Category Archives: Discursive

Q) ‘We rely on modern technology too much’. Discuss. By Ali Ul Qudur


Nowadays in this fast-moving world, it is hardly impossible to manage time and follow the timetable, teach or learn effectively, and also being there for someone on time. The solution to all this fuss, our reliance on modern technology. Since times have changed, responsibilities and time tables have also drastically changed for those who have other fish to fry. The questions that arise are: Should we really rely on modern technology? Is modern technology the new normal or should we consider the old lifestyle of getting things done? Does it have harmful effects on our society and the new generation? All these questions will be discussed in the following passage.

Supporters of the topic believe that we should rely on technology such as autopilot in modern vehicles. They believe so because it has improved for the better and so that drivers can easily interact with the passengers(mostly children) or complete a task to save time. Elon Musk, owner of Tesla confidently states, “Autopilot uses cameras, ultrasonic sensors and radar to see and sense the environment around the car.” He further states that without this, “a driver alone would not otherwise have” the awareness. Similarly, an avid user of the same technology also states, “I’ve been using this technology since the day I purchased my first self-driving vehicle and it has saved a lot of my time. I usually do my breakfast and go through the news while it drives through the highway.”

However, people against the topic argue that we should not toy around with this technology especially in crowded areas as it could damage public property or result in fatality. James Smith, a senior traffic warden, said, “In the past 2 years there has been an increase in self-driving vehicles and traffic violations. I’ve noticed that most vehicles with the self-driving feature have jumped traffic signals and stop signs. The technology still has room for improvement but drivers should not rely on it completely.” Similarly, Alexandra Clark, an ordinary citizen stated, “We should not rely on modern technology like this until it is foolproof and smart enough of its surroundings. I am devastated at the loss of my only nephew. An owner used the summon feature of his vehicle which rammed the car into the fence and over the child.”

At the same time, advocates of the topic maintain that the world-wide-web had 4.57 billion active users as of July 2020. The use of the internet has also improved our means of communication and has boosted online purchasing and trade. A mother of two and a wife, Sarah Peck, states, “I don’t have a lot of time to go to the supermarket so I purchase whatever I want online. Yes, it is comparatively expensive but it saves a lot of time and I utilize it with my family.” Likewise, the Globe Magazine stated, “Stay indoors during this uncertain time. The internet has always been there for us. It’ll be there when you need to purchase pharmaceutical drugs, it’ll be there when you’re craving for dessert, it’ll be there for your groceries. But most importantly, it’ll be there when you want to connect with your loved one.”

In retrospect, opponents of the topic maintain that we shouldn’t rely on online shopping apps/websites as those users are susceptible to hackers. They believe that dealers online do not believe in the term ‘What you see is what you get’. A parent stated, “My son’s confidence level has decreased because of the advancements in technology. He purchases whatever he wants and relies on online stores even after being scammed numerous times and this has resulted in him being a socially awkward and shy teenager who doesn’t have the confidence to walk inside a store.” Similarly, a once avid online purchasing family stated, “We used to save our credit card information on many online stores. Most of them were renowned brands too. Some dealers used to deliver counterfeit products while others, expired. Some used to have hidden charges and used to charge us extra. Since then, we have realized that we rely on modern technology too much.”

In retrospect, opponents of the topic maintain that modern technology like virtual reality and simulations on simulators is not only a very cost-effective way of teaching and learning but also a great source of entertainment. Prof. Brain May of Oaks University stated, “This is the best method of teaching my enthusiastic learners. The diagrams are three-dimensional which encourages the students to study harder as their concepts are crystal clear. It provides outstanding visualizations that aren’t possible in the traditional classroom.” Similarly, parents of two,12 and 9, stated, “We usually explain our children the subject or topic through Virtual reality and simulations. This develops their interest and find it a fun and effective way of learning.” They further added, “On the weekends, they happily watch a three-dimensional documentary.”

On the contrary, challengers of the topic claim that there is a huge difference between the two teaching methods, and that physical models should be used. A parent of a high school student claims that her daughter should actually see body diagrams and should conduct chemistry practicals rather than ‘seeing’ them. She believes that we shouldn’t rely on VR headsets as they are incomplete and lack reactions, unlike teachers. Similarly, The University of Relations mentioned in their recent research that traditional education is based on personal human communication while virtual reality is quite different; it is you and the software, and nothing else. This can damage the relationships between students and the overall human communication. Which is why we shouldn’t rely on virtual reality.

