1. Should the developedworld help developing countries overcome poverty?
Yes, it is necessary that the developed world help developing countries overcome poverty. As the growing disparity has become one of the most imperative problems to solve in the world, reducing the extreme poverty in the developing countries is prerequisite for sustainable economic and social development. Helping such nations overcome the destitution is not only for themselves but also for the developed countries.
First, fundamental human rights should be guaranteed for all humans, biological requirements for human survival: food, water, shelter, clothing, warmth, and so on being the veritable right among the rights. That is to say, every child born on the planet has the right to live humanely. It is natural that the rich should help the poor at any time anywhere.
Further, helping developing countries address poverty is cost effective because they are the future consumers of the products of the big businesses in the developed nations. There will be a win-win situation among them, resulting in bringing about peace and prosperity in the world.
Of course, Self-help is the best help: God helps those who help themselves. Who would help those that are lazy? However, the poor sometimes appear only to be lazy because they lose spirit to do basically anything, succumbing to their listlessness due to the poverty.
In conclusion, it is vital that the developed world help developing countries overcome poverty. Helping them would offer invaluable benefit for both the developed and the developing. Those and themselves in the aphorism that God helps those who help themselves signify us all, including all nations and the peoples. (248 words)
2. Should Japan playa bigger role in international affairs?
Yes, it is necessary that Japan play a bigger role in international affairs. Japanese people these days are more and more concerned about their own individual activities in this unstable society, thinking how to survive day by day. However, we should strive for playing a bigger role in international affairs not just for the world but for ourselves, too.
First, as one of the G7 developed nations, Japan has a political responsibility for the world stability, and such efforts will also bring about the financial accelerator effect by helping needy countries to progress. Without the world prosperity that depends on its political and financial stability, Japan’s prosperity would be ruined, let alone Japanese individuals.
Further, intriguing Japanese culture, which is spiritual, thoughtful and peaceful, can play a role in the world so as to establish a more tolerant and less conflicting society. For instance, Japanese animations have such thoughtful contents that adults as well as children almost all over the world are interested in them.
Indeed, its military role will be restricted thanks to the Japanese Constitution; however, under these circumstances, Japan might well do what it can do. We do not have to get along with all the nations, but we have to deal with all of them. Japanese soft power can play a role in the affairs.
In conclusion, Japan should and can play a bigger role in international affairs than before, which would make it possible also for Japanese people to better off. World stability is bring about through mutual dependence. It is hoped that more Japanese people turn their attention to the outside world. (255 words)
3. Should all nationshave the right to develop nuclear weapons?
Yes, all nations should have the right to develop nuclear weapons. As the sole victim of atomic bombings, having the policy of the three non nuclear principles, Japan has been renouncing the right of possessing the nuclear weapons, or, I should say, only having the right, it has been renouncing the right of developing the weapons. However, The time has come when all nations, including japan, can exercise the right to develop them.
First, every country has the right to life just like human individuals. But for the possessing the nuclear arms, any nation on this planet might not survive in the harsh international environment. For instance, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could have been avoided had Ukraine had nuclear weapons.
Further, the United Nations and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons do not appear to be working so as to protest and promote the world stability. Once one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council were to be determined to attack a country, no one could stop the aggression, and any nation could develop nuclear weapons if it did not care of getting economic sanctions.
Of course, a world without nuclear weapons is the ideal. But what is the reality? Studying the past through history signifies seeing a glimpse of the future. Humans have not yet become smart and intelligent enough to deal with each other only through reason and common sense and rationality.
In conclusion, all nations, including Japan, should have the right to develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves from invasion or attacks. Every nation has a right to protect itself, and has a obligation to protect its own people. (265 words)
4. Will free tradebenefit third world countries?
No, I don’t think free trade will always benefit third world countries. It has been said that free trade does benefit all the nations, including third world countries, under the name of globalization. However, free trade does not always necessarily benefit all the countries involved, especially developing countries.
First, even if free trade brought any benefit in general, only mature nations could enjoy the fruits of free trade. Third world countries might end up with being made use of. For example, China has become the second economic super power by fostering infant industries under protectionism.
Further, a question whether the free trade itself is good or not will be posed. Some experts believe that it is the globalization, which is based on free trade and an open and strong multilateral trading system, that has produced the disparities.
Of course, history and experiences have proved that protectionism will only drag the world economy into deep recession. But making efforts to prevent the recession is the responsibility of developed countries. That is the reason why the third world countries are called “third.”
