77today_
TruckersForMe Participant TruckersForMe Participant

Your Replies

  • 77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 24, 2020 at 10:32 am

    Revision:

    Celebrities and sports stars are known to live low privacy lives. Surrounded by paparazzi and long-lens cameras, they live in spotlights that follow everywhere. As such, I believe celebrities’ lives are over-exposed and need more space.

    To begin with, celebrities can not hide what they do. Their appearances, relationships, and behaviors remain in the public eye constantly. Anything they do becomes the news, which will appear on headlines whether they like it or not. Sometimes, the spotlight becomes unsafe. News of stalkers breaking in celebrities’ houses frequently shows, since public attention makes famous people easier to track. Such infringement of personal space endangers anyone.

    Additionally, gossips may be lies. Celebrities’ news is a way for tabloids and gossip websites to make money. They publish made-up facts with exaggerating titles, click-baiting netizens for views. Yet, it is hard to fix public images even if a person is innocent. Lawsuits can not kill all the rumors, no matter how expensive they are. Thus, news agencies should follow their career code and stop making money from smearing.

    Lastly, celebrities’ information is more likely to be leaked, such as identifications and email accounts. Today, everyone needs extra guards on their digital identity. If you lose your passwords, all your property will be in danger. Conners can scam people’s money from little information. In this case, the private information of famous entertainers should be of particular protection.

    In summary, celebrities need further protection of privacy, yet have been deprived of it often. This is unjust and cruel. They sure deserve more than this, and it is the responsibility of the public to give it back.

    77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 22, 2020 at 7:32 am

    Revision:
    Celebrities and sports stars have been known to live low privacy lives. Surrounded by paparazzi and long-lens cameras, they live in a spotlight that follows everywhere. Overall, I believe celebrities’ lives are over-exposed and should be given more space. The reasons are as follows.

    To begin with, celebrities can not hide their life trails. Sometimes, the extent of exposure becomes unsafe. For example, top page news of celebrities’ life details, marriage status and behaviors are spread out without any permissions. Secretly taken photos are all over the internet and news of stalkers breaking in celebrities’ houses frequently shows. Such infringement of personal space endangers anyone. Nobody deserves a life to be monitored or tracked.

    Furthermore, gossips may be lies and cover the truth. Celebrities’ news is just a way for tabloids and gossip websites to make money. They publish made-up facts with exaggerating titles, click-baiting netizens for views. However, it is hard to clarify rumors and fix public images even if a person is innocent. Thus, news facilities should follow their career code and take a step out of celebrities’ private lives.

    Lastly, celebrities’ personal information is more likely to be leaked, including identifications, email account, and flight numbers. The loss of critical information is risky for anyone since one can be stalked or steal money from. Today, electronic scams are so rampant that smart scammers can start with very little information and deceive people’s money. Everyone needs extra vigilance. In such cases, the information of famous entertainers and athletes should be of particular protection.

    In summary, celebrities need further protection of privacy, yet have been deprived of it often. This is unjust and cruel. They sure deserve more than this, and it is the responsibility of the public to give it back.

    77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 22, 2020 at 7:25 am

    Revision:
    Celebrities and sports stars have been known to live low privacy lives. Surrounded by paparazzi and long-lens cameras, they live in a spotlight that follows everywhere. Overall, I believe celebrities’ lives are over-exposed and should be given more space. The reasons are as follows.

    To begin with, celebrities can not hide their life trails. Sometimes, the extent of exposure becomes unsafe. For example, top page news of celebrities’ life details, marriage status and behaviors are spread out without any permissions. Secretly taken photos are all over the internet and news of stalkers breaking in celebrities’ houses frequently shows. Such infringement of personal space endangers anyone. Nobody deserves a life to be monitored or tracked.

    To elaborate, gossips may be lies and cover the truth. Celebrities’ news is just a way for tabloids and gossip websites to make money. They publish made-up facts with exaggerating titles, click-baiting netizens for views. However, it is hard to clarify rumors and fix public images even if a person is innocent. Thus, news facilities should follow their career code and take a step out of celebrities’ private lives.

    Lastly, celebrities’ personal information is more likely to be leaked, including identifications, email account, and flight numbers. The loss of critical information is risky for anyone since one can be stalked or steal money from. Today, electronic scams are so rampant that smart scammers can start with very little information and deceive people’s money. Everyone needs extra vigilance. In such cases, the information of famous entertainers and athletes should be of particular protection.

    In summary, celebrities need further protection of privacy, yet have been deprived of it often. This is unjust and cruel. They sure deserve more than this, and it is the responsibility of the public to give it back.