All in all, every coin has two sides; one positive and one useless/negative. The same is the case with modern technology. But in my opinion, we should be optimistic – not pessimistic – about it, enjoy the benefits that it has brought to us and rely on it if and only if it is safe for us and the society we live in. If it is used appropriately and within the boundaries, relying on it would contribute to the development of society.


Q. ‘Playing sport in school should be compulsory’. Discuss. By Noor Liza Rashid


Imagine a school without sport, just school work the whole day,every week,every month,every year. How boring would that be and how unfit would the students appear? They will be obese, unhealthy and tend to get weary of the school routine and studies would become a drag. Now, what would happen if sport was compulsory at every school?If it was compulsory at every school students would be healthy,active and would have more attentiveness and application towards school. They simply wouldn’t just sit the whole day, but would go out and play sports.

Advocates of the topic believe that there is a vital need of including sport in the school’s curriculum. Miss Chamberlain, a teacher to the secondary level,states, “The children have become lethargic! They need a break from work, from the new topics that they learn every day and they need to go out to the school grounds and play sport”.

Playing sports will not only refresh the students but will also help them stay in a physical and mental condition. An obesity graph for children and adults has been growing in the past few years. Students may not know this but if they’re not fit and healthy when they’re young, they will be in even worse health when they get older.Another teacher says, “they’re active during morning time but as the day progresses they become sluggish,apathetic and classes seem tedious and tiresome to them.” A research carried out at Oxford University showed that students participating in sports will have better academic performance than the ones who were not exposed to physical sports.

In retrospect ,the challengers of the topic maintain that sports aren’t necessary to the school curriculum and are simply a waste of time as most of them have never ever  played them in their whole lives. Brad Smith, a student of grade 9, claims, “We come to school to study not to indulge in playful activities. I have never played a single sport in my life and you expect me to waste a whole hour struggling to run and getting hit in the face? I’d be better off in class studying.”

Students would also learn to work as a team and cooperate with each other when playing sport. By participating in sports, teenagers not only get the much needed exercise but also learn skills for life. For example, most of the sports require the team members to co-ordinate and encourage fellow mates to achieve the common goal of winning the game. Interacting with team members and conveying their opinions and ideas will allow them to think and express freely. These skills will eventually make the person an extrovert and help in developing leadership qualities. Making sport mandatory will in particular benefit those students who have a natural talent for it. Mr Ali, a P.E teacher,says, “Sometimes students approach me and leave me surprised. I’ve seen many students unaware of their natural talents. Perhaps they would’ve never known if they hadn’t taken the first step and asked for my help. These are the students that help schools win championships. I sincerely believe that sports in school should become imperative.” 

On the contrary,opponents of the topic argue that participation in such sports leads to embarrassment, resentment and insecurities. They say “Amateur sports are supposed to be about having fun, but try telling that to a sore loser. Sore losers suck all the joy out of playing. Coping with their fragile egos, bad tempers, and antisocial behavior is a challenge. Even if you beat them fair and square, they will imply that you cheated, or make up some excuse to try and take away any sense of achievement that you may feel. It’s not just a young person thing either, if anything, middle-aged men can be the worst sore losers around.”

By including sport in the curriculum, the talented students and those who lack in academics can be encouraged to build a career out of it. Since children get to try their hands on various kinds of sports at school, they can choose the one they feel good at. There are many instances, where children from financially unstable families found their calling in sports while at school. Some of them have excelled in it and become extremely successful. Alex Heyes, a leading football player, agrees, “perhaps if  the teacher hadn’t been absent that day,I would’ve never found my passion for sports.

Getting an opportunity is the right of every student at a school. They need to be given a chance, they need to be tested to know their capabilities and choose what they enjoy and believe what is right for them.”

Some teachers are the critics of the topic and believe that playing sports makes the students inattentive in class. Mrs Hepburn maintains, “There have been times when sport has ruined their entire day , usually because they’ve lost and can’t help thinking about all the mistakes that they made during the match. The players can suffer crippling nerves or anxiety during class in the period leading up to big matches. Some have trouble going to sleep at night  because their bodies and minds are still buzzing. This leads to them being tardy and lazy at school.”

Proponents of the topic feel that teenagers who play sports have become sharper and much more intelligent. Ames Morgan, another famous psychiatrist claims, “teenagers who play sports use different planning strategies while playing and have to make decisions very quickly. This strategy can also be used by them in real life”. Similarly, another study claims that teenagers who play sports in which team strategies are used, they can work better in teams and can communicate with people better and obtain leadership qualities.

