Should developed nations encourage immigration from other countries?

There have been a lot of discussion and debates about immigration. I think that developed nations should encourage immigration from other countries for the following three reasons.
Firstly immigration make the population of developed nations increased.

For example developed nations have a concern about the population reducing. There are many young people in other countries.

Developed nations solve this problem of the population to accept immigrations more.

Secondly immigration make the nations more powerful.

For example in U.S. there are many immigrations. Because they work hard to earn enough money, their activities make the country wealthy.

Immigrations are the one of the main resource to develop the nations.

Thirdly developed nations can invite intelligent people continuously.

For example Singapore give immigrations who have a high skill and technology working VISA. Singapore also accept immigration who are rich to live there.

The strategy of immigration make the nations actively

In conclusion,For above mentioned three reasons , I agree this theme.

Can restrictions on freedom of speech ever be justified?

There have been a lot of discussion and debates about restrictions on freedom of speech. I think that restrictions on freedom of speech can ever be justified for the following three reasons.
Firstly respecting the individuals is more important than freedom of speech.

For example hate claim is not freedom of speech. A speech which is not peaceful make someone sad..

People should pay attentions to keep everyone's respect.

Secondly a speech which the representative of the country make may be reduced the country benefit.

For example the country representative's speech is not private, public. There is no freedom of speech for the individual.

Public comments should be performed without personal opinion.

Thirdly, in order to prevent unnecessary battle people should choose good words.

For example there are a lot of diversities in the world. Someone's speech is not understanded correctly because others have a different culture.

We should prevent misunderstanding of each other to omit the unexpected battle.

In conclusion,For above mentioned three reasons , I agree this theme.

Should the death penalty be banned in Japan?

There have been a lot of discussion and debates about the death penalty. I think that the death penalty be banned in Japan agree for the following three reasons.
Firstly people who are given the death penalty should live to pay his debt of their fault by himself.

For example they don't have a chance to pay anything if they die. Although they die, there is no benefit for anyone.

During their remaining life they should work hard to recover their debt.

Secondly technologies should not be used for killing humans.

For example technologies can make people wealthy and happy. The technology which is for killing human is not useable for anything. 

Technology should be used for the wealthy for people.

Thirdly, the cost of the death penalty is high.

For example we need the cost for proceeding the death penalty. A death person cann't make anything for the economy.

It's not free to doing the death penalty.

In conclusion,For above mentioned three reasons , I agree this theme.

Should democratic nations actively promote the spread of democracy.

There have been a lot of discussion and debates about the democracy. I think that democratic nations should actively promote the spread of democracy for the following three reasons.
Firstly human right is one of the most important for everyone.

For example people in democratic nations respect individual's right. Everyone can live freely by their opinions.

Everyone can keep their right to live in democratic nations.

Secondly the economic system of the democracy is fare.

For example someone who work and study hard can get enough money. Others who don't want to work hard can choose their jobs by theirselves.

The democracy make people fare.

Thirdly, democratic nations is more wealthy than other nations.

For example the activities of the market is powerful. Their markets can be produced much money.

There are more money in democratic nations.

In conclusion,For above mentioned three reasons , I agree  this theme.

Agree or disagree : World peace is an achievable goal.

There have been a lot of discussion and debates about world peace. I think that world peace is an achievable goal for the following three reasons.
Firstly, every people want to make world peace.

For example people love their families and friends. The essence of people mind is good and people want to keep world safe and happy.

People have a common sense to make world peace.

Secondly, technology can be solved many problem which is the barrier for world peace.

For example although poverty is one of the reason for the war, agriculture technology can be produced enough foods for everyone in neare future.

We don't need to worry about the problem of the world.

Thirdly, international relationship make every countries wealthy.

For example, although only G7 communicated freaquently about their problem, G10 or G20 which include small and weak countries are communicating now to so love the world problems. Many countries don't consider that only their own problems are important and they try to solve world wide problems.

Many countries have good communications to solve the world problems.

In conclusion,For above mentioned three reasons , I agree that world peace is an achievable goal.

Will fossil fuels such as oil and gas still be the world’s main source of energy in the coming decades?

There have been a lot of discussion and debates about the world's main source of energy in the coming decades. I think that fossil fuels will still be the world's main source of energy in the coming decades for the following three reasons.
Firstly, fossil fuels can be used for the source of energy easily because energy suppliers have many energy generators based on them.

For,example. the rate of the energy generators based on the fossil fuels is over 50%. Many energy company have high technology to generate the energy.

For energy suppliers fossil fuels is useful because they are used to generate energy from them.

Secondly, we can get fossil fuel easier than before with low cost.

For,example the earth have a large amount of fossil fuels if we can dig the soil deeper. Recent technology afford us to do it easily.

The cost of fossil fuel is lower than before with recent technology.

Thirdly, there are many workers in the supply chain of fossil fuels.

For example . In fossil fuel market there are many category which are mining raw material, creating fuels, suppling the energy and so on. There are many workers in this markets.

People want to keep working in the fossil fuels market.

In conclusion,For above mentioned three reasons , I agree this theme.

LGBT+Q

I red the article of English Journal. LGBT became LGBTQ, +Q. "Q" is the queer. "Queer"??? The dictionary said "(especially of a man) gay:" or "strange, unusual, or not expected:". I'm not familiar with this word. Strange or unusual people is the one of the type LGBT... Diversities is very important to live together with others, especialy foreigners. I should recognize that the queer is one of the diversities. I improved.