Neil
TruckersForMe Participant TruckersForMe Participant

Your Replies

  • Neil
    University: Tianjin University of Economics and Finance
    Nationality: China
    May 20, 2020 at 1:47 am

    There is no doubt that overpopulation has become one of the most prompt issues in modern society. Politicians ought to shoulder the responsibility of finding a solution to this crisis. They need to tackle not only the imminent problems but causes if they want to rescue humanity.

    The first step is to recognize what the consequences of overpopulation are. Only by doing this can we find an appropriate solution. Perhaps its most important effect is the acceleration of resource depletion. To combat this, governments should do more research on renewable energy supplies. They could, for example, invest in wind turbines and solar panels, finding alternatives to oil reserves. Likewise, this sponsorship can also mitigate the vast consumption of fossil fuels. Another unfavorable effect of overpopulation is traffic congestion. Here, an answer could be the government provides funding for constructing transport infrastructure. In this way, traffic vehicles could afford more passengers at one time.

    It is not easy to decide how governments should tackle the causes of overpopulation. The Chinese have adopted legislation of family planning. I doubt, however, whether this solution is realistic in other countries. Another option would be reinforcing laws to cut welfare for extra children in one family. For example, women are less likely to give birth to another child with shrunk pregnant leave and less school subsidy.

    In conclusion, there is no question that population density has risen beyond average. Authorities first need to realize the possible consequences of this issue. Under this circumstance, they can appease the causes and effects as soon as they can.

    Neil
    University: Tianjin University of Economics and Finance
    Nationality: China
    May 16, 2020 at 2:12 am

    There is no doubt that overpopulation has become one of the most prompt issues in modern society. Politicians ought to shoulder the responsibility of finding a solution to this crisis. In fact, they need to tackle with not only the immediate problems but long-term causes if they want to rescue humanity.

    The first step is to recognize what the consequences of overpopulation are. Only by doing this can we find an appropriate solution. Perhaps its most important effect is the acceleration of resource depletion. To combat this, governments should do more research on renewable energy supplies. They could, for example, invest in wind turbines and solar panels, finding alternatives to oil reserves. This sponsorship can also be a mitigation of vast consumption of fossil fuels. Another unfavorable effect of overpopulation is the traffic congestion. Here, an answer could be government provides funding for constructing transport infrastructure. In this way, traffic vehicles could afford more passengers at one time.

    It is not quite easy to decide how governments should tackle the causes of overpopulation. The Chinese have adopted legislation of family planning. I doubt, however, whether this solution is realistic in other countries. Another option would be reinforcing laws to cut welfare for extra children in one family. For example, women are less likely to give birth to another child with shrunk pregnant leave and less school subsidy.

    In conclusion, there is no question that population density has risen beyond average. Authorities and relative legislations first need to realize possible outcomes of this issue. Thereafter, they could appease the causes and effects as soon as possible.

    Neil
    University: Tianjin University of Economics and Finance
    Nationality: China
    May 10, 2020 at 2:10 pm

    Almost everyone agrees with the benefits of receiving national healthcare for children. However, there is some dispute about whether the government or family should decide what that care is. My view is that while state may adopt a general policy for children’s medical care, parents ought to take priority.

    There are good grounds for arguing that the state should decide on the medical provision children receive. One of benefits is that governments can ensure the quality and justice of medical services. This is especially true for developing countries where local citizens are struggling with poverty. The explanation is, authorities can provide teenagers with the most general healthcare framework. Another is that youth diseases are sophisticated cases, had there been anybody but state hospital to resolve them. In this case, it might be justifiably right for kids to enjoy governmental treatment.

    Meanwhile, there is a steadfast argument for parents to consider healthcare for children. This originates from one basic principle that parents pour most of their hearts into offspring. Furthermore, it is natural for family members to make decisions for children who are too young to make choices. Besides, youngsters might suffer from psychic problems like autism if it was not for parents’ specialized custody. In this case, it seems quite wrong to adopt state services without meditation.

    In conclusion, while there is massive contention on both sides of the case, my personal belief backs up parental care. I suggest that governments should prioritize expenditure on healthcare in favor of both parents and children.

    Neil
    University: Tianjin University of Economics and Finance
    Nationality: China
    April 23, 2020 at 2:02 pm

    Almost everyone nowadays agrees about the necessity to provide national healthcare for children. However, there is some dispute about whether the government or family should make such thing happen. My view is that while states’ efforts have been for the benefit of children, we had better resort to parental medical care.