Although some people love playing sports, they argue against gamesmanship. A student claims, “Unfortunately, the art of following a narrow and literal interpretation of the rules, while completely disobeying the spirit of them, typically by employing all sorts of dubious ploys and tactics to gain advantage, is alive and well in amateur sports. For those of us who desire the fun or a fair contest, this is a sad state of affairs. I’ve seen more than enough bad behavior by individual players, captains, and teams over the years and the effects are always negative for sport and its appreciation.” 

In conclusion, I feel that the schools should make sports and physical education mandatory in order to keep their students physically and mentally fit and to create awareness about the necessity of exercise in one’s lives. Heywood Broan once said, “Sports do not build character, they reveal it.”

Q. ‘Playing sport in school should be compulsory’. Discuss. By Hafsah Nauman


Playing sports in this day and age is gaining more and more attraction as technology advances and parents and teachers try harder to push children outside to play sports. Due to these growing concerns more and more schools are adopting a policy wherein it is now mandatory for children to attend gym classes weekly and for them to take up an after-school sport activity. Many people are on the fence as to whether or not this is a good initiative and a question repeatedly resurfaces: ‘Should playing sport in school be compulsory?’

Advocates of sports being made compulsory at school maintain that sports have several psychological benefits along with physical benefits that can greatly help children especially adolescents. Research shows that teenagers who actively play sports especially at school or community centers are 23% less likely to fall into depression as compared to those who do not; this is due to the release of endorphins by the brain which help stimulate happiness and are a stress-relief for such children. However, challengers of this topic argue that this research has not been applied on a broad spectrum and has to be better developed before it can be widely accepted and that the toxic nature of school sports leads to self-esteem being tied to sports performance. Due to this many of these teenagers only release endorphins when they/ their coach are satisfied with their performance, if not they are more likely to fall into a deeper depression due to lack of self-appreciation and self-worth and tend to worsen their performance and make them lose more often. This turns into a repetitive and vicious cycle that could severely psychologically damage children, especially those in their early stages of puberty as it defines their long-term character. 

Moving forward, campaigners of the topic claim that coaches help children take criticism effectively and work collaboratively. To help young athletes improve, coaches must point out mistakes and faulty technique. Learning to handle this feedback establishes a foundation for adult skill-building and collaboration. In addition, with their team and coaches, athletes learn the give-and-take of working together and managing conflict. Research suggests that athletic girls become women who are better equipped than their non-athletic counterparts to handle criticism and stress. Effective coaching and competition can help build internal resources that will serve kids well into adulthood. Challengers of this claim that, although there are many good coaches there are also coaches who put undue pressure and bully children in sports teams. Too often coaches have a win-at-all-costs mentality especially due to unreal standards and consistent competitions with other schools/facilities, this mentally devastates athletes. A survey in 2019 showed that 56% of girls in sports teams were humiliated by their coaches and ranted and raved at by their coaches causing them to have an unhealthy relationship with sports and a hatred towards themselves and the game. This severely damaged the children mentally as Dr. Yoo Kihyun PhD says, “Harassment and bullying in sports especially by adults and coaches results in suicidal tendencies and more mental breakdowns in children than average, girls tend to be subjected to this more than boys however the mental side-effects target both genders equally and have lasting impacts on them throughout their lives.” This clearly demonstrates the potential harms and mental scars children face due to sports- especially those in a school environment. 

Proponents of the topic put forward that while teens competing in sports are certainly exposed to opportunities to enhance their personal and social development, athletes competing in public school sports also expand their physical abilities and fitness levels. Today’s teens are exposed to an array of entertainment avenues that may foster laziness, such as television, video games, and other media devices, but the traditional experience of sports, exercise, and kinesthetic activities help boost teens’ minds and bodies. Involvement in sporting activities keeps children moving and engaged physically, vital for their overall health and well-being. During these formative high school years, teenagers’ bodies grow and change constantly, and participation in sports can help teens learn how to maneuver and adjust to their changing body and physical abilities. In addition, a teen’s hormones and chemical makeup are constantly in flux. Involvement in sports can actually help the body produce more positive chemicals, such as endorphins and adrenaline, which creates more stable moods, positive feelings of happiness, and decreased feelings of depression or sadness. Campaigners against the topic feel that parents and teenage athletes must also be aware of the potential downfalls of competition and athleticism. As teens engage in competitive events and team sports, their exposure to peer-pressure and anxiety may increase with the need to win. Furthermore, athletes can experience extreme physical pressures when too much is demanded from them, resulting in injuries from overuse or other physical ailments. As revealed in the article, “Sports broke my family apart and now I only wrestle with my emotions,” by Chae Hyungwon, details common wrestling practices can lead to dangerous physical consequences. Wrestlers are often forced to either gain or lose weight in order to compete in their desired weight class, which leads to restrictive dieting often involving severe caloric deprivation. This practice is paired with excessive cardio exercise that quickly, and dangerously, burns off body fat and weight. While these practices are often considered to be a more drastic example of the dangers of athletics, any teen who feels suppressed by the pressures of competition may choose to engage in harmful practices in order to win and encounter athletic success.

