Possible disadvantages of home schooling

As is known home schooling can improve a students' language and so they can profit of it. But did everybody think of the disadvantages of home schooling?

First of all I want to mention it has also disadvantages. One of them could be, for example, the student’s feeling of being alone. They can’t see their friends anymore because they have to stay at home. This could be the result of fewer friendships because the student has no other possibilities to make friends, except in the neighbourhood or in sport clubs. But most friends can be found at school.
Stress could be the next problem of home schooling. Children who just learn, day in day out, can get exhausted very fast. So it is important to live healthy, like e.g. do sports, eat fresh and healthy food. Students who just stay at home and do nothing can also get fat. An example for this is the USA. Americas children don't eat very healthy, they often go to several fast food restaurants.

Finally, I want secure that I am against home schooling. Though it is a good way to improve one’s knowledge it has also its disadvantages. Actually I would let my children go to normal schools because I want my children to have a nice childhood. And this requires family and friends.

Do you know anybody who home-schools? In Germany it's not allowed anyhow. Are you confusing it with boarding school? Actually, I have very different experiences with home-schooled kids. I found them to be very interesting and sociable, often they were very knowledgeable in areas they were particularly interested in. I don't think they are fatter than

the average American (or German, for that matter) kid. Interesting choice of topic!

Turkey in European Union?

Turkey joining the European Union

For many years european gouverments have been talking about the problem with Turkey and their requests. Turkey is a huge nation, which is divided up along the asian-european frontline.
Everbody knwo that we will get many advantages, but also many disadvantages by Turkey joining the EU.
In my following pleading I will discuss these problems.

Turkey has population of 70 mio. We will be a stronger and bigger community if they join the EU.
The superpowers would respect this coalition as an equal force.
Another argument for the accedence is the economy. Europe needs Turkey as a economic partner just because of the commercial crisis. A new relationship like that would consolidate the global economy. How is that? Please explain in more detail.

To begin with, what speaks against the accedence is that Turkey's culture has many differents from the european nations.
Turkey has 99.8% muslims which is too different from christian-based Europe. A argument to add is that the immigration rate will increase in middle europe and that goes hand in hand with the crime rate. Especially germany will be affected by this consequence. My last argument is the diffrent governmental process of working . These laws can't work togehter, because Turkey still belives in death penalty.

Finally I think the deparment of Turkey is an equitable poltical decision.

I don't understand your last phrase. I sense a lot of prejudices here! Still, it's an important topic and sooner or later Europe will have to give Turkey a definite answer.

Should we introduce school uniforms? ( by David)

In today`s society it`s an often discussed topic whether we should introduce school uniforms in all schools of Germany or not.
In my opinion there are both disadvantages and advantages.
I think in modern times youth doesn`t want to wear uniforms, and prefers wearing their own clothes. Most of them think uniforms are bad. We should listen to the opinion of the people who have to wear them before we decide to introduce uniforms.
Furthermore it`ll be a financial problem, because the families of the students are supposed to buy the uniforms on their own, many of them won`t be able to pay for them.
But one big problem will be solved with uniforms.
Many students are harassed because of their clothes. It can be compared with a competition whose clothes are the most expensive ones.
With uniforms nobody is able to have a prejudice against someone else, because they all wear the same clothes.
Moreover the image of the schools which introduce uniforms would be improved, because everyone who sees the student with the school uniforms gets a good impression of the respective school.
To summarize, I support uniforms at schools, because everyone would be equal and nobody convicts you because of your clothes and the focus is on the character of the person.

This seems to be a populoar topic . Is that really an option for German schools? Actually I agree with you, I'm very much for some kind of similar clothing. At the German school in Montreal people had a choice of T-shirts, Sweaters in different colors, but were allowed to wear all kinds of jeans and skirts, as long as they were blue.

Underground - yes or no? (by Judith and Laura)

Many people use the underground every day but many people also drive cars, so there are a lot of different opinions about the underground.
Everybody has others arguments for or against traveling by underground.
There surely are some arguments against it but I think there are more for it.
I like using the underground. I really think it would be good to have more of them, because they cause less air pollution than cars and with that we can help making our world cleaner.
Secondly there are no problems with parking slots when using the underground. And of course less people have to park their cars, if more people travel by underground.
So because of this you can have more time in the morning which you can spend with sleeping longer or having more time for breakfast because you won't be in a hurry to find a parking spot. And of course you don't need to concentrate on the traffic during rush hour when using the underground.
The only reason I can think of against riding the underground is that there is no fresh air and it is very noisy.
All in all I think that the aspects for traveling by underground are stronger and I really support it because it is very relaxing.

If only we had an underground in Heidelberg.... Nice job!