    77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 21, 2020 at 4:24 am

    Revision:

    With the boom of social media, there are more news resources today than we ever had. As such, some people believe that getting information from many news outlets is the premise to be well informed. I strongly support the idea and the reasons are as follows.

    To begin with, we should listen to different voices before making conclusions. One news resource typically has a single view. For example, an article either supports or disagrees with a bill. Besides, since the reasonings around an argument are one-sided, people should not readily accept the first idea they see. Instead, examining expanded views remains in their best interests. Without first-hand information, many people could make biased judgments.

    Additionally, the news may delay. In the fast-changing fields, getting real-time information is the key to success. Yet news agencies sometimes fail to report tiny variations. Like in the stock market, a lot of the details are omitted in news reports. To acquire precise statistics, people need to read different numbers and draw comparisons. Thus, getting information from all valid news platforms remains crucial.

    Lastly, news reports can be affected by their environment. Media from different countries and cultures have distinguishments in beliefs and political stands. As a result, they reveal different sides of a story. For example, in the recent outburst of the Wu Han coronavirus, the news agencies failed to reveal the severity of the epidemic in time. In the meantime, papers from Britain cast doubts on the infection numbers at the early stages. If people had read the news and started discussing, many of them would become vigilant as the epidemic escalated.

    In light of the reasons noted above, I firmly believe in the significance of getting news from different resources. To have a well-rounded view of things, we should keep our minds constantly open to the influx of knowledge.

    77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 20, 2020 at 8:45 am

    Revision:

    With the boom of social media, there are more news resources today than we ever had. In this case, some people believe that getting information from many news resources is the premise to be well informed. I strongly support the idea and the reasons are as follows.

    To begin with, we should listen to different voices before making conclusions. One news resource has typically a single view. For example, an article either supports or disagrees with a bill. Besides, the reasonings around an argument are one-sided. Thus, people should not readily believe in the first idea they see, but read diverse views. Without first-hand access, we should still be able to make unbiased judgments.

    Additionally, the news may delay. In the fast-changing fields, new things come up at the boundaries of our knowledge. Yet news agencies sometimes failed to report tiny changes. Like in the stock market, every tip could mean something. To acquire precise statistics, people need to read different numbers and draw comparisons. Thus, getting information from all valid news platforms remains crucial.

    Lastly, news reports exit in an environment. Media from different countries and cultures have distinguishments in beliefs and political stands. They reveal different sides of a story. For example, in the recent outburst of the Wu Han coronavirus, the Chinese news agencies failed to reveal the severity in time. In the meantime, papers from Britain cast doubts on the infection numbers at the early stages. If Chinese people had read the news and started discussing, they could have raised awareness about the situation.

    In light of the above-mentioned reasons, I firmly believe in the significance of getting news from different resources. To have a well-rounded view of things, we should read vastly and broadly.

    77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 14, 2020 at 11:10 am

    Revision:

    With the recent boom of social media, there are more news resources today than we ever have. In this case, some people believe that getting information from many news resources is a premise to be well informed. I strongly support the idea, since diversity brings clarity.

    To begin with, we should read different perspectives before concluding. One news resource has typically a single view. For example, an article either in favor or disapproves of a newly passed bill. Besides, one’s reasoning will be around his argument, including the supporting materials and validations. It is one-sided as well. Thus, readers should not agree on the first idea they lay eyes on. It is paramount to read contradict ideas and leverage the strength of proofs. Although we do not have first-hand access to the scene, we should preserve our judgments.

    Additionally, the news may delay. In terms of economic events like stock exchange, trends are fast-changing. Yet, news facilities can not report every change in time. To acquire precise statistics, people need to read different numbers and draw comparisons. Thus, getting information from all valid news platforms is crucial to stay up-to-date.

    Lastly, the news exits in an environment. Media from different countries, different cultures may have major distinguishments in their beliefs and political stands. For example, in the recent outburst of the Wu Han virus, the Chinese news facilities failed to reveal the severity in time. In the meantime, papers from Britain cast doubts on the infection numbers before any alert. If Chinese people had read the news and started discussions, people might have better guards on the virus. The situation may be less severe.

    In summary, getting information from various resources is significant. To have a well-rounded view of things, we should read vastly and broadly.

    77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 14, 2020 at 10:52 am

    Revision:

    With the recent boom of social media, there are more news resources today than we ever have. In this case, some people believe that getting information from many news resources is a premise to be well informed. From my perspective, the idea should be strongly supported. The reasons are as follows.