In conclusion, sports can help build relationships, help a child remain committed, makes them release endorphins and helps define their long term character, on the other hand children can be subjugated to undue stress and pressure, physical and psychological injuries due to the enforcement of sports. In my opinion, the children should have the right to choose whether or not they wish to take on sports, sports as every other extra-curricular has its advantages and disadvantages; depending on the child certain advantages outweigh the disadvantages and vice versa and hence they should not be forced out of their will to play sports by their schools. Giving them the authority to make that decision in and of itself allows them to analyse and carefully consider their choice and hence helps with the development of character. 

What is History? By Muhammad Ahmad Irfan


What is history? Is history the significance that occurred from the creation of the universe to the splitting of the atom; or, is history simply the meaningless words that took place in the past, be it as irrelevant as the first pizza? History can also, only be the actions that shaped the future. The diversity of this topic sees no limits in filling hundreds of books by the year. In the below paragraphs we will discuss whether history is made by the sweat and toil of brave heroes or not.

People in favour of the topic believe that history is everything done in the past by influential personalities. To back this hypothesis up, a famous American historian named Owen Rinehart, who graduated from Harvard stated that, “As a matter of fact 80% of history is structured on the impact of actions of well known personnel, like George Washington.” He went on to further explain that these people who shaped the future made “History, History.” However, opponents of the topic maintain their stance that “History is what we want it to be.” This quote said by the British explorer John Raymond, clearly stated that history is a relative term, and no single personality should be given the allowance to steal this huge show. So far, there is a huge population who agrees with Raymond’s stance, due to their belief that this is a less biased path as compared to the proposed.

On the other hand, the proposition still preaches their message that history is meant to be dominated by the actions of individuals like Pablo Picasso. One of the everyday tourists in the museum, Louvre in France was interviewed while standing next to Leonardo Da Vinci’s, Mono Lisa. He went on to say that these prominent people have shaped our future “whether we like it or not”. He then says that their contributions are so widespread and known that they cannot be ignored. More practical viewers at the other end of the spectrum, see the topic through a narrow keyhole. As in saying that, “History is a volume of the past, it is not centred around one person.” 

As the other side struggles with their argument, advocators of the topic claim that , “What makes history great is the contribution of the people who made it great.” The above quote said by Dr Clinton Anderson, an Australian historian. He went on to say that history would never have had any significance to it without the actions of people who made it significant. Thus the question is brought up: is it fair for to undermine the work of those very few personalities we call heroes, when their work is what made our today possible? Yet, as much as the validity of this argument is proven, critics of the topic such as Justin Dallas – a widely known American historian – maintain their biased views. “History is a relative term, judged by the actions and views of the society ”,said Dallas at an interview in Harvard’s History Research centre. “The human race advances a step forward by the year, which means, theories in Physics and Maths would have been discovered, without Einstein’s efforts anyways!”

I disagree with the above statement made by Justin Dallas, for, in my opinion, Einstein did make ground-breaking advancements in this world and instead of shoving that under the rug, the human race should be open minded enough, to accept, honour and build on these achievements rather than move a step down. Evidence states that if Harriet Tubman did not fight for the rights of coloured slaves, the mater would still be a long drawing issue up till this very day; and if Louis Pasteur did not invent antibiotics, the plague would never have been overcome. That is why I believe that history is made with the sweat and blood of brave heroes.                                                                       

Discursive: Teenagers spend too much time on their mobile phones and computers, to what extent do you agree with this view? By Subhan Bin Yousaf 11-E


As decades pass, the impact of technology continues to increase and affect the minds of the youth. For example, teenagers in early twentieth century were often seen helping their fathers in the farm or helping their mothers maintain the welfare of their house. Moving on to a century later, times have changed, teenagers who are expected to prove themselves as finally being mature and responsible, actually deliver the opposite of what the parents intended. The question is: what actually is driving them to behave in such way? Why have parents lost hope with their own children? Why are the 20th century generations’ civilians concerned about the future of the twenty-first century generations’ civilians? Lets break down this issue and find out reasons why.


