Writng for Academic Discussion Role of art - revised -

Art has been an integral part of human culture for millennia, serving various purposes and taking countless forms. From ancient cave paintings to contemporary digital installations, art reflects and shapes our experiences, values, and identities. In your opinion, what are some of the roles of art in society today? Discuss their significance and impact on individuals and communities.

 

 

 

☆Let’s think

1.       In medieval ages art played a significant role in delivering the teachings of Christianity. Stained glass pictures in church windows told the stories of the Bible. Does art play the same kind of part of today’s society?

2.       Share examples of Wendy’s idea of the role of art.

3.       Share examples of Adrian’s idea of the role of art.

 

 

☆Hints for Points

Impacts on Individuals

1.        It increases our knowledge about the world and humans through their expressions.

2.        It helps us (to) develop our emotions, sensitivity, and sense of beauty.

3.        It cultivates our imagination and creativity.

4.        It protects the best part of human soul by purifying it with expressions.

5.        It can save an individual’s soul through healing, fascination, passion, and faith.

 

Impacts on Community

1.        Art develops culture by making it colorful and layered. It enriches our lives. Like other cultures, art makes our lives different from those of animals. It makes meaning in our everyday behavior.

2.        It makes people aware of issues. e.g. Fahrenheit 9.11 and other Michael Moore movies

3.        It helps create a movement. e.g. Anti-war movement, B.L.M., etc.

4.        It creates styles and fashion. e.g. American fashion in the 70s and the street fashion in New York

5.        It records what photographs and videos cannot record. In other words, it records what happens in our mind.

 

 

☆Sample Answer for Ideas and Expressions

【Thesis】Although I have been a worshipper of art and have shared the same expectations for art to make a breakthrough in society by raising awareness about issues as Wendy points out, I became skeptical of it recently due to the silence of most artists about the ongoing Israeli genocide on Gaza.

【Supporting Details】For over 9 months, during which time the world witnessed the deaths of more than 160,000 Palestinians due to attacks and lack of necessities inflicted on them by Israel, whose officials call them human animals, there has been an eerie silence among major artists, revealing their nature as part of the industry. The huge screens above Shibuya Crossing never show a pop-star condemning the crime against humanity, let alone the horrible images from Gaza. There is no big anti-war concert like Woodstock. It took 7 months for Macklemore’s “Hinds Hall” to be online for awareness and donation. It was uplifting but still was after Gaza was totally flattened.

【Counterargument-treatment】There are exceptions. Graffiti artist Banksy, for instance, repeatedly points out the core of a certain current issue like the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Israel. Some artists like the rock legend Roger Waters, Francis Coppola of Documentary Michael Moore, and the walking resistance Tom Morello from Rage Against the Machine had been vocal about the apartheid and atrocities for decades and were the first to defend Palestinians after October 7th. Artists4Ceasefire.org, consisting of 400 artists, started immediately after October 7 and called for actions. Actress Suzan Sarandon lost her job for criticizing Israel in a month or so. In Japan, Mr. Furusawa, an actor and activist, performs with pro-Palestinian signs on the street in Tokyo. Kazehito Seki, a noise musician, has been jailed for months for spray-painting graffiti saying, “FREE GAZA” on government properties, and there are some other artists using their skills to tell the truth. But almost all the other artists around the world keep their mouth shut on this crime of the century, and thus the public won’t pay much attention to the issue. The same happened in the past. Charlie Chaplin made “The Great Dictator” when Hitler Nazis was on its zenith. He was exceptional, but his action was an exception. Most artists during WWII were silent. Many even helped boost the fighting spirit. Both were complicit with slaughters. Most artists today are complicit with the massacre of innocent Palestinian children, women, and men.

