Argumentative Essays (10 Samples) for ICSE / ISC

Argumentative compositions/essays are aimed at Persuading the reader to accept your viewpoint​. You must choose either FOR or AGAINST the topic and present your views with strong supporting points including edidence, anecdotes and real-life examples. If you already haven't, You may review the rules and structure of an argumentative essay before proceeding with the samples.

Essay 1: Social Media Is More Bane Than Boon

The Digital Double-Edged Sword

I strongly believe social media has become more harmful than helpful for society, particularly young people. While it offers connectivity, the mental and social costs outweigh the benefits.

First, social media creates mental health problems among teenagers. Platforms like Instagram promote fake perfection—filtered photos, highlight reels. A 2023 study found 68% of teenagers report anxiety linked to social media comparison. When every friend appears happier and more successful, self-esteem crashes. The "like" button becomes a measure of worth, turning confidence into a popularity contest. Depression rates among teens have doubled since 2010, directly matching smartphone adoption.

Second, social media destroys real human connection while claiming to create it. We have 500 friends online but feel lonelier than ever. Conversations reduce to emojis. Family dinners happen with everyone staring at screens. The cruel irony: the more "connected" we become digitally, the more isolated we feel emotionally.

Third, social media breeds fake news and cyberbullying. False information spreads faster than truth. Political propaganda manipulates opinions. Cyberbullying follows victims home, into bedrooms, into sleep. Anonymity encourages cruelty. Teen suicide cases linked to online harassment rise annually.

Supporters argue social media democratizes information and enables activism. Yes, it helped organize movements. But these benefits exist alongside hate forums, echo chambers that divide societies, and algorithms that prioritize profit over ethics—showing us content that angers rather than informs.

The analysis is clear: social media gave us connectivity at the expense of mental health, information at the cost of truth, and platforms for expression shadowed by harassment. Until these platforms prioritize user welfare over profit and address their psychological impact, they remain harmful—a curse disguised as innovation, profiting from our weaknesses while we scroll ourselves into anxiety.

Essay 2: Homework Should Be Abolished

The Case Against Daily Drudgery

I strongly support abolishing excessive homework. While moderate practice has value, current homework culture causes more harm than educational benefit.

First, homework steals childhood itself. Students spend 6-8 hours in school, then 2-4 hours more at home on academic work. When does childhood happen? When do they play, explore, develop hobbies, or rest? The World Health Organization recommends physical activity and unstructured play for brain development, yet homework leaves no time. We're producing academically trained children who can't climb trees, haven't read for pleasure, and view learning as punishment.

Second, homework increases inequality. Privileged students have parental help, tutors, internet access, and quiet study spaces. Poor students lack these. The child whose parent works night shifts competes unfairly with the child whose parent is a professor. Homework doesn't level the playing field—it tilts it further, becoming another form of discrimination.

Third, excessive homework doesn't improve learning. Finland, consistently ranked among the world's best education systems, assigns minimal homework. Students there have shorter days, longer breaks, less homework, yet perform better than homework-burdened peers globally. Why? Because learning happens through engagement and understanding, not repetitive practice. When homework becomes busywork—copying notes, solving 50 identical problems—it's fake education, not real learning.

Critics argue homework teaches responsibility and time management. But these can be taught through classroom projects and activities. Moreover, homework often teaches the wrong lesson: that learning is boring work to endure, not discovery to enjoy. It kills curiosity.

The solution isn't zero homework but reformed homework—minimal, meaningful, varied. Reading for pleasure? Yes. Creative projects? Absolutely. But copying textbooks and endless repetition? That's outdated teaching.

Childhood is short. Curiosity is fragile. Current homework culture sacrifices both at the altar of "academic rigor," producing stressed, sleep-deprived students who view learning as an enemy. Our children deserve time to be children, and that requires rethinking—or eliminating—the homework culture that steals their present in the name of preparing for a future.

Essay 3: Capital Punishment Should Be Abolished

The Irreversible Error

Essay 4: Co-Education Is Superior to Single-Sex Education

Learning Together, Growing Together

I strongly support co-education as the better model for complete development. While single-sex schools claim focused environments, co-educational institutions better prepare students for the real world—which, notably, is not gender-separated.

First, co-education promotes healthy gender interaction from early ages. In single-sex schools, the opposite gender becomes mysterious, often idealized or feared through lack of familiarity. Co-education normalizes interaction, teaching boys and girls to see each other as equals first. This reduces gender-based awkwardness in professional environments later. Workplaces are co-educational; shouldn't schools be?