The problem is that technology of the twenty-first century has enslaved the modern youth in its grasp. People in favour of handing mobiles in the hands of teenagers believe that by owning a mobile or a laptop, A student can use these devices to assist them in their studies. Professor Nawaf Sheikh of Saudi Arabia’s International University, has stated that owning a mobile actually can help a student carry out his study activity. He says that teachers themselves encourage students to own a mobile over which a teacher can provide notes to her/his students with a touch of the screen. Those opposed to handing teenagers mobile phones believe that owning a mobile phone can lead a student’s outstanding performance in studies to downfall. Professor Jojo Jehangir of the ministry of youth affairs, believes that there is mounting evidence that mobiles can destruct good grades. Over his 20 years in this profession, he has researched that over sixty-seven percent of students with outstanding results, fall down the mountain of success, with the mobile phone being responsible for their downfall. He says that the percentage continues to get piqued year after year.

Teenagers have grown lethargic ever since they were handed the mobile phones. Proponents of the use of mobiles for teenagers say that mobiles actually help a teenager with his activity and fitness. Professor Samwell Tarly of Oldtown’s Citadel institute has stated that teenagers download applications in their mobile, which assist them in finding an activity to carry out or the fitness enthusiastic teenagers download applications which track the feats the teenager ran throughout a day’s period. At the same time, Opponents of handing mobile phones in the hands of teenagers maintain that teenagers have lost their will to move a muscle, they remain restricted to their beds and if they are called upon, you summon them after your third call or they summon you when you have to go to them yourself. Doctor John Watson of London’s Institute of fitness believe that enslaving oneself to grasp of technology means to experience a lack of interest for exercise, activity, work or sport. You become used to laying on your bed which is why teenagers behave this way.


Teenagers see a mobile phone as a source to socialize with people. Those who support handing mobiles to teenagers suggest that when teenagers interact on social media through their mobile devices, not only do they socialize, but they remain calm and in joy as they talk to their friends. Monica Geller, a senior journalist has wrote in his book that using a mobile to interact on social media helps reduce the stress in a teenager’s life, helps build in confidence in a teenager as he interacts with all kinds of people. Furthermore, Critics of handing mobile phones in the hands of teenagers believe that using social media can also impact a teenager negatively. A teenager can find himself reading hate speech, motivating him to hate a particular group, he may find himself exploring the dark side of the web. Doctor Skyler White of Albuquerque’s University of Human Relations has found out that using social media has led to a noticeable change in a teenager’s behavior, He behaves aggressively, finds out about ways to inflict suffering to the people he/she hates.

To sum up, I am in favour of handing mobiles phones to teenagers because using mobiles can help a teenager save his notes and study additionally from the Internet. Mobile devices also have applications which help to find activities for a teenager or help him with his fitness. Using social media on mobile also helps a teenager remain happy, away from the stress of the world, Increases confidence of a teenager and helps him gain knowledge of modern studies. If you don’t hand mobiles to teenagers, they will never learn to mature or ever learn to cope with the business of the world or its different people. Its upto you to decide if mobiles are beneficial for character development or a source for being distracted from the world.

Discursive Writing: Should teens be able to buy violent video games? Discuss. By Amal Adil


Isn’t violence a part of everyone’s lives? Haven’t we all experienced or seen violence at some point in our lives? The world has changed, the environment has changed, and people have changed. It’s the era of technology and here, technology means video games. Who were video games made for? And who are they for now? Teenagers, right? All these questions will be discussed in the following passage.

Supporters of the topic believe that teens should be able to buy violent video games as they give teens exposure to the outside world. Veronica Merrell, a psychiatrist states that, “if teenagers are playing violent video games, let them. It will help them handle violent situations later on in life”. Similarly, a teenage boy, David Dobrick, 15, said, “I play violent video games all the time. Nobody ever told me I was too loud or too violent. I actually feel that these video games actually help me handle different circumstances”.

However, people against the topic argue that violent video games are what make most teenagers so moody. A recent article in the Times newspaper stated, “by playing violent video games, teenagers tend to become very hyperactive and react to small things very violently”. Likewise, a mother of 2 teenagers, 14 and 16 says that, “both my children have become so addicted to these “fighting” video games that they snap at me every time I try to talk to them when they are playing these games. I can’t even take these games away because they become so moody and angry afterwards. Teenagers are said to be ‘unbearable’ if their precious video games are taken away.