【Conclusion】Most of the power of art is in the artists, and when most artists are not compassionate and courageous enough to do their jobs to help their fellow humans who have been exposed to illegitimate punishment, I cannot pay any homage to those who call themselves artists. Their roles in society are no different from any other ordinary worker's, and with them art never challenges the status quo. (459 words)

 

Writng for Academic Discussion Role of art in society

Art has been an integral part of human culture for millennia, serving various purposes and taking countless forms. From ancient cave paintings to contemporary digital installations, art reflects and shapes our experiences, values, and identities. In your opinion, what are some of the roles of art in society today? Discuss their significance and impact on individuals and communities.

 

 

☆Let’s think

1.       In medieval ages, for example, art played a significant role in delivering the teachings of Christianity. Stained glass pictures in church windows told the stories of the Bible and music was used to sing psalm. Architecture developed with church designs. Does art play the same kind of part of today’s society?

 

2.       What is the significance and impact of art on individuals and communities?

 

 ☆Sample Answer for Ideas and Expressions

【Thesis】Although I have been a big worshipper of art and have shared the same expectations for art to break the status quo to change the world by raising awareness about issues as Wendy points out, I became skeptical of it recently due to the silence of most artists about the ongoing Israeli genocide on Gaza.

【Supporting Details】For over 9 months, during which time the world witnessed the deaths of more than 160,000 Palestinians due to attacks and lack of necessities inflicted on them by Israel, whose officials call them human animals, there has been an eerie silence among major artists, revealing their nature as part of the industry. The huge screens above Shibuya Crossing never show a pop-star condemning the threat to humanities, let alone the horrible images from Gaza. There is no big anti-war concert like Woodstock. It took 7 months for Macklemore’s “Hinds Hall” to be online, which was encouraging but still was after Gaza was totally flattened.

【Counterargument-treatment】There are exceptions. Some artists like the rock legend Roger Waters, Francis Coppola of Documentary Michael Moore, and walking resistance Tom Morello from Rage Against the Machine had been vocal about the apartheid and atrocities in Gaza by Israel for decades and were the first to defend Palestinians after October 7^th. Artists4Ceasefire.org, consisting of 400 artists, started immediately after October 7 and called for actions. Actress Suzan Sarandon lost her job for criticizing Israel in a month or so. In Japan, Kazehito Seki, a noise musician, has been jailed for months for spray-painting graffiti saying, “FREE GAZA” on government properties, and there are some other artists using their skills to tell the truth. But other than them, almost all the artists around the world, who talk about love and peace, keep their mouth shut on this crime of the century, and thus the public won’t pay much attention to the issue. Charlie Chaplin made “The Great Dictator” when Hitler Nazis was on its zenith. He was exceptional and his action was an exception as well.

【Conclusion】Power of art to change the world is in the artists, and when most artists are not compassionate and courageous enough to do their jobs to help their fellow humans who have been exposed to illegitimate punishment, I cannot pay any homage to those who call themselves artists, and their roles in society are no different from any other ordinary worker. (395 words)

 

 

Wriging for Academic Discussion Pandemic and traveling abroad - revised -

In recent years, it has become easier to travel abroad due to advancements in technology and transportation. However, the number of people traveling internationally has not fully recovered since the pandemic. Do you think more people will be willing to travel abroad in the future or not? Discuss the potential reasons for your opinion, considering factors such as technology, economic conditions, and social trends.

 

 

☆Let’s think

1.       What are the advantages and disadvantages of increased number of international travelers?

 

☆Hints for Points

Advantages

1.       It activates the economy. (economic conditions)

2.       Cultural exchange will naturally occur. (social trends)

3.       Internationally active people will contribute to improvements in various fields. (technology, economic conditions, and social trends)

 

Disadvantage

1.        Carbon footprints will increase. (social trends)

2.        Viruses will spread around the world, causing extinctions and pandemics. (economic conditions, social trends)

 

 

☆Sample Answer for ideas and expressions

【Thesis】Although Alice is right in that we can expect positive impacts on technology, and international traveling develops economy and diversifies social trends, I am reluctant to promote more robust international traveling lest another pandemic should happen, which will stagnate economy and social trends, not to speak of raising the death tolls. I think we must take the speed of the infection and reality of politics into account.

