Writing

 What do you think about organic and normal foods? Then, do you think the only difference between normal and organic food is the cost? I think there are some differences between normal and organic foods because the production of these 2 foods is kind of different, For growing organic foods, farmers only use natural fertilizer. This means organic foods do not contain substances that were created by humans, and some people might say this is healthier and some might say it really doesn't matter. Another difference is how they handle the production wastes. For growing normal foods, farmers usually burn, bury, etc to handle this situation. Burning these wastes might affect the farm animals living near that farm. Burying these wastes might pollute groundwaters, which will make people near that area have less water. But for growing organic foods, farmers usually give them to their farm animals. And it will be safe for animals to eat them since they did not use any substances that would ha...

 What do you think about teens using social media? Then, do you think kids under 13 should be allowed on social media sites? From what I know, kids under 13 are nor allowed on most of social media sites. But this topic exist because some kids use social media even though they are not allowed to use them, and these social media sites are banned for kids under 13 for a reason. However do you think these kids should be allowed to use those social media sites? It seems like that people think 13 years old and older can take care of themselves in social media, and this it kind of true I can say. In social media there can be inappropriate things that can cause harm to kids, for example there might be some challenges on social media that would cause harm to other people if they do those challenge. Also, kids under 13 could give away their personal information to strangers, and they can't identify if this person is bad or not that easily. So, these kids might give away information that are ...

What do you think about adopting a child or children? Then, do you think we should have to pay to adopt a child? I think we don't need to pay because we will spend money to grow these children. And there might be some crimes related to this, for example, these crimes might be people kidnapping kids to send them to the orphanage and getting money from the orphanage when they get the money from the poeple who want to adopt them. When poeple should pay to adopt a child, they will need to spend more money to raise their child. And spending money on adopting a child might affect children by their parents using less money if they don't have a lot of money. Also, some poeple will be going to tell people that they need to pay more money to adopt a child, and some people will going to spend more money, which is terrible for those people. So, this means there might be crimes related to this when people need to pay to adopt a child. And it will be going to create other problems related to...

 What do you think about curfews? Then, do you think curfews do keep teens out of trouble? I think curfews have chances to keep teens out of trouble, because curfews in a place where there are a lot of dangerous people,  would keep these teens to be safe and not be involved with these dangerous guys. This can work in towns that are a little bit dangerous for teens, but most towns are not that dangerous. And I think teens might not need curfews because I think most teens like to stay at home after the evening or like that. But this can change as teens grow because teens would like to spend time with their friends and other people. And curfews can affect advantages to teens even though the town is not dangerous, because it would be very dark when there are no curfews. Then there are chances that teens might get in accidents with vehicles or other people, and teens might not know where do they need to go to be at their home. Then teens will be lost in the middle of the night and ...

 What do you think about strict parents? Then, do you believe strict parenting raises strong-hearted, resilient kids? I believe strict parenting doesn't raise strong-hearted, resilient kids always because every person has a different personality and what they want to do. This means that some kids would be presented as strong-hearted and resilient kids and some would be raised into kids with other personalities. But would strict parenting have more possibilities of kids being raised as strong-hearted and resilient? I think it can affect kids to be strong-hearted and resilient, but I think it would not affect kids that much. The reason why I think like this is kids who have the personality of strong-heated and resilient would have more effect on strict parenting, but kids who do not have those personalities would not be affected by strict parenting. And some researches show that too much strict parenting can cause kids to go on the wrong path in their lives, and these decisions can m...

 What do you think about children? Then, do you think those who want children should take parenting classes and pass tests before having a child? I think it will be good for children and parents to take parenting classes and pass tests, but I think it should be the choice the parents made. The reason is there are tons of people who want children, and this means there will need to be a lot of facilities to teach parenting classes. And this can mean a lot of space will be taken by these facilities and people who work at these facilities will continuously earn money. Learning to parent would not be wasting time, but it will take time from you. And forcing poeple to take parenting classes and pass tests can make people not want to have children. Then this will create a massive problem which will decrease the future population, and the population of the world could decrease if this thing becomes law in most of the countries in the world. When the population of the world or country decre...

