science and math, logical reasoning and forming a concept or an image that is neither visible nor tangible depends on the command of the mother tongue.

【Humanity】Also, as language is thought, mother tongue acquisition is in line with the formation of the  mind of the individual. In other words, language acquisition forms the wiring of the brain of the person.

【Conclusion】High school years is the last years of the person’s brain development and therefore, training in reading and writing of the student’s national language is the most significant. (218 words)

          

 

☆Speech Time

Make a speech on this topic.

Don’t worry. Everybody speaks at the same time.

Writing for Academic Discussion Should there be stricter regulations reagarding freedom of speech on the internet?

The internet has become a vital platform for free expression, but it has also been a medium where harmful speech can flourish, including hate speech, misinformation, an cyberbullying. Considering these issues, should there be stricter regulations regarding freedom of speech on the internet?

 

 

☆Let’s Read

Read the following excerpt from The New York Times and take notes of related cases that came up to your mind as you read.

 

Canada Wants to Regulate Online Content. Critics Say It Goes Too Far.

A bill introduced by the Canadian government to safeguard against online harms has stirred opposition from free speech advocates.  By Vijosa Isai   April 9, 2024

 

… The comprehensive bill calls for civil and criminal penalties on hate speech, a move that has provoked the strongest opposition.

One provision would, for the first time in Canada, establish hate as a separate crime that would encompass both written and physical acts. Currently, depending on the circumstances, hate can be added as an element to other criminal offenses but cannot be charged as a separate crime. The government argues that making it a separate crime would make it easier to track offenses.

Another measure would allow people to seek the equivalent of a protection order against someone they accuse of targeting them with hate.

The bill would also restore a regulation repealed by Parliament about a decade ago allowing Canadians to file complaints to an existing human rights commission that can ultimately lead to financial penalties of up to 50,000 Canadian dollars against people judged to have committed hate speech.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association criticized the bill, saying it would lead to “overbroad violations of expressive freedom, privacy, protest rights and liberty,” and would give a new regulatory agency the power to be “judge, jury and executioner.”

The government seems to want to “create a much more sanitized internet and that’s very harmful for free speech because it’s the controversial stuff we need to be able to talk about,’’ said Josh Dehaas, counsel at the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes civil liberties.

Mr. Virani, the justice minister, rejected any suggestion that the government was trying to limit free speech, saying the bill seeks to protect people from hatred.

“Free speech in this country doesn’t include hate speech,” he said.

Some experts and tech companies praised the bill, saying that the stiffest penalties were reserved for the worst forms of content and would not trample on free speech.

Image

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada. Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal Party has an agreement with an opposition party to support government legislation, making it likely that some version of the proposal will pass.Credit...Chris Wattie/Reuters

“It’s an incredibly thoughtful piece of legislation, if you’re looking at balancing protection from harm and protection of fundamental rights,” said Emily Laidlaw, a professor who focuses on cybersecurity law at the University of Calgary.

As the bill is in the early stages of the legislative process and criticism has been robust, changes are likely to come before a final vote. Government officials said they expected that amendments would need to be negotiated.

The leader of the Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, has questioned the need for more bureaucracy, saying online crimes could be dealt with through expanded criminal enforcement.

But some supporters of the bill say it would provide a faster way to tackle crimes on the internet since tech platforms could be ordered to remove content within a day.

Some supporters say the bill provides regular online users a way to rein in content that can sometimes have tragic consequences.

…

Carol Todd, who lives in British Columbia, knows from painful personal experience what it means to confront sexual images of children online.

Her daughter was 15 when she died by suicide after a Dutch man, using some two dozen fake accounts, shared sexual images of her online and demanded money. He was eventually arrested and convicted in 2022 for sexual extortion, and is imprisoned in the Netherlands.

Ms. Todd said it was hard enough finding a place on Facebook to report the images of her daughter. “It was just so much work and it defeated my kid,” she said. (The posts were eventually removed, Ms. Todd said, though Facebook never commented on the case.)

Lianna McDonald, the director of the Canadian Center for Child Protection, said the government’s proposed online regulations could prevent other tragic outcomes.

“We’ve lost too many children,” she said, “and too many families have been devastated by the violence that occurs online.”

Both Canada and the United States have a three-digit suicide and crisis hotline: 988. If you are having thoughts of suicide, call or text 988 and visit 988.ca (Canada) or 988lifeline.org (United States) for a list of additional resources. This service offers bilingual crisis support in each country, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

 

 

☆Let’s Think

1.       Share cases of the three kinds of harmful speech the professor mentions.

・Hate speech     e.g. Online right-wingers amplify hate against an ethnic group

・Misinformation  e.g. In the first 72 hours after Noto Megaquake that happened on January first in 2024, some politicians wrongly advised that volunteers not go to the affected areas to avoid traffic jam, which never happened. As a result, help was not available for those who in need.

・Cyberbullying   e.g. Monomanias make hundreds of catfish and obsessively and incessantly send nasty messages to a target individual.

 

2.       Who do you agree with, Kristy or Matt? Why?

 

 

☆Hints for Points

Agree

1.       Fascists will take advantage of hate speech to agitate the public to discriminate against a certain group of people to wage war on the country that the people belong to.

 

2.       Misinformation and disinformation increase on the Internet because anyone can send information on it. It is dangerous especially in emergency. So far, restriction depends on users’ common sense.

 

3.       The scale of slander and libel on the internet is incomparable. Bullies will mentally harm the target individuals and drive them to commit suicide with impunity in the worst-case scenario.

 

Disagree

1.       The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects any speech, including that on the internet. 

 

2.       Platforms restrain themselves by letting users report violations, and this is more democratic.

 

3.       The media are controlled by the government and big businesses. Restrictions will only be imposed negatively on the public.

 

 

☆Sample Body Structure

【Thesis】Although I mostly agree with Matt in that restriction of the freedom of speech on the Internet can compromise democracy, I have a caveat regarding the speed and the algorism of the Internet.

【Supporting Details】It takes only a few hours for thousands of people connected on an online platform to pass around a piece of information. The speed is too fast for a piece of misinformation or disinformation to circulate and too slow for correction to come around. Usually, there are always individuals that have been affected by the wrong information by the time the truth is revealed. Also, especially in the case of unfounded gossip, lies are impossible to erase and the people who were victimized have no way to reinstate themselves. Concerning the algorism, tons of information that all people must know, especially that related to politics, reach only a few because most people do not search information related to politics. As a result, cases in which voters learn the truth of a candidate after the election is over happen. Thus, I think there should be some government intervention on the quality control of the online information.

【Counterargument-treatment】Matt’s concern about the inviolability of the First Amendment is understandable as it supports democracy, but the fact is that those who are ill intentioned are taking advantage of naïve individuals through social media to get political results they want with impunity by using social media, and this situation must be dealt with.

【Conclusion】Thus, I believe that harder restriction is necessary to prevent destruction of democracy.

(251 words)