【Supporting Details】The pandemic of COVID-19 started in China at the end of 2019. The next month, a luxury cruise ship named Diamond Princess with infected people was kept off the coast of Yokohama, Japan, without proper treatment. In a couple of months, the virus was rampant around the world. It has killed over 700 million as of August 2024.

【Counterargument-treatment】It is true that airport quarantine and proper government countermeasures ought to prevent the spread of virus, but the fact is that we are living the 5^th year of the pandemic. Not all governments can make proper moves based on science for the public good.[ns1]  In Japan, non-specialist officials didn’t notice that Covid is airborne even after the article of The Lancet, and they have covered the truth up till now by not providing PCR tests. In U.S.A, Trump pretended not to know the virus is airborne, having the idea of applying social Darwinism to pandemic to eliminate those socially vulnerable. Once vaccine was available, the Japanese government degraded Covid on the list of infectious diseases, lifting mask-mandate and raising the price of the drugs, and put the real situation of the disaster under carpet. The U.S. under Biden and some other countries contained the virus well, but they are getting variants. As long as the world is connected by advanced transportation, without measures based on successful models, which won’t be taken, the next pandemic is on its way.

【Conclusion】As many governments are getting in the hands of those who lack compassion and as development keeps invading animal habitats, increasing the risk of human contacts with unknown viruses, not to speak of new variants of coronavirus, it is not a good idea to keep the human flow free. Less vibrant social activities are better than deaths and lockdown. (363 words)

---

 [ns1]

Writing for Academic Discussion Comulsory Voting - revised -

In recent years, voter turnout has been declining in many democracies around the world. This trend has led to growing concerns about the legitimacy of elected governments and the health of democratic systems. One proposed solution is to make voting compulsory, as is the case in some countries. Should voting be made compulsory? Discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of mandatory voting, considering its impact on democracy, civic engagement, and representation.

 

 

☆Let’s Read

Read the following excerpt from an article of Harvard International Review, underlined by yours truly Sasaki, and think about why mandatory voting is recommended and what problems can be expected.

 

Compulsion Emboldens Democracy: A Deep-dive into Australia’s Mandatory Voting  12/10/2023

Expanding to Democracies Around the World

As a direct comparison to the turnout at past Australian referendums, the United Kingdom’s referendum to leave the European Union only had a 72.2 percent voter turnout. The lack of voter turnout appears to plague many of the most prominent countries in the world. In India, 67.4 percent of eligible voters voted in the 2019 election. In the United States, 66.8 percent of eligible voters went to the booths in the 2020 election. To further prove the lack of voter turnout, Canada had a 62.6 percent turnout in the 2021 elections. Democratic governments are founded upon the people’s voice, but when nearly a third of the population is left out of the consideration in a country, it is hard to call the country democratic.

 

Australia’s model, which will be on display in the upcoming referendum, could possibly serve as a mechanism by which to increase participation across the world; however, transposing the Australian voting system to democratic systems across the world requires a conversation within the respective countries among its citizens and the government on the way in which it is implemented.

 

A common argument made against accessible elections is the possibility of voter fraud and the reduction in democratic security; the potential trade-off requires a consideration about the different mechanisms that should be implemented to achieve both simultaneously instead of having to comprise one. In Australia, voter fraud was found to be fairly low because of the methods they have instituted behind the scenes to confirm votes and to reduce the likelihood of fraud including digital cross-referencing. On the surface, voting is largely accessible, but the intensive review process provides security on the back-end: accessibility and security do not have to be mutually exclusive.

 

The benefits of compulsory voting does not mean the implementation can be completely uniform. Voters in every country often go through personal struggles that limit their ability to vote, do not agree with any of the candidates running for election, which might necessitate the need for blank ballots to be an option for citizens as a sign of protest, or simply cannot afford the punishments that would ensue if they are unable to vote. So while the system is rigid, it ought to be fluid enough for people to avoid being trapped: they cannot vote, and when they do not, they cannot afford the punishment. The ultimate goal of compulsory voting is to maximize the amount of people interested in the voting process—not contribute to people loathing it because of the punishments they face.