In conclusion, the free trade does not always benefit the world economy, much less the third world countries. They can contribute to the expansion of the world economy after becoming the “first” or “second” world countries. (204 words)
5. Should job promotionsbe based on performance or on seniority?
I think job promotions should be based on performance rather than on seniority. Although the seniority system in Japan had been working until 1980s, when the book, “Japan as No. One,” was published, since the burst of Japan's economic bubble in the early 90s, the system appears apparently not to have been working. In order to reignite the Japanese economy, job promotions should be based on performance.
First, motivation will be going up with the system based on job performance. Of course money is not everything, but it is something. Recently, it is pointed out that some middle-aged men seem not to work enough to get the relatively high salary. The system based on performance will motivate not just younger generation but also the older generation.
Further, the job performance system will lead to more innovation. The “lost 30 years” of Japan is resulted in with lack of scientific and technological innovation. The seniority system has hindered innovation and entrepreneurship because the system has inherent risk to hate any changes leading to them.
Indeed, the Japanese seniority system has somehow assured the people that despite its inefficiency, they could see their future positively in general. However, the time has changed. Absent innovation and entrepreneurship, no nations could survive this hectic and complicated world in 21st century.
In conclusion, it is vital especially in Japan that job promotions be based on performance. Motivation and innovation are the two key words to get the better Japanese society. We need them for success, happiness, joy, love, fulfillment of our dreams, also for our children’s. (248 words)
6. Should there berestrictions to freedom of speech in some cases?
Yes, I do think there should be restrictions to freedom of speech in some cases. I have some reasons to support my opinion.
One of the reasons why I think so is that from social standpoint, spreading the misinformation or disinformation is harmful to the society. It is because our daily life is based on correct information. Especially in this information age, whether something is true or not is critically important. For example, as the national election is held, without correct information, there could not be proper election.
In addition, another reason why I think there should be restrictions to freedom of speech in some cases is that from educational perspective, allowing fake news to be spreading in the society under the name of freedom of speech is not favorable for students to study the notion of freedom of speech, let alone the notion of freedom itself. It is because our society is based on liberal democracy, which emphasizes the importance of freedom.
Of course, misinformation and disinformation are totally different things. Disinformation is a kind of crime itself since it is intentionally delivered in spite of knowing that it is false. Whereas, misinformation is a mere mistake. But even though it is revised correctly later, the first impression will not easily be disappeared. Misinformation as well as disinformation could be a lethal weapon, which can exclude someone or a company from the society.
Therefore, there should be restrictions to freedom of speech especially in the case of disinformation. Proliferation of the disinformation should be totally limited because it is a lie. Misinformation must be reduced as much as possible. Criminalizing disinformation would make people more careful about offering information. It is hoped that the world becomes more aware of the importance of pursuing the true post-industrial information society. (299 words)
7. Agree or disagree:A lack of women’s rights is a serious problem in Japan.
No, I don’t agree that A lack of women’s rights is a serious problem in Japan. I have several reasons to support my opinion.
One of the reasons why I think so is that from educational standpoint, in Japan, from elementary school to college, both genders are treated completely equal. They never feel sexually discriminated in any situation in school. For instance, some teachers even say that girls seems to act more aggressively than boys.
In addition, another reason why I disagree the opinion that a lack of women’s rights is a serious problem in Japan is that from the familial point of view, you can see the totally different view from the common perspective view. It is because in the family aspect, traditionally in Japan, women have been stronger than men, having more rights to decide what to do about their family. Their opinions count largely to buy a car, furniture, or some appliances. For example, this can be said by watching the TV commercials, which are targeting at house wives.
Of course, from the business and political standpoint, some will ague that women’s rights are still largely lacking. But fundamental human rights are guaranteed under the constitution, and several laws to promote women’s right have been enacted for these last fifty years. If there is something lacking about human rights, what lacks is not women’s rights but opportunities to exercise the human rights for everyone including men.
Therefore, I do not agree that a lack of women’s rights is a serious problem in Japan. Indeed, some people, including both men and women, lack the notion of human rights, but most people, who have had the Japanese education, which as I mentioned is the most egalitarian educational system, respect them after all. It is hoped that power of the Japanese house wives let be known to foreigners as well as my fellow Japanese. (314 words)
8. Should rich peoplebe required to pay higher taxes?
No, I don’t think the rich should be required to pay higher taxes. Although some argue that wealthy people should pay more tax because they are rich, in my opinion, they should not be taxed more than ordinary people because they are rich. They also have the right to be treated fairly as long as they abide by the laws under this capitalist world.