At the same time, advocates of the topic maintain that violent video games have helped many people in different circumstances. Alex Chamberlain, aged 16 recalls that the fighting moves that he uses in his video games came in handy when he was about to be kidnapped. God knows what would have happened if he hadn’t played that game. Also, Bruce Lee states, “I admit, I learnt half of my karate moves from this video game I used to play when I was a teenager. Yes, it was violent but look where it got me.”

In retrospect, opponents of the topic maintain that violent video games affect the lives of many people. James Milner, a high school teacher said that it is mostly those who play violent video games all day long that get into rough fights with everyone on small matters. A research also states, “62% of teenagers that play video games get into fights regularly and their brains tell them it is normal as they use violence in video games all day.”

Proponents of the topic feel that teenagers who play video games have become sharper and much more intelligent. Alex Morgan, another famous psychiatrist claims, “teenagers who play violent video games use different strategies while playing and have to make decisions very quickly. This strategy can also be used by them in real life”. Similarly, another study claims that teenagers who play violent video games in which team strategies are used, they can work better in teams and can communicate with people better.

On the contrary, challengers of the topic claim that if teenagers have younger siblings, playing violent video games affects young children as well. Katie Bell, a mother of two, 14 and 8, complains, “my teenage son is always playing violent video games and my 8 year old son plays them with him. I feel like he has become very moody and has a lot of mood swings. He always talks back to me and shouts at me”. This shows that teenagers playing violent video games little children and when they grow up, they also indulge in violent activities, also affecting the society.

So, in conclusion, I think that teenagers shouldn’t play violent video games as their actions become similar to those in the games and they indulge in aggressive activities which affects their families in society. They can also become very addictive making teenagers caged in their rooms all day. Teenagers shouldn’t play violent video games as they mess with their brains and hearts.



Discursive: Should teens be able to buy violent videos games By Noor Ul Ain Saif 10 – B


Ans. Should teens be accessible to violent videos games? Or should violent video games be banned from them? Mainly adults feel that violent videos games produce violent teens and high levels of violence in the surrounding, but mainly teens argue that those are solely for fun. Both points are valid and will be discussed in this essay.

Opponents of the topic maintain that violent videos games develop a violent mindset of the youngsters playing it and normalize guns, bombs and murders. It is believed that the increasing violence in today’s world is a result of the violence presented in the videos which develops an aggressive behavior in the young adults. A recent study at Harvard by the psychology specialists proves that eighty seven percent of school shooters are teens between the ages the 15 and 18. The psychologists infer that the teenagers are influenced by violence in video games that create a violent, and aggressive and intolerant mindset.

However, proponents of the topic feel that video games do not have a bad impact on the teens and are solely for fun and skill. They argue that instead of developing a violent mindset, videos games teach teenagers self defense techniques and also shows them the real, rebel world. Arnold Johnson, a young teenage boxer says that he developed the passion of boxing from a violent video game and learnt many boxing techniques from it. This supports the topic saying that violent videos games have an important advantage that happens to be very useful these days. What do you think? Do u believe violence in video games can be served as helpful?

Nevertheless, people against the topic argue that violent video games are highly addictive and are the reason teens are always glued to their devices: shooting fellow playing and causing chaos. In a recent experiment by the Youtube Celebrity Mr.Beast, he gave two teens videos games, to one a peaceful game like minecraft and to the other a violent game like PUBG. His experiment showed that after one hour the teen got bored of the peaceful game and turned it off, however the other teen kept playing the violent game for 6 hours and only turned it off because he was tired. This experiment determined that the games are highly addictive.

In retrospect, advocated of the topic maintain that it is not specifically violent games that are addictive but every kind of game is addictive. They believe that violent games aren’t only at fault and are rather stress relieving as the teens enjoy them. A quote by the owner of playstation goes as, “Nowadays, video games are the escape from this cruel reality.”

Consequently, critics of the topic believe that violent video games teach teens to go against a particular group of people, for example people for color, as in violent games, mostly they are to go against a particular sect. A research shows that 67% of video games are influencing racism, homophobia and religion based preference.

At the same time, campaigners of the topic believe that the violent games are only for the entertainment purposes and only some influence teens to go against a particular group and it is usually bad people like terrorists. So it is inferred that their games only cause people to act towards the ‘bad’ people.

In conclusion, it is learnt that violent video games have many bad effects on teens and the environment. In the opinion, violent video games should be banned for teens as they take influence of the violence and absorb it. As the novelist, Martha Benson says, “video games are the main reasons for the destruction of this generation.”