 

When implementing a voting system, countries have to seriously consider the difficulties citizens face when attempting to vote in their country. Who are those citizens? The people who work on weekends because they do not make enough for a two-day break might require a national holiday; the people who live in areas that do not have polling stations nearby; the people who need access to public transportation to reach the booths; the people who are simply disinterested in the democratic process because of a lack of political education, or even the people who are unaware about voter registration. Implementing drastic policy change requires intensive policy analysis to ensure people do not get left out of consideration.

 

In the end, regardless of the voting model adopted by countries across the world, the bottom line is clear: the means for people to vote in an election are crucial for higher voting rates.

 

 

☆Let’s Think

1.        What are the voting rates in Japan?

2.        Why is low voter turnout bad?

3.        What are the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory voting?

 

 

☆Hints for Points

True democracy 

1.       Low voting rates will lead to tyranny because it is a sign that people are not watching those in power. (Japan)

2.       Forced voting is not a form of true democracy, which is “a government of the people by the people for the people” (Abraham Lincoln).

3.       Civics classes must be a required subject before making voting required to increase voluntary voters.

 

Civic engagement

1.        “Just because you don’t take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” - Pericles

2.        People who are poor, who will most benefit from political reforms, are the least to vote. (‘Voting is not on their radar': lowest turnout predicted in poorest areas – The Guardian) Mandatory voting will give them a chance that they will appreciate in the end.

3.        Other means for higher turnout such as a referendum on daily issues that accompanies the election would be more effective. (Michigan)

 

Representation

1.        The change of demography of the U.S.A makes more progressive candidates elected. The current majority of America are either non-whites, women, or the young, in other words, the anti-Trump demography. (The 202p U.S. Presidential Election, The 2022 United States Elections)

2.        Poorly informed, uneducated citizens will vote for a wrong candidate or agenda. (Tokyo)

3.        Good candidates will mobilize voters. (Obama, Bernie, and Kamala)

 

 

☆Sample Answer

【Thesis】I don’t really agree with mandatory voting. Though Eliza’s logic that higher voting rates reflect the will of the public may apply to a working democracy, the real world won’t work that way, where people are not properly informed and are discouraged from choosing the best candidate for them. In the worst-case scenario, it could be a good tool for dictatorship. Russia and North Korea are proud of their extremely high voting rates of their presidential elections.

【Supporting Details】Providing correct information and education about politics and candidates to promote voluntary voter participation is necessary as Tim says. If there is a referendum on mandatory voting, probably it won’t pass. No one likes to be controlled. Rather, accessing needs and interests of the constituents and connecting them to politics by getting them to realize that everything in their lives is related to politics will lead to active civic engagement, which will realize good representation and true democracy.

【Counterargument-treatment】In an ideally democratic world, voters would be well-informed through the media that check candidates’ legitimacy, political visions, and specific strategies; good election campaign like accessible townhall meetings and direct contact with the candidates; active union movements; and individual citizens’ actions. But actually, the corporate media report either little or false information about elections, and as a result, people’s interests are focused on daily matters. In this circumstance, compulsory voting may have an inverse effect on civic engagement. Active pursuers of their best choice, or least horrible choice, are exceptions. Most people will either vote for who is said to win or resort to a blank voting, which is not very different from abstention and so it’s bad for democracy because it contributes to, for example, a reelection of a corrupt incumbent by reducing the votes for the challenger who can correct the corruption.

【Conclusion】Therefore, compulsory voting does not seem to be a good cure for indifference to politics, or low civic engagement. (318 words)

 

 

☆Sample Answer Structure

Thesis

Supporting Details

Why the advantages/disadvantages don’t matter

Conclusion

 

Wriging for Academic Discussion Pandemic and traveling abroad

In recent years, it has become easier to travel abroad due to advancements in technology and transportation. However, the number of people traveling internationally has not fully recovered since the pandemic. Do you think more people will be willing to travel abroad in the future or not? Discuss the potential reasons for your opinion, considering factors such as technology, economic conditions, and social trends.

