賛否を述べてください:暗号資産は世界経済を変革する

Agree or disagree: Cryptoassets will change the global economy.

The future is often hard to predict; depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, cryptoassets have the potential to change the global economy. Now let me explain the details. 

Cryptoassets have many advantages, so many investors and companies see them as promising technology: first, they allow for instant transfers, have no fees, and no exchange rates. So, they are more efficient and convenient than traditional hard currencies. Plus, cryptoassets don’t need banks. This means that many people can use financial services without traditional banks. In this way, cryptoassets could help the global economy.     

Next, I understand some may argue that cryptoassets are not trustworthy, but this view is a bit wrong. Major cryptoassets aren’t issued by any country, so are independent from any monetary policy. This freedom scares some countries, but this also means the potential advantage of cryptoassets expanding across border.           

Therefore, although I cannot show the exact timeline, I agree with what the topic suggests and expect cryptoassets to change the global economy. Thank you for your attention. [182 Words Type-K]

アジアは経済・文化において21世紀に世界を席巻するか

Will Asia dominate the world economically and culturally in the 21st century?

The future is often hard to predict; depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, Asia will likely dominate the global economy and culture in the near future. Now let me explain the details.     

First, Asia now accounts for the majority of the world’s economic growth. As it is, Asian countries have grown over the past few decades thanks to its demographic trend. This advantage includes a growing population, a young average age, and a decreasing birth rate. Plus, Asia is home to some of the world’s largest and fastest-growing economies, including China, India, Singapore, and Vietnam, which are already significant players in the global economy.     

Next, Asia is already making a considerable impact on the world’s cultural scene. For example, Asian culture, such as music, movies, food, and fashion, has become increasingly popular across the world. As Asia grows economically, its culture may become more widespread.           

Therefore, I agree with what the topic suggests and conclude that Asia is likely to lead the world both economically and culturally in this century. Thank you for your attention. [188 Words Type-K]

国際企業CEOの高額報酬は正当化されうるか

Can the high rewards for CEOs at international corporations be justified? 

Depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, the high rewards of many CEOs of international corporations can almost always be justified. Now let me explain the details.     

First, CEOs make important decisions regarding a company’s and workers’ prosperity. So, their rewards match their level of responsibility and management skills. And, companies pay generously to hire and retain top executives. That’s why CEO rewards are justifiable in most cases.     

Next, I understand some are concerned about the huge gap between CEO rewards and ordinary workers’ wages. Certainly, such income gap exacerbates poverty. So, we need strong global policy to redistribute wealth more fairly. This can be achieved through measures such as tax reforms, minimum wage, and other means of sharing wealth.           

Therefore, I conclude that CEO’s high rewards can be justified. On this point, the UN Sustainable Development Goals have listed “promoting economic growth in all countries,” as one of their key challenges. So, we should monitor them to achieve harmonious and well-balanced development across the world. Thank you for your attention. [183 Words Type-C]

賛否を述べてください:多国籍企業の力は強大になりすぎている

Agree or disagree: Multinational corporations have become too powerful. 

Depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, their impact has become too great nowadays. Now let me explain the details.     

First, globalization allows multinational corporations to act outside of national laws and ethical standards. As a result, they can affect many governments through lobbying, leading to some questionable political decision-making. For example, American oil majors have been obstructing efforts to combat climate change.     

Next, I understand some may argue that multinationals’ activities improve the global economy. But on the contrary, multinationals have promoted destructive globalization, creating wealth gap. So, as they have taken over the global market, many small businesses have gone bankrupt, resulting in job losses across the world.     

Therefore, I agree with what the topic suggests and believe that multinationals have become too powerful today. On this point, the UN Sustainable Development Goals have listed “promoting economic growth in all countries,” as one of their key challenges. So, we should monitor them to achieve harmonious and well-balanced development across the world. Thank you for your attention. [180 Words Type-K]

nowadaysは固い表現。ここでは使える。固くない表現はthese days。

第三世界の債務を免除すべきか

Should Third World debt be forgiven?

This is an interesting topic; depending on the current situations of the countries, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, the political policy should be flexible, so you don’t have to make such a general rule. Now let me explain the details.     

First, forgiving all debt can create moral hazard. That is, countries will dare to take excessive risks, hoping that their debts will be forgiven. Plus, canceling debt can be unfair to those countries that have repaid it.     