First, taxation must be fair since fairness is vital to this democratic society. Without fairness, democracy could not survive into the 21st century in this world, where authoritarianism has been increasingly powerful. The rich are rich because they have been striving for success and succeeded, for which it is unfair to punish them by heavy tax.
Further, taxation heavily on the success will ruin the capitalism itself, which is based on individual initiative. Taxing the rich higher means to lose the initiative or to seek for another city or country to make efforts to make money. Consequently, the society left behind would be sluggish, resulting in ordinary people being in trouble financially.
Lastly, consumption tax is enough for the rich to fulfill their responsibility to pay an extra tax. The more expensive goods or service you purchase, the more you have to burden the consumption tax. Although the government has numerous tools for taxation, it should depend on indirect taxes more than direct taxes.
Therefore, rich people should not be required to pay higher taxes. Historically speaking, capitalism is superior to socialism. Our future is up to economic growth. When capitalism lose its vitality, it will be the beginning of the end of the prosperity. (269 words)
9. Should Japan havemore lenient immigration policies?
No, Japan need not have more lenient immigration policies. People these days are more concerned about Japan’s aging society, and some argue that Japan have more lenient immigration policies to deal with the problem. However, the present immigration policy is sufficient to accept capable foreign workers, so more lenient policies are not necessary.
First, addressing the aging society and accepting immigrants are completely different issues. We have to learn the reality in Europe, where, as a German Chancellor once said, the policies to accept large number of immigrants have been unsuccessful. Japan must internally tackle the problem of the aging society.
Further, technological developments, such as AI, robots or self-driving cars, could solve the labor shortage, additional foreign workers not being necessary in the future. Moreover, the remarkable medical advancement would help the elderly work until their 70s or more. Eventually, Working is a joy and a blessing.
Lastly, Japan, which is as large as California State, might not need so much population increase. In fact, Japan had as many as about 30 million people during the Edo Period three centuries ago. Like northern Europe countries, around 50 million people might be suitable on these islands.
In conclusion, Japan need not have more lenient immigration policies. Understanding that Japan can do without superfluous immigrants makes people less concerned about its future. It is hoped that immigration policies will be considered from the perspective of immigration itself. (236 words)
10. Agree or disagree:The use of military force is sometimes justifiable.
Yes, I agree with the opinion that the use of military force is sometimes justifiable. Under the Japanese constitution, Japan has declared the renunciation of war, and some argue that the use of military force is never justifiable. However, Japan itself has a military-like organization – Self Defense Force. In my opinion, this does signify that the use of the military must be justifiable in some situations.
First, every country has a right to defense its territories, its people, and their property. If your nation were to militarily attacked in the future for some reason, your country would have to protect itself militarily. Even preemptive strikes might be selected in a severe situation.
Further, since helping allies is a fundamental principle in order to be a ally, you ought to join the military action should one of the allies be attacked by another power. Being in the side line, claiming the pacifism, will be heavily criticized, and never be acclaimed as a pacifist nation.
Lastly, the world order might be kept only by force. Historically speaking, human beings have fought tremendous wars to protect themselves. A philosopher once said that we are the offspring of murderers after all, getting a little smarter and smarter to avoid unnecessary wars.
In conclusion, the time might come when you must fight with weapons to protect what you love, so the use of military force should be justifiable at times. It is required that the article 9 in the Japanese constitution be discussed under the conditions mentioned above. (253 words)
11. Do the benefits oftechnological improvements outweigh any negative side effects?
Yes, I think the benefits of technological improvements outweighs any negative side effects.
It is true that humankind has been suffered from various problems related to developments of technology especially since the industrial revolution in 18th century. However, it can be said that the benefits of technological improvements have been outweighed any negative side effects, and will do so in the future.
First, from the health aspect, people have become more healthier and live longer than before. Not only children barely die from diseases in developed countries, but not a few elderly people are sill working in their 70s. The human race has never experienced such a situation before.
Further, culturally, it has become possible that people can live in a diversified societies in a various ways. In other words, they can enjoy their lives with mental satisfaction thanks to technologies, which have been creating numerous entertainments and leisure to enjoy them.
Lastly, financially speaking also, technology has made it possible to grow the economy faster and enough to feed 7.9 billion people on this planet now. Without the developments of technology, there could have been disastrous wars between even developed nations.
