Mình sẽ tập viết, cũng như ghi chép bài mẫu, bài hay của nhiều Topic mình tìm được từ các dạng đề, bài báo, whatever topic mình quan tâm.

********************************************************************************************  

WEB TOPIC, IDEA:

- http://ielts-simon.com/

- http://debatewise.org/

- http://www.ielts-writing.info/

********************************************************************************************  

(?) "Some people think that the best way to ensure road safety is to increase the minimum legal age for driving cars or riding motorbikes. To what extent do you agree or disagree?"

[ Link: http://debatewise.org/debates/116-the-minimum-driving-age-should-be-raised-to-18/#yes2 ]

The minimum driving age should be raised to 18

Young drivers, and even older ones, cause many fatal accidents; raising the minimum age at which people can drive might reduce this, but is it a benefit to society, and are the statistics true? We can help lower the accident rates if the driving age is raised to 18 so no more kids can get hurt or killed in a accident on the freeway or by another car crashing into their car if we raise the driving age it will be safer for the young and old drivers.  

* YES, because:

The number of serious or fatal road accidents in the UK will be reduced

The numbers speak for themselves. Statistics have shown that 15% of all accident deaths on UK roads involve drivers under the age of 21. Research shows that 17 to 20 year olds are about seven times more likely to be killed or injured in an accident (per mile of driving). This is illustrated by the fact that 135 teenage drivers were killed on UK roads during 2007, with many more injured. Raising the minimum driving age to 18 would dramatically decrease deaths and injuries.

* NO, because:  

Raising the age does not guarantee a reduction in deaths. Rather, it would just change the statistics from "17 to 20 year olds" to "18 to 21 year olds". The reason why drivers crash is a lack of experience, and an 18 year old with one year's worth of experience is just as likely to crash as a 17 year old with one year's experience. For that matter, it would be the same with a 35 year old with one year's experience. Raising the age therefore would not dramatically increase deaths and injuries. You may be able to change the age, but you can't change the people!
Additionally, one cannot say logically that one must raise the driving age because teenagers are harming others and/or being harmed while driving. For example, a parallel can be found in driving statistics for males versus females. According to studies, males of all ages are 77% more likely to kill someone when driving than females. It would be just as illogical to raise the driving age to 18 as to ban males from driving.it won't help if your sitting on tour butt for two more years doing nothing you might be more mature at 18 but that doesn't mean your mature enough for the road.

* YES, because: 

17 year olds are simply not mature enough to cope with the skills required for driving

One reason to show that 18 year olds have a more mature mind then 16 year olds is because of the pressure of college and being on your own. When you are 18 you think about the life ahead of you which stresses you out because one day you will have to pay for everything and also if you are not yet in college you would rather have some money then your parents pay for an accident.

This is false because I would like the ability to drive to work because I am turning into a responsible adult. If YOUR parents did not raise you right other people should not suffer for your insolence.

* NO, because:  

Everybody is different. To say that someone at the age of seventeen is not mentally mature is a sweeping generalisation. Some people by the age of 18 may well not have reached what the proposition cite as "full mental maturity". Some people may never reach "full mental maturity". We mature at different rates, and therefore we have safeguards to ensure that those driving have sufficient "mental maturity", and it's called "the driving test". If you haven't passed, you can't legally drive without a person who has held a full clean licence for three years with you. Doing so is breaking the law and is punished. Raising the age to 18 would have no effect whatsoever because the driving test is there to ensure the "mental maturity" of the driver before he is fully qualified. Peole are going to be the same no matter how old they are! There are some people that are 20 years old and above that are still not mature. It so depends on what type of person you are. People need to grow up sometime.

Im 17 years old, didnt take drivers ed, took ten questions for my written drivers test (in oklahoma), failed my behind the seat drivers test, went back got a hundred, have yet to be pulled over, and get a ticket. Never got in a wreck, dont talk on my cell phone, can drive in cities like LA and San Francisco no problem. And see many many many horrible drivers everywhere i go. I dont think the age limit should be raised, i think if you mess up once you lose your privilege to drive period. Stupid biased point.

I'm a female from the u.k and disagree that 17 year olds are immature. Some are but not all of us it's mainly "boy racers" that crash not everybody else. Adults are also liable to crash. So don't raise the age because It's pointless waste of time and money.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

---> MY POINT 

********************************************************************************************

(?) "Leaders and directors in an organisation are normally older people. Some people think younger leaders would be better. Do you agree or disagree?"  

[Link: http://www.leadership-idn.com/old-versus-young-leaders/ ']

Experience has no competitor. Howsoever smart and talented you are but you can't compete with an experienced person of your field. So there is no question of comparing the experienced and inexperienced lot in any field. An experienced professional has less bookish knowledge and more practical information on his or her subject. That is why you can't debate with him or her. But we do make a comparison of old versus here.

90 per cent leaders are experienced

Nearly ninety per cent of the in every field are older lot. Exceptions are always there. Mark Zuckerberg the CEO of Facebook is an exception but he did have vast experience in his field. Yap he started his profession at so early age that is why at the age of 29 he was one of the youngest billionaires of the world. In his staff he had hundreds of experienced professional. Out of them several have crossed their sixties but he is influencing all of them to work because of his prowess in information technology. If we see wave of a change in various Arab countries the young generation is leading it. Younger lot is not only making violent protests but also reaching the helm of affairs in various counties. Several countries afflicted with status quo are eagerly eying their younger generations for a change in future. It means in professional fields no doubt old leaders have they say. But in community based activities and more particularly in politics only charisma of leadership is required. The age of the leader does not matter a lot. If make a comparative analysis of old versus young leaders we see three points of difference between them.

Older leaders have edge in experience

In most of the cases the old leaders have practical experience of equal to the age of the young leaders. So there is no match between them. In old versus young leaders it is the experience which gives the older group quite an edge. They can prove their viewpoint with case studies and practical examples of their previous professional life. On the other hand young leaders can't counter their edge in this area.

Younger leaders have flair in digital technology

Let's make comparision of old versus young leaders from another aspect. When our old leaders were young there was no any technological advancement at that time. There was no internet, no ipad, no smart phone and no skype. The most advance technology they had, was telephone, computer and that's all. But now younger lot has flair in digital technology. They are so smart in internet, social media, skype and other such stuff. That is why distant communication is no problem for them. Moreover, because of internet they are fast learners. They take no time to learn the things which their seniors have learnt in quite a long time.

Generation gap keeps them away

Doing analysis of old versus young leaders generation gap counts a lot. Both breed of leaders can learn from each other but the rising generation gap has kept them away from each other. Because of the fast pace of life both don't have time to spend with each other. They mostly interact officially and remain so formal. Therefore, old leaders can't share their experiences in detail with their successors. Similarly young leaders are so busy in social media and digital technology that they don't have time to give to their seniors and learn from their experiences. Who is suffering? Obviously the younger leaders.

Do you think above three points are are enough to make an analytical review of old versus young leaders? Please share your thoughts in comments below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---> MY POINT

********************************************************************************************