Next, I understand some may argue that forcing to repay their debts disrupts their unstable economies. Certainly, I also believe that under certain unforeseeable and unavoidable difficulties, creditor nations can consider forgiving debts. This includes situations where the debtor country is suffering from extreme poverty, natural disasters, or other crises that hinder them from repaying their debts.           

What I have just mentioned has only outlined the issues: in fact, several other political and diplomatic factors may have a complex impact. So, each creditor country should carefully consider these factors to lay down an optimal policy. Thank you for your attention. [186 Words Type-I]

グローバリゼーションは途上国にとって良いことなのか

Is globalization good or bad for developing countries? 

Depending on the historical background and other national circumstances of the countries, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, globalization can have positive impact, even on developing countries. Now let me explain the details.     

First, globalization brings in foreign investment and improves ínfrastructure, which creates more job opportunities for developing countries. As a result, this attracts more investment in turn, and forms “a cycle of benefits”, that enhances people’s standard of living.     

Next, I understand some may argue that developing countries are less competitive, so need protection. But as it is, no country practices “complete free trade.” It is because globalization has various stages, and each country can make proper choices based on their current economic situations. To put it the other way around, several nations should carefully avoid negative impacts from rapid globalization.           

What I have mentioned only outlined the issues: in fact, several other political and economic factors may have complex impact. So, every country must consider them carefully to lay down the optimal policy mix. Thank you for your attention. [180 Words Type-I]

自由貿易と保護貿易

Free Trade versus Protectionism 

     Depending on how familiar we are with the topic, the answers may well vary, and they are all worth respecting, but come to think of it, it’s important to assess the pros and cons of the two policies. Most countries use both policies, depending on each trade item’s features. Now let me explain the details.     

First, free trade is helpful to popular trade items that other countries wish to import. In this case, free trade boosts the economy and activates the labor market by lowering prices and encouraging competition. But on the other hand, it may negatively affect foreign industries and job opportunities.     

In contrast, the globalization trend needs protecting less competitive goods, such as farm produce, which are essential for national food security. In this case, protectionism can help local employment, but it could result in more costs, less competitiveness, and economic stagnation in turn.           

In this way, each trade policy has its pros and cons, and there is no panacea. Therefore, every country must consider them carefully to find out the optimal policy mix. Thank you for your attention. [181 Words Type-B]

外構目的達成のために経済制裁を用いるべきか

Should “economic” sanctions be used to achieve foreign policy objectives?

Depending on the current global situation, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, economic sanctions can achieve foreign policy objectives in many cases. Now let me explain the details.     

First, using economic sanctions is better than taking arms for most countries. Throughout history, military conflicts have claimed ordinary people and disrupted infrastructure. So, it is ethical and sensible to adopt economic sanctions when diplomatic talks fail. This is why the UN often resolves economic sanctions to achieve their objectives.     

Next, I understand some may argue that economic sanctions often do not work, but once the UN passes resolutions, member countries usually work together to achieve the desired results. As globalization progresses, few countries can survive without international trade. So, economic sanctions can effectively prevent target countries from wrongdoing.           

Therefore, even though economic sanctions are not a panacea, I conclude that we should consider them as feasible diplomatic options in many situations. And I stress again that even economic sanctions should only be used in unavoidable cases, and never be abused. Thank you for your attention. [182 Words Type-C]

国家の強い団結のための義務兵役は必要か

Is mandatory military service necessary for a strong and unified nation?

Depending on historical backgrounds and other national circumstances of countries, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, mandatory military service has both pros and cons. Now let me explain the details.     

Let’s begin with its advantages: first, mandatory military service can be crucial for small countries to maintain their defense system. This is why conscription is mainly used in small countries. Second, large countries that desire to maintain their strength and aggressiveness adopt conscription system. Two examples of this are China and Russia.     

Next, mandatory military service also has its disadvantages: first, it can strain government resources. This is a problem because conscription is often adopted in small countries. Second, military service can involve taking another person’s life, which goes against the today’s morality.           

While mandatory military service has its pros and cons, I do not want to say that the system is necessary; the UN Sustainable Development Goals have listed “eliminating of all violence” as one of their key challenges. So we should come together to achieve this goal. Thank you for your attention. [182 Words Type-X]

諸国は国防支出を削減すべきか

Should countries spend less money on defense?

This is an interesting topic; depending on the current issues and other national circumstances of the countries, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, the political policy should be flexible, so you don’t have to make such a general rule. Now let me explain the details.     