In conclusion, technological improvements evidently provide significant advantages, outweighing any negative side effects, which also technology can tackle with. It is hoped that humankind will survive this century and bring more prosperity into the next century, our grandchildren’s age. (231 words)
12. Can society eliminateits dependence on fossil fuels such as oil and gas in the near future?
No, I don’t think society can eliminate its dependence on fossil fuels such as oil and gas in the near future. People these days are more concerned about climate change, and reducing greenhouse gases, including CO2 produced mainly by burning fossil fuels, has become one of the top priorities to tackle with. However, eliminating using fossil fuels from this world is impossible because we are so dependent on them.
First, modern civilization has been built on steel and fossil fuels, electricity, which was mostly generated by fossil fuels, being joined after 20th century. Of course, we must strive for replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy as much as possible, but replacing completely is technologically impossible.
Further, Should it be technologically possible, it would be financially impossible. Humankind in this century has numerous problems to solve other than climate change. Elimination of starvation and poverty, which leads to correction of social disparity, should be the top financial priority.
Lastly, using fossil fuels is not so devastating as you feel. For example, new technology developed in Japan can make it cleaner to generate electricity with coal. The emission gas is so clean compared to the conventional plant that some call it carbon neutral. Such technology as making fossil fuels much cleaner should be more invested.
In conclusion, society can not and need not eliminate its dependence on fossil fuels such as oil and gas in the near future. Eliminating fossil fuels is not an end but just a means to pursue a better world. It is necessary that people not confound means with the end when discussing. (265 words)
13. Should the number ofweekly working hours be decreased?
Yes, it is necessary that the number of weekly working hours be decreased. People these days are more concerned about their own individual activities, and reducing the working hours has become one of the big issues in modern countries. It is necessary that the number of working hours be decreased personally, socially, and corporationally.
First, in this modern age, humans are living not for working but for enjoying themselves. Aside from those whose job itself is a sort of hobby, ordinary people need more leisure time to fulfill themselves in their lives. Don’t confound means with the end.
Further, vitalizing each individual leads to vitalizing the society, and vice versa. For example, three-day-working days per week and six-hour-working hours per day means working for 18 hours a week, which sounds very exciting and seems to bring something new.
Indeed, some might say that reducing the working hours will make companies less profitable. However, a famous research shows that reducing the hours surely increases the productivity. Moreover, it is the amount of consumption, not labor, that decides how much wealthy the individual or the society is.
In conclusion, to enjoy the consuming society, reducing the working hours is the magic policy. The number of weekly working hours should be decreased, and each individual could use the extra leisure time to do whatever he or she wants. (225 words)
14. Does the mass mediahave a negative effect on society?
No, the mass media don’t have a negative effect on society, or I would say they should have a positive effect on society. These days, neutrality of the mass media is sometimes questioned. However, without them, democracy would be ruined because of the lack of proper information. The mass media have a positive effect more than a negative one.
First, Healthy journalism is prerequisite to maintain a democratic society. Everyone in a modern nation has a right to know what is happening in the society, and the relatively large entity to have the role of mediating information is called mass media.
Further, there must be at lease several mass media in order to diversify information sources and analyze the problem from different angles. Through that process, negative effects by some mass media can be lessened. Again, bolstering healthy democracy is the job of mass media.
Of course, every mass medium can not always be neutral. It might be impossible for anyone to maintain strict neutrality about everything. But the intention to be neutral is vital for the mass media, this being where collation of information comes in.
In conclusion, the mass media have a relatively positive effect on society. Collating information as well as diversifying information sources will give the mass media a trustworthy position. Under the current difficult circumstances in the world, the expectation for the role of mass media will getting much higher.
(235 words)
15. Agree or disagree:The value of a college education will continue to decrease as technology improves.
I disagree the opinion that the value of a college education will continue to decrease as technology improves. As the technology improves, the meaning of college education might be being questioned. Although the conventional education system will be less attractive, college education will continue to be the center by college itself changing with the time.
First, college should adapt to the time, and can regain its value as always in the past. For example, the college starting to teach liberal arts in the medieval Europe has been changing its stance about what to teach without losing its traditional nature.
Further, as is often referred, “Man is a social animal,” which signifies that humankind needs interpersonal experience to mature mentally, perhaps also physically. As young students instinctively look for someone to interact, college will continue to provide a place for them to meet each other.
Of course, college that can not respond to change will not survive in the future. However, it is not only college but also other organizations that are to perish without response to change. Making use of technology, such as adopting online education broadly, college will reborn as a new entity to offer a new education.
Therefore, I don't agree that the value of a college education continue to decrease as technology improves. On the contrary, its value will increase in the future by making the most use of technological achievements. (234 words)