Word count: 625


Discursive: Q. Should Teens be able to buy violent video games? Discuss. By Abubakr Faisal


The world of video games and virtual reality (VR) is growing incredibly in the twenty first century. From teens to adults, everybody is interested in playing video games. YouTube and Twitch TV have made it so much easier for the younger generation to make money. The trending part of these apps always show the gaming videos being the most viewed ones on the entire app. Nowadays most of the gaming videos are streamed by teenagers and they tend to become more successful in life at young age than their parents could be their whole life. And most of these gaming videos show a great deal of violence in them. People with weapons slaughtering each other for their entertainment. A lot of people have the same question in mind: Should teens be able to buy violent video games? Should violence violence really be the thing that goes around the younger generation’s mind? Should they even be allowed to watch these violent video games, let alone be able to play them? All these questions should be discussed in the essay below.


The most asked question right now is whether teens should be able to play violent video games or not. Charlie’s parents had the same question in mind when Charlie started to become very aggressive towards everyone and very violent if no one listened to him or if things did not go according to him. His parents claimed that they had let Charlie play Call Of Duty (COD) since the age of 9. Within 5 years, Charlie had changed dramatically and the change had occurred before he had turned into a teenager. Research from S.T.A.R Laboratories shows us that when a child is born until the age 18, his brain is still developing and learning. Which is why you are considered mature enough at the age of 18. While his brain was still in its development stage, Charlie adapted to the changes in his environment and the end result is what we now know about Charlie.

On the contrary, opposers of the topic may suggest that Charlie’s brain did not go haywire just because of playing COD. There are other games similar to COD that can also deal a significant amount of damage to a child’s brain like the Battlefield and Halo series. Research from the Video Game Testing Centre (VGTC) shows that all of these violent games have 85% to 90% chance of changing the mind of people under 12. Opposers also claim that all the violent games have an age limit stated at the bottom left corner of the disc case which goes to say that it is not the developers fault but the parents own fault as they buy these video games for their children.


Moreover, supporters of the topic claim that the younger generation is becoming very violent. Sara, a teacher of grade 3 at Froebels International School, claims that the children she teaches are becoming violent and aggressive by the day. A recent survey conducted by the school shows that about 70% of the children just watch YouTubers play these video games rather than playing them themselves because they claim that they are only allowed to play on weekends. This survey shows that even though the children are not playing the games themselves, they are still getting inspired by these popular YouTubers. The school also claims that the number of fights per year has also spiked and that a more number of fights get reported every month than before. The supporters of the topic claim that these video games are making their children more aggressive than ever.

However, people against the topic claim that it is the parents fault that they do not notice what their children are watching. They claim that while there is an option of using the YouTube Kids app, the children use the YouTube app which is for the adults. They claim that the children, if they want to watch something, should watch it on YouTube Kids, which is appropriate for their age. Research from YouTube themselves shows that there is 35% drop in the downloads for the YouTube Kids app and a 30% increase in the downloads for the YouTube app. Opposers claim that the parents have bought their children phones and they have free will to watch whatever they want.


Likewise, advocates of the topic maintain that their children who either play these video games or watch them have made them more aggressive than ever. The neuroscientist, Trevor Bungs, did a recent case study in which 100 students’ brains were tested. The test results showed that 64 students’ brains were affected by these violent video games. Advocates use this information to prove that these violent video games are affecting the minds of the younger generation.

However, challengers of the topic claim that not all the children played these video games and that some of them were affected just by violent movies, and that not everyone plays violent video games. A recent case study from the VGTC shows that the most trending video game in 2019 was Minecraft which is not a violent video game. In fact, they claim that Minecraft actually boosted the minds of the teenagers who played it as it requires to use your brain.


In my opinion, teenagers should not be able to buy violent video games as it makes them more violent and that they should actually play games which involves solving mysteries and puzzles which would actually help to boost their brains instead of ruining them.

Discursive: ‘Parents do not have enough control over their children’  By Areesha Obaid