First, throughout history, defense systems have always been crucial to protect communities, societies, and countries. For example, countries have faced security risks such as terrorism, military conflicts, and natural disasters. To protect their citizens and territory, it is essential for countries to allocate necessary funds for defense.     

Next, I understand some may argue that huge military spending harms people’s lives, but as it is, defense spending also helps improve the economy. Specifically, it creates job opportunities and helps research and development. In addition, military technology has contributed to developing many consumer-products, such as computers, microwaves, and GPS.           

Therefore, I conclude that countries should not reduce defense spending across the board. And, we need to consider them carefully to lay down an optimal national security policy. Thank you for your attention. [183 Words Type-B]

国連は常備軍を保有すべきか

Should the UN have its standing army? 

Depending on the international situation at the time, the answers may well vary, and they are all worth considering, but in my view, the UN does not need a standing army for now. Now let me explain the details.     

First, maintaining a standing army needs huge costs, for such as training, logistics, and maintenance. Plus, the UN has many other pressing issues to deal with, such as helping refugees and combáting hunger. In addition, the existing Peacekeeping Operations, or PKO, framework has a lot of experience that would be more effective and efficient in most cases.     

Next, the UN Security Council, or UNSC, which would likely be the headquarters of a standing army, is often indecisive. In fact, the UNSC has often failed to make timely decisions when military intervention has been necessary. From this viewpoint, it makes little sense to have a standing army.           

Therefore, I disagree with what the topic suggests, and conclude that the UN standing army is not a good idea at this time. The UN should rather use the PKO framework when necessary. Thank you for your attention. [183 Words Type-K]

賛否を述べてください:宇宙空間の軍事化は将来世代への脅威である

Agree or disagree: The militarization of space is a threat to future generations. 

This is an interesting topic: depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, the militarization of space will be a threat to future generations, not just our own. Now let me explain the details.   

First, it is not hard to imagine that the militarization of space is a threat to all life on earth. For example, space missiles can target any place on earth, and there is no defense against them. Plus, it increases space debris, which can damage satellites and make space use risky. Our generation is responsible to eliminate this hazardous waste.     

Next, space militarization diverts our limited resources and time from addressing important issues, such as climate change, poverty, and pandemics. This is a serious opportunity-loss. If humans continue militarizing space, it will transform into a battleground rather than a platform for valuable scientific research. This is unacceptable.           

Therefore, even though space sciences in itself are fantastic and promising, I would have to conclude that militarization of space seriously risks our society and our future generations. Thank you for your attention. [185 Words Type-O]

国際テロは根絶しうるか

Can international terrorism ever be eliminated?

Depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, while we can control several international terrorism, we cannot eliminate it. Now let me explain the details.     

First, terrorism has always existed throughout history, and is motivated by diverse factors, such as ideological, religious, and political dissatisfaction. Plus, the world has more and more extremists, in other words, potential terrorists. It is because globalization has increased income gap, and climate change devastates lives and ruins crops in developing countries.     

Next, I understand some may argue that international cooperation can control terrorism, but punishment cannot scare the poor, nor can we prevent drug addicts from committing mass shooting on impulse. Plus, some state-sponsors of terrorism, such as Syria and North Korea, support terrorists, by providing them with money and weapons.          

Therefore, it might be difficult to eradicate terrorism anytime soon. But the UN Sustainable Development Goals have listed “eradicating any inéquity and any violence,” which help combát terrorism in turn. Therefore, all UN member countries must come together and act against terrorism. Thank you for your attention. [185 Words Type-G]

政府のテロ対策は十分か

Is the government doing enough to protect people from the threat of terrorism?

 Depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, the government has made strides over the years, in protecting people from terrorism. Now let me explain the details.     

First, as surveillance technology advances, the government becomes skilled at stopping terrorism. This has made it hard for terrorists to organize attack without being noticed. As a result, statistics have shown that fewer and fewer terrorism are happening globally, showing that counter-terrorism efforts are working well so far.     

Next, I understand some may argue that challenges remain, such as combáting mafias. However, the public also understands that the government are trying their best with limited resources, and expresses support for them. It will take years of hard work and commitment to resolve these problems. In other words, just we don’t see quick results doesn’t necessarily mean nothing is happening.         

Therefore, even though there is still room for improvement, I am happy to conclude that the government are making their best effort to protect people from the threat of terrorism. Thank you for your attention. [182 Words Type-E]