     

    To begin with, we should read different perspectives before concluding. One news resource has typically a single view. For example, an article either in favor or disapproves of a newly passed bill.  Besides, one’s reasoning will be around his argument, including the supporting materials and validations. It is one-sided as well. Thus, readers should not agree on the first idea they lay eyes on. It is paramount to read contradict ideas and leverage the strength of proofs. Although we do not have first-hand access to the scene, we should preserve our judgments.

     

    Additionally, the news may delay. In terms of economic events like stock exchange, trends are fast-changing. Yet, news facilities can not report every change in time. To acquire precise statistics, people need to read different numbers and draw comparisons. Thus, getting information from all valid news platforms is crucial to stay up-to-date.

     

    Lastly, the news is formed in an environment. Media from different countries, different cultures may have major distinguishments in their beliefs and political stands. For example,  in the recent outburst of the Wu Han virus, the Chinese news facilities failed to reveal the severity in time. In the meantime, papers from Britain cast doubts on the infection numbers before any alert. If Chinese people had read the news and started discussions, people might have better guards on the virus. The situation may be less severe.

     

    In summary, getting information from various resources is significant. To have a well-rounded view of things, we should read vastly and broadly.

    77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 14, 2020 at 10:14 am

    No further revision.

    77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 14, 2020 at 10:14 am

    No further revision.

    77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 7, 2020 at 9:35 am

    Revision:

    With the recent boom of social media, there are more news resources today than we ever have. Some suggest that getting information from many news resources is a premise to be well informed. In my opinion, this idea should be strongly supported.

    To begin with, we should read different perspectives before reaching a conclusion. Nowadays, one news resource has typically a single view of an event. Besides, it’s reasoning will be around that single belief, including supporting materials and validations. For example, an article either in favor or disapproves of a newly passed bill and it will illustrate how the opinion out-weighs it’s opposite. Thus, the readers should not agree on the first idea they lay eyes on, but to read broadly.

    Additionally, news may be delayed. In terms of economic events like stock exchange, the trend is fast-changing. Yet, news facilities can not report every change in time. If people want to acquire precise statistics, they need to investigate different numbers and draw comparisons. Thus, getting information from all valid news platforms is crucial to stay up-to-date.

    Lastly, the news is formed in an environment. Media from different countries, different cultures may have major distinguishments in their beliefs and political stands. For example,  in the recent outburst of the Wu Han virus, the Chinese news facilities failed to reveal the severity in time, due to various reasons. However, papers from Britain cast doubts on the infection numbers very early. If Chinese people had read the news from Britain and started discussions, people might have better guards on the virus.

    In summary, getting information from various resources is significant. In order to have a well-rounded view of things, we should read vastly and broadly.

    77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 7, 2020 at 8:15 am

    Revision:

    Celebrities and sports stars have been known to live low privacy lives. Surrounded by paparazzi and long-lens cameras, they live in spotlights that follow everywhere. I believe celebrities’ lives are over-exposed and should be given more space. The reasons are as follows.

    To begin with, overexposure is a form of disruption. Top page news of celebrities’ life details, marriage status and behaviors are spread out, without any permissions. Secretly taken photos are all over the internet and news of stalkers breaking in celebrities’ houses frequently shows. Such infringement of personal space endangers one’s safety and health. Nobody deserves a life to be monitored.

    To elaborate, gossips may be lies and cover the truth. Celebrities’ news is just a way for tabloids and gossip websites to make money. They publish made-up facts with exaggerating titles, click-baiting netizens so as to have more views. However, it is hard to clarify rumors and fix public images even if a person is innocent. Thus, news facilities should follow their career code and take a step out of celebrities’ private lives.

    Lastly, celebrities’ personal information is more likely to be leaked, including identifications, email account, and flight numbers. The loss of critical information compromises anyone since a person can be stalked or steal money from. In such cases, the information of famous entertainers and athletes should be of particular protection.

    In summary, celebrities need further protection of privacy, yet have been deprived of it often. This is unjust and cruel. They sure deserve more than this, and it is the responsibility of the public to give it back.

    77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 7, 2020 at 7:30 am

    Revision:

    History is not a major that every college student takes. However, it has been suggested that all college students should take compulsory history courses. From my perspective, this idea should be strongly supported, since history lessons enlighten the youth.

    To begin with, learning history is very beneficial, as it helps people to broaden their views, learn more about different cultures and sharpen their minds. For example, I took an online history lesson about the British monarchy a few months ago. It helped me get a sense of the glory of the royal family, the duties of a nation and how the British government is formed. The month felt like a deep dive into British culture, which brought me fresh perspectives on democracy.

    Moreover, learning about history is an essential building block of a person’s personality. We need to have a better grasp of our own culture to know who we are. Also, only by reflecting on the past can a person learn about the mistakes humans have made. Thus, history lessons should be compulsory for every college student, not optional.