As the world has evolved over the many years so has the style of parenting. In old years there was a certain way of parenting mostly strict, and children would have to follow their parents. Parents controlled their children, but over the years this has changed and parents have changed the way of parenting and let their children loose off the control. Do you think you have enough control over your child?
Firstly, supporters of the topic believe that, parents do not keep a check on their children which is why they have lost control of their children. The mother of Adrian a drug addict at just the age of 17 states that if she had kept a check on Adrians phone he would not be a drug addict today.
In retrospect, critics of the topic suggest that parents should not keep a check on their child’s phone. After a recent research Dr. Carl a psychologist states,”These days children are very possessive of their cellphones. It acts as an emotional vault and if you snoop through it, they feel as if their privacy has been invaded.” He further says,”You should just ask your child about what they are doing or just wait for them to communicate with you.” Basically you should not invade your child’s privacy as that would result in a loss of trust.
Secondly, followers of the topic argue that parents should not always listen to everything a child says. A boarding school principal states,”Emotions make your child weak, they are just an excuse. It is not necessary to listen to everything they say.” This is how they control children.
In contrast, people against the topic argue that parents need to listen to what their child is saying and communicate with them. A recent research shows that 80% of the teenagers fall into depression and other stress related problems because they can’t share their problems to their parents; the people who they can actually fully trust and depend on. Clearly this means that parents should listen to whatever their child is trying to tell them. They believe this gives their child confidence and does not try to do anything that would hurt the child or their parents.
Furthermore, advocates of the topic maintain that parents should not let their child work when they are in school. They state that when a child goes to work no one is responsible for them and they are under no supervision. This is the time where they can go where they want and do whatever they want to do. This gives them too much freedom and no one holds them accountable for what they do with the money they earn. This leads to parents losing control over their child. This is mounting evidence that parents do not have control over their children.
On the other hand challengers of the topic claim that, children should be given the freedom to work when they are in school. A teen interviewed said that, “I work part time jobs it adds to my experience, my education is not affected and doing this job just helps me save money for college and shopping.” Parents claim that it brings no harm to the child and just helps the child be financially independent and teaches them how to be adults. This clearly shows that giving a child freedom does not lead them to be out of control.
Some people believe that, parents should check their children’s phones, not give them freedom, and should not listen to what their children are saying to them. Similarly, some people believe the opposite. I believe that whether a child is under control or not depends on how the child is brought up. I further believe that parents should not invade a child’s privacy, they should definitely listen to them and give them limited freedom.

Discursive: Parents do not have enough control over their children. To what extent do you agree with this statement? By Haider Khan

Do you think parents have enough control over their children? Do you believe children are under enough control to do what their parents want them to do? Or do you believe that children are being given too much freedom and that it is not good for them? So I ask you, should parents be lenient and allow their children to have no specific time to be home etc or should they be strict and not give their children freedom? Let’s discuss.
Those who support the topic, that parents donot have enough control over their children believe that due to this lack of control, children tend to lean towards illegal things such as, drugs, alcohol and many other things. According to Adam Copeland a police officer states that, “Most of the cases I’ve been receiving about abusive, aggressive teenagers come from families that are too lenient, do not have enough control on their children.”
However, opponents of the topic argue that parents do indeed have enough control over their children, as the children have a specific time of coming back home and also have to do the household chores. According to Kabir Hashmi, a student at LUMS University states that, “Even as an adult my parents still keep a specific time for me to come home, I also have to ask for permission before leaving the house.”
People in favour of the topic claim that parents do not have control over their children due to their own mistakes such as, giving children internet access round-the-clock and buying mobile phones for them so they can have a social life. According to a research carried out, about 92% of students at a public school have mobile phones and their parents have allowed them to use the internet at any time and at any place. This shows that bad parenting leads to children being drug addicts or convicts. The usage of these phones, internet leads to bad ideas in the children’s brains which is why Professor Tommy Shelby states that, “Children’s brains does what it sees and believes what others want it to believe.”
Moreover, critics of the topic believe that parents should be slightly lenient with their children as according to Veronica Lodge working at the Department of Health believe that, “Most of the children that have been sent to me are mostly children who’s parents are too tough on them.” This means that most children who do illegal things such as drugs tend to have strict parents and they start doing these things because of the pressure put on them by their parents.
Advocates of the topic maintain that some children mostly in the West tend to disrespect their parents, calling them by their first name or swearing at them. A survey carried out in the state of Ohio shows that 70% of children are not respectful to their parents, or anyone in general. Marry Jenkins, a mother states that, “I have one son and he does not treat me like his mother rather treats me like some maid…”
Finally, those opposed to the topic suggest that parents should raise their children to be respectful and obey the law, while the parents being lenient. This will not only lessen the cases of domestic violence drastically but will also bring peace to everyone. According to Dr. Lucifer Morningstar, “If parents raise their children in a calm and nice manner, those children will be nice to other people on a daily basis and that will lead to peace throughout the world.”
In addition to all these arguments, I personally believe that parents do indeed have enough control over their children as they have given their children a specific time to be home etc and if they were to become more lenient, their children would slip out of their hands and if they were to be more strict, those children would never have lived life.