That single sex schools are good for education
Today, many man confuse about woman that want to be their ex – girlfriend even the opposite side. And that can be the bad future impact of a boy or a girl who learn at single – sex school. But first of all what is single – sex school? single – sex school was a school that separated two gender ( boys and girls around 6 – 12 ). Education is a knowledge that spread by the teachers to their students, often. This will prepare them to be ready with their adult age.
I disagree with this motion because student at this age ( 6 – 12 ) is the best time to learn each other with other gender in behaviour and the best time prepare for their adult life. Moreover, the school's role is to prepare its students for life which involves interaction between the sexes, by preventing inter-sexual interaction we hurt the role of the school significantly. The effects of same-sex schools are significant. This creates segregation men and women, this which as a result of a lack of contact between them can create fear and uneasiness between them. Even the religius school still allowed their students to communicate with their opposition gender. And this is a good kind of school that allowed their student learn for their future. Dr. Alan Smithers, a respected British schools expert, declared in a 2006 report that ‘distraction by boys was a myth and that half a century of research has no chaos consistent the advantages for single-sex education for boys or girls. (http://idebate.org/ ).
My second point is actually the fact is Boys learn better when they are with girls and they actually learn to get on better relationships. Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said;All the research shows single-sex schools are good for girls but bad for boys – both in terms of academic performance and socialisation (http://www.independent.co.uk/ ). Public school is a good way to educated student trough their health as what i explain. Boys get little bored to their school ability on their relationship between opposite gender who separated. And that was not their right to take boys less on their health care about gender.
Third, we don‘t know anything about girls because we separated by our parents, teachers and family to because of their behaviour that reflected the bad side of people who bored at their daily life activity when he followed the single – sex school.
In my conclusion we disagree that single – sex school is good for education because it less health care for their future impact when their adult.
That government should not give subsidy to people who choose unhealthy lifestyle
Many country with their own government are fair to make good future for its own country and some of them are not. Dipa is my name and Indonesia is my country. Government is a group of people who have high command to role a country or the environment that they lead. Subsidy was a help trough money or other things that have been made like a promise of the product that you buying at. People might get fat because obesity and junkfood, and people might get silly of their behaviour to destruct environment. That called the main source of unhealthy life.
Straight to my first argument, I choose disagree because when government don’t give help to their people even the one that is bad so the government and the country will be hated by other country and costing bad future impact because of their bad judgement about their people. (DR. WANSINK) state that the biggest disservice that public health has ever done to Americans is to make them believe that they and their kids were fat because the schools, the food companies, the fast-food restaurants and the government made them that way. It stripped people of their hope and empowerment, and it left them resigned to never try anything other than an occasional "Lose 40 Pounds in a Week Turnip Diet”. What government can do is to give people hope and to give them the tools to make it happen (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444812704577609482961870876 ).
My second point is it will be a bad future impact if goverment don’t give subsidy to people who choose unhealthy life including junk food. Mr. Tanner poor eating habits may indeed lead to health consequences such as diabetes or heart disease, even cancer. But those illnesses only increase insurance costs to the degree that we prohibit insurers from charging appropriate premiums. Ghoulish as it sounds, government programs may actually benefit from the unhealthy. Social Security's finances are certainly boosted if recipients die early. The situation with Medicare is murkier, but to the degree that unhealthy lifestyles do contribute to increased benefit costs, there are mechanisms to shift at least some of those costs back to the individual. It same as the people in USA that drink drugs they don’t realize that they hurting themselve even when their realize government must act as a good government.
(http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444812704577609482961870876 ).
My third point is goverment can corrupt any time but with fairness like giving people subsidy to people who choose unhealthy life. And make less corrupt. The federal government runs a large array of programs for the roughly 1 million American Indians who live on reservations. Many of the programs are housed within the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). These two agencies have about 9,000 employees and spend $2.9 billion annually.1Since the 1970s, the federal government has promoted Indian "self-determination," but tribes still receive federal subsidies and are burdened by layers of federal regulations. In addition, the government continues to oversee 55 million acres of land held in trust for Indians and tribes. Unfortunately, Indians who live on reservations are still very dependent on the federal government.
Indians and the federal government have a long, complex, and often sordid relationship. The government has taken many actions depriving Indians of their lands, resources, and freedom. A former top BIA official admitted that federal policies have sometimes been "ghastly," including the government's "futile and destructive efforts to annihilate Indian cultures. (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/interior/indian-lands-indian-subsidies ).
In my conclusion that we believe this motion should fall because it is not fair to trade people even the government citizens including the people who choose unhealthy life and make a bad future impact to its nation. Now this is my conclusion.