    There are good grounds for arguing that governors should invest in medical care territory. One of these is governments can ensure the quality and justice of medical services. This is especially true for developing countries where local citizens are struggling with poverty. The explanation is, authorities can provide teenagers the most general healthcare framework. Another is that adolescent diseases are sophisticated cases, had there been anyone but state hospital to resolve them. In this case, it might be justifiably right for governments to handle youngster’s healthcare issues.

    Meanwhile, there is a steadfast argument for parents to consider healthcare for children. This originates from one basic principle that parents pour most of their hearts into offspring. Furthermore, it is natural for family members to make decisions for children who are too young to make choices. Besides, youngsters might suffer from psychic problems like autism if it was not for parents’ specialized custody. In this case, it seems quite wrong to adopt public services without meditation.

    In conclusion, while there is massive contention on both sides of the case, my personal belief backs up parental care. I suggest that governments should prioritize expenditure on healthcare in favor of both parents and children.

    Neil
    University: Tianjin University of Economics and Finance
    Nationality: China
    April 22, 2020 at 2:29 pm

    Almost everyone nowadays agrees about the necessity to provide national healthcare for children. However, there is some dispute about whether the government or family should make such thing happen. My view is that while states’ efforts have been for the benefit of children, we had better resort to parental medical care.

    There are good grounds for arguing that governors should invest in medical care territory. One of these is governments can ensure the quality and justice of medical services. This is especially true in developing countries where the municipality is struggling with poverty. The explanation is, authorities can provide teenagers the most general healthcare framework. Another is that adolescent diseases are sophisticated cases, had there been anyone but state hospital to resolve them. In this case, it might be justifiably right for governments to handle youngster’s healthcare issues.

    Equally, there is a steadfast argument for parents to consider healthcare for children. This originates from one basic principle that parents pour most of their hearts into offspring. To be specific, teenagers can enjoy specialized insurance because family members are acquainted with their health condition. Besides, youngsters might suffer from psychic problems like autism if it was not for parents’ specialized custody. In this case, it seems quite wrong to adopt public services without meditation.

    In conclusion, while there is massive contention on both sides of the cases, my personal belief backs up parental care. I suggest that governments should prioritize expenditure on healthcare in favor of both parents and children.

    Neil
    University: Tianjin University of Economics and Finance
    Nationality: China
    April 16, 2020 at 1:59 pm

    Almost everyone nowadays agrees about the necessity to provide national healthcare for children. However, there is some dispute about whether the government or family should make such thing happen. My view is that while states’ efforts have been for the benefit of children, we had better resort to parental medical care.

    There are good grounds for arguing that governors should invest in medical care territory. One of these is governments can ensure the quality and justice of medical services. This is especially true in developing countries where the municipality is struggling with poverty. The explanation is, authorities can provide teenagers the most general healthcare framework. Another is that adolescent diseases are sophisticated cases, had there been anyone but state hospital to resolve them. In this case, it might be justifiably right for governments to handle youngster’s healthcare issues.

    Equally, there is a steadfast argument for parents to consider healthcare for children. This originates from one basic principle that parents pour most of their hearts into offspring. To be specific, teenagers can enjoy specialized insurance because family members are acquainted with their health condition. Besides, youngsters might suffer from psychic problems like autism if it was not for parents’ specialized custody. In this case, it seems quite wrong to adopt public services without meditation.

    In conclusion, while there is massive contention on both sides of the case, my personal belief backs up parental care. I suggest that governments should prioritize expenditure on healthcare in favor of both parents and children.

    Neil
    University: Tianjin University of Economics and Finance
    Nationality: China
    April 15, 2020 at 2:33 pm

    Almost everyone nowadays agrees about the government should take on the responsibility of national healthcare. However, there is some dispute about whether government or family should provide medical care for teenagers. My view is that while states’ efforts have been for the benefit of children, we should take priority on parental medical care.

    There are broad grounds for arguing that governors should invest in the project of medical care. One of these is governments can ensure the quality and justice of medical services. This is especially true in developing countries or some place where municipality has been struggling with poverty. The explanation is, authorities can exert their fiscal strength to provide the most general healthcare framework for young people. Another is that teenagers’ diseases are intricate cases, had there been anyone but reputable state hospital to resolve them. In this case, it might be justifiably right to introduce governments to handle youngster’s medical care issues.

