Jazz's+Opinion+Writing

toc

** Sports stars should be considered as role models. **
Many people think that sports stars shouldn‘t be considered as role models, but I personally think that they should be. Some people think that they shouldn’t be because they are just normal people who may have more money than us, or are better at sports than us, but I am totally against that. I look up to sports stars and believe that if I keep on trying and never give up, I may get as far as they are now, but if we give up, there is no way to get that far.

Someone like Daniel Carter or Irene Van Dyk should be considered as a role model, as they represent New Zealand and children look up to them. They prove that no matter what, you can achieve your goals and live your dreams. If we had no sports stars, we wouldn’t have anyone to look up to and we wouldn’t believe in ourselves because we wouldn’t no if we can do it, but with all our sports stars, children will be able to believe in themselves and will live their dreams.

Sports stars may seem wealthy and perfect but they do have a life, a lot of people think that sports stars are just spoilt wealthy people, but they spent their life trying to live their dreams. When they finally reach their dreams they become role models to others know matter who they are. All these people we look up to and believe in, so they should be role models.

On the other hand, many sports stars take drugs, like steroids to make them win or get in the top three. Is this really what you want your children believing is good? No, we don’t want our children looking up to drug addicts. This just encourages children that you have to win and that taking drugs is good for you. If all our sports stars start taking drugs to win the World Cup, it will encourage children that taking drugs is okay if you really, really want to win, but it is wrong and that is not what I would want my child looking up to.

They might give our country a bad reputation, anyone can go try out to be in the Silver Ferns or the All Blacks, but does that mean that they are automatically role models to us? They might have a bad reputation and could be up to no good at all. No-one really knows who they are, until they get to know this person. They should have to earn the respect of us and then show that they are capable to represent New Zealand or any other country. I wouldn’t really want a drug addict representing our country, it wouldn’t just be a bad influence, but like I said, we wouldn’t have a good reputation.

In conclusion I think that sports stars should be role models, even if we don’t totally know everything that has happened to them. Maybe they may just be a good role model afterwards, anyway I’m sure Irene Van Dyk wondered about this at some stage of her life, but look at her now. She is one of New Zealand’s best sports role model and I would encourage any child to look up to her and consider her as a role model. So that’s why I think sports stars should be considered as role models.

Reflection: I think that I did a good job on this, but I know that I could of done better. If my side of the argument was stronger I think I would of had a good argument. I made a few typo mistakes and I could and should of checked it better. Overall I think it was okay and next time I will have a much better argument, from learning from my mistakes. I also think that if I added some factual information in it, maybe it would of been more like an argument with better facts, and more than just my opinion.

**Smacking**
Should a //smack// as part of parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? That’s the question everyone in New Zealand is answering. Personally I think that it shouldn’t be an offence. A smack on a bare leg is better than going outside and beating your child. It is different than assaulting your child. The anti-smacking bill was passed in 2007, by Sue Bradford. Now there is a referendum asking weather or not a smack is a criminal offence.

Smacking is a good punishment if your child does something wrong. How would you punish your child if you can’t smack them? Telling them to go to the naughty corner? What if they say “No I don’t won’t to go to the naughty corner, make me” What will you do? A quick smack on the leg and it’s all over.

There are few ways to punish your children and taking smacking away will cause more issues, telling them to sit in their naughty corner won’t teach them a lesson but a quick smack on the leg will teach them. I think that the best way to discipline your child is a smack, that way they will learn not to do what they did; it will teach them a lesson, unlike just telling them off.

I think that a parent should be able to give there children a light tap on the head or the bottom and shouldn’t have to face prosecution. But it is a different situation if you beat them with your belt or a dog collar, that is child abuse and they should be disciplined for that, with a fine or imprisonment.

My last point is that parents should be able to choose how to bring up their children, not beating them but enough punishment, so they get the right message, for example a smack on the bottom. I think that bringing up the anti-smacking bill increased child abuse because some parents will be against the bill and discipline their children in the wrong way. Others will discipline their children the right way, which is good. If everyone disciplines there children with a smack, I think that there will be less child abuse because parents will have a way to punish there children.

In conclusion I think that child abuse is wrong but parents should be able to discipline their children with a smack. There should be punishment for those who do abuse their children, but I think that the anti-smacking bill should be denied and parents should be able to smack their children if they are naughty and need to punishment.