TRandom12

Nowadays there is a lot of critisism about globalization. The question is should countries isolate themselves or instead engage other countries?
In my opinion countries should still engage eachother, because there are several benefits.
One major point is the exchange of resources, because a lot of countries only have a specific good they can exchange. But when the countries can trade with eachother ther ewill always be a benefit for both of them. For example china delivers cheap eletronic devices to europe whereas europe ships milk products to china.
Another advantage is the cultral exchange. As a result we are able to learn from eachother. For instance i personal had a lot of conversations with chinese students while learning chinese. I was able to explain and describe a lot of aspects of our culture, as a result i expierenced a lot about their culture in return.
Finally the cooperation between countries enables us to travel to coutnries in a far distance.One reason is the the dissolvement of poltical boundries. A freind of mine for eaxmple opriginates from vietnam. She is able to visit her aunts and uncles without having dificulties while entering vietnam or germany.
In conclusion there are a lot of positive aspects for engaging other countries especially for the citiziens., but also for economic reasons. Isolation tends to reduce your possiblities you would have if you trade and exchange with a other party or in this context a country.

TRandom11

As the fees for universities all over the world rise and education is getting more expensive there is the question, should it not be possible to provide university education free of charge for all interested scholars?
In my opinion free education is not only possible but should be standard. There are several reasons to support this view.
The first major aspect is, that providing free education enables all students to study regardless of the income of their parents. For example in Germany there are a lot of states where universities do not have any fees at all. As a disadvantage you may have larger lecture rooms with more students, but being able to educate as much people as there are willing to learn is more important to educate only those who's parents are well off.
Another positive aspect about providing free education is the better quality of the studies. For example if you have to bare in mind, that you have to earn enough money to be able to study, you cant concentrate fully at you courses and exams.
Lastly there is also a benefit for the country itself which provides free education, because providing free education enlarges the numbers of own and foreign students finishing their studies in your country and as a result your industry will receive more qualified workers. Especially countries with few or no special resources like Germany relay heavily on the quality of their workers, because they can only provide services.
In conclusion there are a lot of advantages for providing free university education, especially for countries of the industry states and for countries with few resources. Raising the fees for education will lead to less qualified people and in the end to bad performance in companies.

TRandom10

Compare & discuss which form of knowledge is more important.
Trough books or trough experience?

Nowadays people study at universities for a long time in order to be high skill on the later job. But the question is, would it be better if you learn more by experience and not only by books and lectures?
In my opinion learning trough experience is more important than studying from books. There are several aspects to consider.
One major aspect is the ability to experience things that are not in the books or in detailed described. For example, you may read a book about how to learn to swim, but actually to really learn swimming you have to do it on your own. As such the experience you have in contrast to reading a book will help you to better adapt to your surroundings and learn in a different way.
Another point for learning by experience is the possibility to learn aspects that are far more sophisticated in theory as on learning by your own. Because if you want to paint a picture and want to mix colors, you either have to learn the complex rules of color mixing, the additive and substitutive mixing. Or you can learn it by your own experience which will be much easier.
The last important positive fact about learning by experience is the ability of help. You also can receive help while studying from a book, for example from your lecturer, but the most efficient way of helping you is when you learn by experience. Another persons may show you how to swim or how to drive a bike.
In conclusion there are a lot of different advantages while learning by experience. Studying from books is also possible but its more like a substitute for learning directly from a person.

TRandom9

In my opinion younger people enjoy life more than older people.

There are several reasons to support this.

The first major point is beeing young enables you to do more demanding activities which benefit in a better life experience. Because when you are younger you will be able to perform more challanging tasks, for example climbing a mountain. As an older person you sometimes lack the ability to do the whole range of possiblities you have as a yougner person.

Secondly being healthier than older people makes you less concern about ilnesses and other diseases. For example doing more sport makes you more resistable in contrast to older people. But also your mindest is not as concerned about your health as it will be later on.

Another positive aspect to enjoy life, is the different mindest of younger people. They tend to experiment and try out more new things than people in a high age. For example you would take more risks and try out new paths if you are hiking.

As a conclusion beeing young helps you to enjoy life more easily than older people do. Not seldom older people refer to there youth as the better time in life.

TRandom8

Should governments invest more money into rebuilding streets & highways or more on public transport (e.g. subways, buses etc.).

Nowadays the budget of the government is often limited and there needs to be a decision whether to invest in one or another project.
If you have to get to work on a daily basis you will recognize the bad condition of highways and other streets. The question is, would you rather spend the limited budget on highways or public transport?
In my opinion there are several reasons for spending the money on the public transport.
First of all, a investment in public transport will benefit more people as people using the highways. Not only the main population lives in or nearby large cities the percentage of affected people is higher, but also the usage of transportation is different. If you live in a bigger city like myself, you will be mobile mainly through using the bus or the underground. Taking a car especially during the rush-hour could be a very bad idea.
Another reason for improving the public transport, is the more environmental friendly usage of energy. Especially during the last months concerning the nuclear debate in Germany it is even more important to lower our energy expenses.
Finally the highways in our country are still good enough and better than many roads in other countries. As i visited Finland last summer, i recognized that only the highways are solid roads. Whenever you leave the main road, you will find yourself on a unpaved road. Compared to the condition there our infrastructure is ways ahead.
In conclusion there are several reasons to invest the limited budget in the public transport instead of improving the bad condition of some roads. Especially as the number of people benefiting will be a lot higher and the nature will have a benefit as well.

TRandom7

What do you like more, eating at home or in restaurants?

I personally favor eating at restaurants. There are several reasons for doing so.
Firstly, eating at restaurants gives you the ability to eat a variety of different meals.
For example if you go to a Italian restaurant you can choose between a lot of different pizza and pasta.
Secondly in most cases eating at a real restaurant, you will have the ability to eat better than making the same meal at home. For example cooking a meal you did not cook before will not be as good as from the resturant.
Lastly you also will have the ability to eat something unfamiliar you never ate before. If you are on vacation in a different country you could try different meals you did not know before.
In conclusion there are several positive aspects of eating in a restaurant instead of cooking at home. Especially if you are on vocation and want to try out different meals.

TRandom6

In my opinion there are several reasons why people visit museums if they visit a new city.
The first reasons is, that every bigger town has museum and as a result you do not have to think about where to go first. For example if you would visit Berlin you will first think about which places to visit and will select probably a museum near your place.
Another aspect is learning something about the history of the place. Because if you are in a unfamiliar place, you like to get to know the history and traditions for example.
Further visiting museums always leads to new knowledge. Very often you read something new, not only specific for the place itself but also in general. This particular knowledge helps you to improve understanding the surroundings of this place.
In conclusion visiting a museum does have a lot of positive aspects and if you have the time just choose a museum which sounds interesting, there always will be a benefit for you.