Kill hundred innocent people or let thousands die

It's more than an analytic fact, a logical reasoning. In case of a terroristic assault like the day of infamy 9.11 many innocent people died. But could this terrible act be avoided? For future occurrences like this attack it is discussed wether to shoot those planes down. This fact implicates a lot of ethic problems.
As a matter of fact, the people in the plane will die. Even if they would overhelm the terrorists the chance to survive is incredible negligeable small. So the logical conclusion is to abolish them. The people would die in any case.
But in this way of proceeding isn't considered that there's a big difference between terrorists as the murderer of thousands of people or to be the murderer oneself of an not insignificant amount of people who maybe have family or have to nourish kids.
There are many people who are of the opinion that it is necessary to kill them, and it is the states duty. However, there's noone who want to be responsible. Although it's a very simple thought that carries their point of view. In some countries like for exemple Greece it was already decided that "If a renegade plane, a plane that is not on its proper course over Greece, enters restricted airspace, and does not change course after being warned, it will not reach the target". This statement is from Mr Voulgarakis and from the security briefing in preparation for the Olympic Games in Athens. And it's real: the amount of the casualities in such a case would be minuscule in comparison to the one in the terrrorist's success. So the idea is absolutely justifiable and correct. And, back to 9/11, even if the planes would not be shot down the administration is responsible for the death of the people in the towers. They had the chance to rescue them. Recapitulatory the governance can kill the people in the plane and rescue the ones in the tower or let everyone die.

But this ambivalent topic can't be dicussed from only one side, one point of view. Let's see the arguments which are against this brutal and ruthless way of proceeding.
To begin with, the other point of view deals also with the people in the planes as individual subjects and not as numbers in comparison to other numbers. So you can argue that those people there, the people in the plane and the people who would die caused by the falling airplane, all of them have rights. These rights are those of the constitution which declares that the state has to save their lives and not to treat them as objects. Nearly everyone of them has a family or is responsible for someone. And even if not, everyone of them is an individual and irreplaceable human. The state doesn't have the right to act like a terrorist even in such a terrible incident like a terroristic attack.
So, in conclusion, I would like to admit that noone has the right to kill anyone else, even with the intention to rescue lives. But it's another thing if the people in the plane decide for themselves to sacrifice themselves and to combat the terrorists.
Another solution would be to vanish the root of terrorism by avoiding war and oppression.

Wow, you picked a difficult topic! I don't really know which side I'm on... Michele, it's great that you look up so many words, but you have to do that in context. Leo is not always helpful here, because you get to many constructions wrong. You need a good monolingual dictionary!

for further pictures click the link below:

http://search.live.com/images/results.aspx?q=9%2f11&FORM=BIRE#focal=6c7562b2e828e9564e199988e42bc33f&furl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prisonplanet.com%2Fimages%2Fjuly2006%2F080706wtc1.jpg

"Nessie" (from Nico)

Anyone would laugh at you if you say: "look,  there is a 25 foot monster in this sea". But not in Scotland. It is believed, that a large sea monster lives in the Loch Ness (a lake in the Scottish Highlands). But what are the arguements for this statement? On the one hand, many Scots believe that there lives a large sea monster... but on the other hand many Scots say that this is just a myth. In my comment I will show you whether the myth is true or not.
One proof for the truth of the myth is, that many people said that they saw Nessie. In 1527 Duncan Campbell saw at the bank of Loch Ness a really fearful monster. Or in the 16th century, an old chronic said a monster came out of the Loch Ness and killed 3 men. One of the most iconic images of Nessie is known as the "Surgeons Photograph", which was taken in 1934 by Robert Wilson, a surgeon, showed a long animal with a long neck. But on the other side there are just a few evidence for a monster in Loch Ness. In 1995, there was an announcement that the surgeons photograph was just a lie. Neil Clark, a ringmaster, said that the animal on the picture was just a swimming elephant from his circus.
In conclusion, I think that there isn't a monster in the Loch Ness. There are just a few evidence and I think if there is such a monster we would all know about it.

Too bad! I had always hoped to go there one day and see a real monster! :-) To me, the image looks more like a snake than like an elephant's trunk! And what is an elephant doing swimming in Loch Ness??? Fun topic!

Developments resulting from the new government of the U.S.

Developments resulting from the new government of the U.S.

After the presidential election in the United States in November 2008 there was a big movement going through the population. The new President Barack Obama is not only the first black president in the USA, which means a lot in the context of the history, especially to the black population, but he is also the one who brings hope, trust and optimism back to the country where nothing is impossible. After the Bush era, which not only caused two wars and very problematic and strained relationships to other countries, many people associate his era directly with the financial-and economic crisis.Because of that the country needs a new strong head of state.
Barack Obama’s situation is definitely not an easy one and he promised a lot to his country and its inhabitants, but he already made the first steps towards a better future. By 2011 he wants to pull out all troops from Iraq to finally end the war thousands of people had to suffer from.
On the other hand he wants to send more troops to Afghanistan to win the very hard but also important war against the Taliban.
But the new president doesn’t only want to improve the foreign policy.
He has already signed a paper which promises a financial aid packet to save the American banks from ruin.
Another important step was to decide to close the very controversial prison Guantanamo. Many people in the U.S. but also in other countries didn’t accept Guantanamo or rather they always wanted to abolish it because people were not treated as humans or according to human rights.
All in all, I think the new President gives the population hope, gives them strength in hard times and makes them believe that the government will support them.

Best comment I've read so far! Great job, Kai! There is a place for you to use 'therefore' that is why, as a consequence


By Kai Nohe,11c