In Modern times it is not necessary to use animals as foods or in any other product's like clothes, medicine etc.

"In modern times it is not necessary to use animals as foods or in any other product's like clothes, medicine etc."

Do you agree or disagree. Use logic and give your opinion." 

Sparing the animals from becoming our source for sustenance has recently become a fashionable argument. Even a name has been coined for those who promote it, Vegans. Their thoughts are appealing, and actions fantastic, but absolutely shunning the animate elements of nature, animals that is, is, in my opinion, unnatural.

Veganism   obviously has its roots lying in idealism. It is beyond argument that for this earth to go the distance we must respect Nature and its elements. We mustn’t abuse or over exploit the animal kingdom because preserving those results in long term and ultimate good for mankind. If all were to become vegans, we wouldn’t have to worry about endangered species and maintaining eco systems, but for what use?

It is foolish to think that Man living on other animals is unnatural; many wise ones have proven this long before this time. As cruel as it may sound, the strong few consuming the weak many is what we call the eco system. Animal preservation campaigns are justifiable because if animals run out we’ll have no source, not because us and the animals should independently coexist until the earth simply becomes over populated.

Detractors may argue that it is cruel and, therefore, immoral, to devour, or exploit, the weaklings, and in this era of synthetic everything why can we not live on plant produce and artificial nutrients? The vegetarian element of this argument is defendable to some extent, but not the latter. Nature made us to be omnivorous, and there are other sectors like fabric and pharmaceutical testing where leaving out animals will only risk human lives.

The conclusion hence is simple, we must continue our dependency on animals, only with respect, and discounting animals arbitrarily from all human needs is the misguided dream of a romantic fool.

A new language should be introduced for all countries for international communication.

"A new language should be introduced for all countries for international communication."

Do you think the benefits will outweigh the problems?" 

Now, more than ever, the nations and cultures around the world are caving in to form global identities. As the romantic anthropologists would say, soon there will be one conglomerated nation around the world. Such upsurge of fusion among humanity often encourages many to develop one unified language for all the nations. I believe, though, such a step will be futile because the world already has its international language and may not be welcoming to anymore.

For almost two centuries linguists have tried to establish an artificially formed universal language. Quite evidently they have not succeeded, for various reasons. One is, we already have not one but a few international languages, e.g. English, French, Spanish. And with the growing popularity of English around the world, it already has become the one true universal language. Leaving aside a few lean patches in the third world, and a few proud peoples, an English speaking person can freely communicate at any part of the globe. Over almost half of the last millennium English has slowly infiltrated the territories of other languages through geo-political phenomena and cultural encouragement. A new and artificial language will not have that socio-cultural advantage and is destined to fail.

One might argue that an artificially forged language is culturally neutral and, thus, is morally correct to be the common linguistic ground for the still divided humanity. As fair as it may sound, such opinion lacks rationality. In today’s world of cause-and-effect, we must first find the practical cause for conjuring up yet another language, and there is none. When English, side kicked by a few others, is already doing the job well, there’s simply no justification for inventing further provisions.

So, with the opinion for one unified language around the world, I agree, but there certainly is no need for trying to establish a new universal language because English has already made a head start toward becoming the one global communicative method.

Some people think that strict punishment for drivers' offenses could reduce traffic accident. Others, however, believe that some other measures should be taken to reduce traffic accident.

"Some people think that strict punishment for drivers' offenses could reduce traffic accident. Others, however, believes that some other measures should be taken to reduce traffic accident." Discuss both views and give your opinion. Do you think the benefits will outweigh the problems?" 

While more and more automobiles brave through the city arteries of the new world, blood is occasionally drawn by tragic accidents. To remedy this, the authorities enact rules of engagement, if we may, and punish the deviants. Some say, such offending drivers should be punished severely and that may reduce traffic accidents. But I believe the correlation of crime and punishment can never fully effect road-safety and to achieve it we must adopt other ways.

Firstly one must understand the paradox – accidents are rarely results of willful malice. Often accidents are caused by errant commoners, which is only human, and while one must accept his liabilities he should not be punished for his mistakes as if he were a criminal. But, of course, violation of traffic rules is another proposition. It is potentially destructive and should be sternly thwarted. Also, strictly following traffic rules does reduce the chance of collisions. Conversely, drivers’ offense is only one factor along with numerous others that cause traffic accidents. So punishment for moving violations may not be proportional to road-safety. What may be more mathematically and practically beneficial are awareness campaigns for road safety. If people are told how they can keep themselves and others safe, if they are inspired to commute more responsibly, and compelled to drive defensively, road hazards can be completely relegated one day.

One should also ponder on the relationship of crime and punishment. Criminals have always been there, as were the rules for punishing them. It has long been evident that persecution alone can never rid the society of felons. So even murder, which is almost exclusively criminal, could not be stopped by punishment. Then how can reasonably naive traffic accidents be stopped by it?

The answer therefore is a sensitive balance of rules and awareness, of knowing what we may not and should not do. Safety on the road or elsewhere lies only in this balance and cannot be reached otherwise.