 

 

☆Let’s think

1.        

 

☆Hints for Points

Advantages

1.       Cultural exchange will naturally occur. (social trends)

2.       Internationally active people will contribute to improvements in many fields. (technology, economic conditions, and social trends)

 

Disadvantage

1.        Carbon footprints will increase. (social trends)

2.        Another pandemic may happen. (economic conditions, social trends)

 

 

☆Sample Answer

【Thesis】Although is right in that international traveling will have positive impacts on various areas in our lives, increasing interactions between people and materials, I am reluctant to promote more robust international traveling lest another pandemic should happen, considering the speed of the spread of it.

【Supporting Details】The pandemic of COVID-19, started in China at the end of 2019. The next month, a luxury cruise ship named Diamond Princess with infected people was kept off the coast of Yokohama, Japan, without proper treatment. In a couple of months, the virus was rampant around the world.

【Counterargument-treatment】It is true that airport quarantine and proper government countermeasures ought to prevent the spread of virus. But the fact is that we are still living with the coronavirus in the 5^th year of the pandemic. Not all governments can make proper moves based on science for the public good.[ns1]  In Japan, for instance, non-specialist officials didn’t notice that Covid is airborne even after the article of Lancet, and their negligence has covered the truth up till now by not providing PCR tests, letting the virus surge the 11^th time as of August, 2024. Trump, pretending not to know the virus is airborne, even had the idea of applying social Darwinism to pandemic to eliminate those socially vulnerable. Once vaccine was available and after a few boosters, the Japanese government degraded Covid on the infectious disease list, lifting mask-mandate and raising the price of the drugs, and put the real situation of the disaster under carpet. The U.S. under Biden and some other countries contained the virus well, but they are getting it again. As long as the world is connected by advanced transportation, the same successful measures of should be taken around the world to truly end the pandemic, but it won’t be done.

【Conclusion】As many governments are now getting in the hands of those who lack compassion and as development keeps invading animal habitats, increasing the risk of human contacts with unknown viruses, I am pretty fearful of keeping the human flow free throughout the world. (265 words)

 

 

 

 

---

 [ns1]

Writing for Academic Discussion Comulsory Voting

In recent years, voter turnout has been declining in many democracies around the world. This trend has led to growing concerns about the legitimacy of elected governments and the health of democratic systems. One proposed solution is to make voting compulsory, as is the case in some countries. Should voting be made compulsory? Discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of mandatory voting, considering its impact on democracy, civic engagement, and representation.

 

 

☆Let’s Read

Read the following excerpt from and article of Harvard International Review, picking up why mandatory voting is recommended and what problems can be expected.

 

Compulsion Emboldens Democracy: A Deep-dive into Australia’s Mandatory Voting  12/10/2023

Expanding to Democracies Around the World

As a direct comparison to the turnout at past Australian referendums, the United Kingdom’s referendum to leave the European Union only had a 72.2 percent voter turnout. The lack of voter turnout appears to plague many of the most prominent countries in the world. In India, 67.4 percent of eligible voters voted in the 2019 election. In the United States, 66.8 percent of eligible voters went to the booths in the 2020 election. To further prove the lack of voter turnout, Canada had a 62.6 percent turnout in the 2021 elections. Democratic governments are founded upon the people’s voice, but when nearly a third of the population is left out of the consideration in a country, it is hard to call the country democratic.

 

Australia’s model, which will be on display in the upcoming referendum, could possibly serve as a mechanism by which to increase participation across the world; however, transposing the Australian voting system to democratic systems across the world requires a conversation within the respective countries among its citizens and the government on the way in which it is implemented.

 

A common argument made against accessible elections is the possibility of voter fraud and the reduction in democratic security; the potential trade-off requires a consideration about the different mechanisms that should be implemented to achieve both simultaneously instead of having to comprise one. In Australia, voter fraud was found to be fairly low because of the methods they have instituted behind the scenes to confirm votes and to reduce the likelihood of fraud including digital cross-referencing. On the surface, voting is largely accessible, but the intensive review process provides security on the back-end: accessibility and security do not have to be mutually exclusive.

