Some people think that children should obey rules or do what their parents and teachers want them to do. Other people think that children controlled too much cannot deal with problems themselves in adulthood. Discuss both views and state your own opinion.

This one is the modified version:

Some people argue that children should always obey rules at home and school. Strict discipline is sometimes essential, but I would argue that it would have a negative impact on children’s development.

The dominant purposes of setting rules are to help children form good habits and establish a sense of responsibility. Children are normally not aware of the consequences of their inappropriate behaviors. By setting rules, they can have a better understanding of how to behave in an acceptable way. For instance, they can learn how to greet others, which would enhance a sense of responsibility for respecting others.

Opponents, however, believe that rules sometimes restrict children’s problem-solving abilities. They may lose some all-round skills like time management, stress control, and emergency response capability. As a result, they would have trouble coping with sophisticated situations in real society. For example, if children are not capable of managing time, they may not meet the various demands of work during adulthood.

In my view, strict rules can stifle children’s creativity and imagination. To avoid parents’ punishment for disobeying rules, children dare not express new ideas. Generally, rules provide standards for handling a range of puzzles. However, one cannot figure out problems utilizing only one way. Imaging that if all children write essays with the same method, they are impossible to think out of the box to come up with creative ideas.

The puzzles in real world is quite more complex, and children cannot tackle them without integrating skills.

This is the modified version:

Some people argue that children should always obey rules at home and school. It is true that strict discipline is sometimes essential, but I would argue that it would have a negative impact on children’s development.

Some people are strong advocates of making rules for children. They believe that the dominant purposes of setting rules are to help children form good habits and establish a sense of responsibility. Children are normally unaware of the consequences of their inappropriate behaviors. By establishing rules, they can form a better understanding of how to behave in an acceptable way. For instance, by learning how to greet others, children can enhance the consciousness of respecting others. In addition, rules can also prevent children from misconducts, such as cheating in exams and interrupting teachers during classes.

Opponents, however, believe that rules sometimes impede the development of children’s problem-solving abilities. Children may lose some significant skills such as time management, stress control, and emergency response. As a result, they would have trouble coping with sophisticated situations in society. For example, if children were incapable of managing time, they would fail to meet the various professional demands during adulthood.

In my view, rigid rules can stifle children’s creativity and imagination. To avoid parental punishment for disobedience, children may only stick to rules without expressing new ideas or feelings. However, rules only provide standards for handling a range of puzzles without considering special cases. One cannot figure out all problems utilizing only one way. Imaging that if all children write essays with the same methods, they are impossible to think out of the box to come up with creative ideas.

The puzzles in the real world are complex, and children cannot tackle them without integrated skills.