 What do you think about the relationship between adoptive parents, biological parents, and their children? Then,  should adoptive parents be legally bound to allow biological parents access to their children? I think biological parents should have the right to access their children in most cases because it would be better for children to know their biological parents and adoptive parents. In most cases, children can get adopted because of parents mistreating their children, and in these cases, these biological parents should not be able to get access to their children. But for biological parents who did not mistreat their children, I think adoptive parents be legally bound to allow biological parents access to their children. And it will be better for children's future when they get to know their biological parents because these children will be able to not spend time trying to just remember about their biological parents, and why they don't get to see them. Then children wou...

 Have you ever watched movies or tv series related to human cloning? Then, do you think human cloning is ethical? I think human cloning is unethical because cloning people would cause lots of confusion and problems throughout the world. When a person clones him or herself or clon another person, now there will be two or more same people existing in the same world. Then, how would people recognize the original person who was living longer than the clon version of him or herself? And if the person who got cloned is famous, it would confuse the world much more than other people being cloned. Just imagine your favorite celebrity gets cloned and this clone appears at the same place wherever this celebrity comes to a place where many people have come to see this celebrity. Then crowds would be very confused because there are 2 or more than this celebrity at the same place. And this would cause problems because let's say that many people get cloned. Then there will be more people existing...

 What do you think about euthanasia? Then, do you think euthanasia is not morally acceptable? I believe euthanasia could be ethically acceptable because euthanasia can make a person feel no more pain. Let's say one of your family members got a disease that can't be cured, and this family member is very suffering from the pain that comes with this disease.  And what would you choose to do? At first, I think you would try to find a way to cure this disease and save this family member, but the technology could not be advanced enough to cure that disease or it is a new disease so people don't know how to cure the person. So, let's say this disease can't be cured, and you don't know if your family member is suffering from the pain or not. Then what would you decide to do when you don't know if your family member is suffering from the disease or not? Would you do euthanasia or you would just leave your family member to keep living when you don't know if your f...

 What do you think about the assassination? Then do you think assassination can never be justified? The word 'assassination' means the action of eliminating someone, which means the action of killing someone. And killing is a bad thing even though when it is not an assassination, because killing is taking someone's life. I think assassination is worse than killing because assassination usually gets money after killing someone. And to assassinate someone, they need to plan it for a while to be perfect. So, they would be spending their time planning how to kill someone, and it is very inhuman that a person is spending his or her time killing their own. So, assassination can't be justified, but if someone assassinated a dangerous person to the whole world, do you think it can be justified. Some people might say that it can be justified because they assassinated a person and saved lots of poeple from danger. And it can be true if a person who was assassinated was a really d...

 Have you ever went to hunting? Then, do you think hunting is unethical and should not be allowed? I think hunting is unethical and it depends on banning hunting forever. I think hunting is unethical because killing is a bad thing, and if you see hunting from animals' perspectives, you will see hunting as a disaster that they can't stop. If these animals are staying in nature as a group, then they would need to see one of them die and all they can do is run away from people who are hunting them. And you would not like to run away from things that are hunting you when you see a person that you knew die. Another reason that hunting is unethical is that animals can't do anything about them being hunted by humans. So, now let me tell you why it depends on banning hunting. In some national parks, the population of deers was increasing due to more plants being grown in those areas. And their predators like wolves weren't able to keep up with a growing population of deers, and...

 What do you think about the population of the world? Then, do you think there should be world population control? I think there are some countries which have lots of population and some countries which have a very little population. And both of the cases can cause serious harm and problems to these countries because if there is too little population, citizens would worry if the population will decrease and decrease and someday be gone. And if there is too much population, citizens would worry if the population keeps increasing, there won't be enough jobs, places to live, etc. But there are advantages to having little population and too much population. The advantage of having little population is there will be always enough resources, jobs, places to live, etc for everyone because since there are fewer people, they would be able to have more than enough places and resources for them. Another advantage is their life quality could be better because if this country earns lots of mone...

 What do you think about cloning? Then, do you think scientists should bring back extinct species through cloning? I think it will be okay if scientists don't make those extinct species live in nature and interact with other species because if they let those species interact with other species and live there, there will be very big differences in the ecosystem. And species who lived in those spaces will be likely to move to another place because of the extinct species that had been brought back, then people who are living there would be likely to get affected by the species moving into another place. Since the ecosystem had changed because of moving species, the ecosystem will form a completely different ecosystem than before. Then, plants, animals, etc. near there would start to change slowly to adapt to the new ecosystem. But some species will not move, and those species will interact with extinct species. And this can be good or bad or neither, so we don't know which species...