 

The benefits of compulsory voting does not mean the implementation can be completely uniform. Voters in every country often go through personal struggles that limit their ability to vote, do not agree with any of the candidates running for election, which might necessitate the need for blank ballots to be an option for citizens as a sign of protest, or simply cannot afford the punishments that would ensue if they are unable to vote. So while the system is rigid, it ought to be fluid enough for people to avoid being trapped: they cannot vote, and when they do not, they cannot afford the punishment. The ultimate goal of compulsory voting is to maximize the amount of people interested in the voting process—not contribute to people loathing it because of the punishments they face.

 

When implementing a voting system, countries have to seriously consider the difficulties citizens face when attempting to vote in their country. Who are those citizens? The people who work on weekends because they do not make enough for a two-day break might require a national holiday; the people who live in areas that do not have polling stations nearby; the people who need access to public transportation to reach the booths; the people who are simply disinterested in the democratic process because of a lack of political education, or even the people who are unaware about voter registration. Implementing drastic policy change requires intensive policy analysis to ensure people do not get left out of consideration.

 

In the end, regardless of the voting model adopted by countries across the world, the bottom line is clear: the means for people to vote in an election are crucial for higher voting rates.

 

 

☆Let’s Think

1.        What are the voting rates in Japan?

2.        Why is low voter turnout bad?

3.        What are the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory voting?

 

 

☆Hints for Points

True democracy 

1.       Forced voting is not a form of true democracy.

2.       Civics classes must be a required subject before making voting mandatory.

 

Civic engagement

1.        People who are poor, who will most benefit from political reforms, are the least to vote. Thus, mandatory voting will give them a chance that they will appreciate in the end.

2.        Other means to attract people to the poll station such as referendum that

 

Representation

1.        Poorly informed, uneducated citizens will vote for a wrong candidate or agenda.

2.        Good candidates will mobilize voters.

 

 

☆Sample Answer

【Thesis】I don’t really agree with mandatory voting. Though Eliza’s logic that higher voting rates reflect the will of the public may apply to a working democracy, the real world won’t work that way, where people are not properly informed and are discouraged from choosing the best candidate for them. In the worst-case scenario, it could be a good tool for dictatorship. Russia and North Korea are proud of extremely high voting rates of their presidential elections.

【Supporting Details】Providing correct information and education about politics and candidates to promote voluntary voter participation is necessary as Tim says. Democracy is government of the people by the people for the people. If there is a referendum on mandatory voting, probably it won’t pass. People don’t like to be controlled. Neither are they ignorant. Rather, accessing their needs and interests and connecting them to politics through realization that everything in their lives is related to politics, in the way that is often said that although you are not interested in politics, politics is very much interested in you, will lead to active civic engagement that will realize good representation and true democracy.

【Counterargument-treatment】In an ideally democratic world, voters would be well-informed through the media that check candidates’ legitimacy, political visions, and specific strategies; good election campaign like accessible townhall meetings and direct contact with the candidates; active union rallies; and individual citizens’ actions. But actually, the corporate media report either little or false information about elections, and as a result, people’s interests are focused on daily matters (‘Voting is not on their radar': lowest turnout predicted in poorest areas – The Guardian). In this circumstance, compulsory voting may have an inverse effect to civic engagement. People who try to learn who is their best choice, or least horrible, are exceptions. Most either vote for who is said to win or resort to a blank voting, which is not very different from abstention and so it’s bad for democracy because it contributes to the reelection of corrupt incumbent just by reducing the votes for the challenger.

【Conclusion】Therefore, compulsory voting does not seem to be a good cure for indifference to politics, or bad civic engagement. (351 words)

 

 

☆Sample Answer Structure

Thesis

Supporting Details

Why the advantage of the Other Choice is not important

Conclusion