    Equally, there is a steadfast argument for parents are liable to consider the matters of children medical care. Provocateurs deem one extremely important principle is that parents pour most of their hearts into springs. In addition, health condition of youngsters might even deteriorate if it was not for parents’ specialized custody. In this case, it seems quite wrong for adopting public services without meditation.

    In conclusion, while there is strong contention on both sides of the case, my personal belief backs up the argument for parents. I suggest that government should prioritize expenditure on healthcare and parents should provide prescription carefully.

    Neil
    University: Tianjin University of Economics and Finance
    Nationality: China
    March 24, 2020 at 1:58 pm

    There is no question that standards of behavior among teenagers have fallen. Some people deem that the principle cause is lack of custody from their working parents. It is no doubt that I firmly back up this viewpoint.

    There are several reasons why children suffer from behavioral and interpersonal issues. For one thing, teachers and schools may not handle the problem appropriately. This is due to the fact that they are too lenient to direct youngsters’ behavior. For another, cutting-edge technology is also responsible for teenagers’ problems. For example, electronic devices have threatened adolescents’ interactive experience in the formative years.

    However, we can deduce that the scarcity of parental care accounts for most reasons of adolescent social issues. It is evident that raising a child in modern metropolis is much more costly. Both of the parents have to exert every effort to build up the backbone for the whole family. They do not, however, realize the attention paid to kids and interaction with teachers have shrunk. While it is very often the case that children who receive less warmth are prone to be more violent students. In fact, they may become more disruptive in school, thus making it arduous for school regulators to manage. Likewise, parents may fail to make disciplines at home, where they should cultivate children about moral issues and values. Deficiency of parental instruction will impair youngsters’ cognition and finesse in the long run.

    In conclusion, despite many aspects of reasons of children’s inappropriate behavior, parents should bear most of the responsibilities for the actions of their teenaged children.

    Neil
    University: Tianjin University of Economics and Finance
    Nationality: China
    March 13, 2020 at 1:53 pm

    There is an escalating tendency that youth have social problems in modern time. Some people deem it owing to the lack of custody from their parents loaded with heavy works. It is no doubt that I am back up with this viewpoint.

    Several reasons triggered behavioral and interpersonal issues among children. For one thing, teachers and schools should account for teenagers’ bad behavior, because they are too lenient to direct youngsters’ behavior. For another, cutting-edge technology is also responsible for bunches of problems related to children. For example, electronic devices have threatened the formative process of interactive experience during adolescence.

    On the flipside, the scarcity of parental care accounts for most of the reasons why children encounter social issues. It is evident that raising a child in modern metropolis is much more costly. Both of the parents have to exert every effort to build up the backbone for the whole family. They do not, however, realize the attention paid to kids and the frequency commuting to teachers have shrunk. Under this situation, children who receive less warmth are more likely to be more violent students. To be specific, they may become more disruptive in school, thus making it arduous for school regulators to manage. Meanwhile, there are fewer disciplines at home, where parents are supposed to cultivate children about moral issues and values. Deficiency of parental instruction will impair youngsters’ cognition and finesse in the long run.

    In conclusion, despite many aspects of reasons leading to children’s inappropriate behavior, parental issues should be the most significant factor.

    Neil
    University: Tianjin University of Economics and Finance
    Nationality: China
    February 15, 2020 at 2:48 pm

    There is an escalating tendency that youth come to misbehave in modern society. Some mortals deem it owes to the lack of custody from effortful-work-loaded parents. There is no doubt that I am back up with this illustration.

    Several reasons trigger behavioral and interpersonal issues among children. Teachers and schools should account for teenagers’ bad behavior, by virtue of they are too lenient to orient youngsters’ conduction. Cutting-edge technology is also responsible for phenomenal problems related to children. These electronic devices have threatened the formative process of interactive know-how during adolescence.

    On the flipside, the deep-seated issue of children’s misbehavior lies in parental care. It is evident that raising a child in the modern metropolis seems much more costly. Parents both have to exert every effort into work to build up the backbone for the whole family. They do not, however, realize the attention paid to kids and the interaction with teachers has shrunk. Children who receive less tenderness from unstable family are more likely to grow violence within their mind. To be specific, they become more disruptive in school, thus making it arduous for school regulators to manage. Meanwhile, there are fewer disciplines at home, the best place to cultivate children about moral issues and value notions. Deficiency of awareness in alternative educating will impair youngsters’ abilities in the long run.

    In conclusion, despite many aspects of reasons leading to children’s social behavior, the most significant factor would be parental issues.