    Conversely, some people may argue that we need mandatory history classes in middle schools, not universities. Besides, it has been suggested that students should watch documentaries instead, as it is more cost-efficient. In my opinion, college-level history courses can not be replaced. Only by reading through books and writing formal essays can a student gain an in-depth view on a part of history. Such training is crucial to a student’s development.

    In summary, it is my contention that colleges should provide compulsory history classes to all students. It is of high importance and is a good investment, as history lessons shape the students into responsible citizens.

    77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 7, 2020 at 6:40 am

    Revision:

    If the university were to provide new services in dormitories, I would definitely favor a quiet study room. In my perspective, building study areas is the most wanted yet often neglected need, and it will serve the students better than the other two proposals.

    To begin with, studying takes up a lot of students’ time. Just by speculations, in a busy week schedule of a college student, studying for 10 to 40 hours is normal. The statistics may vary, but they reveal a trend. If a study room is introduced, it will be used frequently and persistently. Also, study rooms can benefit a large group of students.

    Additionally, most schools have gyms and cinemas on campus already, or at least in the neighborhood. In some cases, dorm buildings even own in-built gyms and karaoke, which is convenient enough. To elaborate, building additional facilities leads to dorm reconstruction, routine cleaning, and space reallocation. Are all these efforts really worth it? In my opinion, the work is unnecessary.

    Lastly, exercise and entertainment are noisy, yet a dorm is a place to rest. Roommates take care of other people’s schedules, and they will be quiet when others rest or try to relax. In this case, the time spent in those rooms is limited. Furthermore, a lot of times, you have to control yourself not to interrupt.  For example, I should not laugh out really loud when someone else is trying to sleep or run on a treadmill while others are meditating.

    In summary, building study areas is the most efficient and effective choice. It will benefit most students, and it is worth the money and time.

    77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 6, 2020 at 4:04 am

    Revision:

    If the university were to provide new services in dormitories, I would definitely favor a quiet study room. In my perspective, it is the most wanted yet often neglected need, and it will serve the students better than the other two proposals.

    To begin with, studying takes up a lot of students’ time. Just by speculations, in a busy week schedule of a college student, studying for 10 to 40 hours is normal. The statistics may vary, but they reveal a trend. If a study room is introduced, it will be used frequently and persistently. Also, it can benefit a large group of students.

    Additionally, most schools have gyms and cinemas on campus already, or at least in the neighborhood. In some cases, dorm buildings even own in-built gyms and karaoke, which is convenient enough. To elaborate, building additional facilities leads to dorm reconstruction, routine cleaning, and space reallocation. Are all these efforts really worth it? In my opinion, the work is unnecessary.

    Lastly, exercise and entertainment are noisy, yet a dorm is a place to rest. Eligible roommates take care of other people’s schedules, and they will be quiet when others rest or try to relax. In this case, the time spent in those rooms is limited. Furthermore, a lot of times, you have to control yourself not to interrupt.  For example, I should not laugh out really loud when someone else is trying to sleep or run on a treadmill while others are meditating.

    In summary, building study areas is the most efficient and effective choice. It will benefit most students, and it is worth the money and time.

    77today_
    University: BUPT
    Nationality: China
    February 5, 2020 at 10:05 am

    Second Revision:

    History is not the major that every college student takes. However, it has been suggested that all college students should take compulsory history courses. From my perspective, the idea should be strongly supported.

    To begin with, learning history is very beneficial. It helps people to broaden their view, learn more about different cultures as well as sharpen their mind. Take myself as an example, I took an online history lesson about the British monarchy a few months ago. Although the course is more narrative than reflective, it helped me get a sense of the glory of the royal family, the duties of a sovereign and how the British government is formed. It felt like a deep dive into the British culture and brought me fresh perspectives on democracy.

    Moreover, college history lessons should be mandatory. In my opinion, learning about history is an essential building block of a person’s personality. We need to have a better grasp of our own culture to know who we are. Also, only by reflecting on the past can a person learn about the mistakes humans have made.  Thus, history lessons should be compulsory for every college student, not selective.

    Conversely, some people may argue that why we need mandatory history classes at universities, not middle school. Even, whether taking history classes is better than watching documentaries, as it is more cost-efficient.  In my opinion, college-level history courses are necessary. Only by read through book lists and write formal essays can a student gain an in-depth view over a part of history. Such training is paramount.

    To sum up, it is my contention that colleges should provide compulsory history classes to all students. It is of high importance and is a good investment of money, as it helps shape the students into ideal citizens.