Second, co-education challenges gender stereotypes naturally. When girls excel in math and physics alongside boys, it destroys the myth that STEM is for boys. When boys participate in literature and arts, it challenges toxic masculinity. Co-education doesn't just allow these crossings—it normalizes and celebrates them. Separation, even well-intentioned, reinforces the idea that genders are fundamentally different in learning ability.

Third, co-education reflects social reality and prepares students for adult life. Society isn't divided into male and female zones. Universities are co-educational. Workplaces are mixed-gender. By learning to work, compete, and coexist with all genders from childhood, students develop crucial social skills. Single-sex education creates an artificial environment, then releases students unprepared for mixed reality.

Fourth, co-education encourages excellence through healthy competition. Studies show that in co-educational settings, students often perform better—boys become more disciplined observing girls' study habits, girls become more confident in debates where boys challenge ideas.

Critics argue single-sex schools reduce distractions, particularly romantic ones. But "distraction" implies healthy human interaction is a problem to eliminate rather than a skill to develop. This treats students like children who can't maintain academic focus around the opposite gender—strange preparation for adult life where such focus is required.

Co-education isn't perfect—it requires strong anti-harassment policies and gender-sensitive teaching. But these are necessary challenges in building fair society. Separation is the lazy solution. True education prepares students for the world as it is. Co-education removes training wheels early, teaching balance through practice.

Essay 5: Money Is More Important Than Fame

The Practical Truth

Essay 6: Democracy Is the Best Form of Government

Flawed but Unmatched

Essay 7: School Uniforms Are Necessary

The Great Equalizer

I strongly support mandatory school uniforms as essential for creating fair, focused learning environments. While critics say they suppress individuality, uniforms actually free students from more oppressive forces—economic comparison and social hierarchies based on clothing.

First, uniforms eliminate visible economic inequality. Without uniforms, clothing becomes a daily wealth report card. Designer brands signal money; worn clothes signal poverty. Children are cruel judges, and fashion becomes another bullying tool. Uniforms erase this. When everyone dresses identically, economic status isn't advertised. The scholarship student and rich student look the same. This doesn't eliminate inequality, but prevents clothing from being a daily reminder.

Second, uniforms reduce morning chaos and family financial burden. Parents save significantly when wardrobes don't require constant trend updates. Students avoid the exhausting daily question: "What do I wear?" Uniforms simplify, allowing mental energy for academics, not appearance. Decision fatigue is real; removing one daily decision frees thinking power for learning.

Third, uniforms build institutional identity and discipline. They visually unite students under shared purpose—learning. Studies show uniforms correlate with improved attendance, reduced behavioral problems, enhanced school pride. When students wear uniforms, they psychologically shift from "individual" to "part of community." This isn't suppression; it's community-building.

Fourth, uniforms prepare students for professional realities. Most careers involve dress codes—military, medicine, law, corporate sectors. Learning to present appropriately is life training. Uniforms teach that self-expression has appropriate contexts. Professional settings require conforming to norms. That's not oppression; it's preparation for functional adult life.

Critics argue uniforms suppress individuality. But individuality isn't clothing-deep. True identity—personality, ideas, talents—transcends fabric. If entire self-expression depends on wearing ripped jeans, identity is dangerously shallow. Expression happens through words, creativity, actions, not brand logos. Schools have evenings and weekends for personal fashion. Eight hours in uniform doesn't erase individuality.

Others claim uniforms don't eliminate bullying; kids find other differences. True. But why add clothing as another weapon? Uniforms don't solve all problems, but they remove one significant variable.

Uniforms aren't about stifling students; they're about focusing schools on education, not fashion shows. They're equalizers, subtle levelers of hierarchies. Individuality that can't survive wearing the same shirt as classmates is fragile indeed. Real individuality flourishes regardless of fabric.

Essay 8: Video Games Do Not Promote Violence

Myths vs. Evidence

Essay 9: Private Tuition Is a Necessary Evil

The Symptom, Not the Disease

I believe private tuition, while problematic, has become a necessary evil in our flawed education system. It's not the solution we need, but the temporary fix we use while the wound remains untreated.

First, tuition compensates for overcrowded classrooms where individual attention is impossible. Indian schools regularly have 50-60 students per teacher. In such conditions, personalized help and pace adjustments are fantasies. Teachers, overworked and underpaid, cannot meet every student's needs. Tuition fills this gap, providing attention schools should provide but can't. We can discuss how it should work, but students need help now, not after education reform.

Second, tuition addresses varied learning paces that rigid curricula ignore. Schools move at fixed speeds; students don't. The fast learner gets bored, the slow learner drowns. Tuition allows customized pacing—re-teaching concepts, advancing ahead, focusing on weaknesses. This isn't luxury; it's survival in a system treating education as factory production.

Third, competitive exams make tuition essential. JEE, NEET, CLAT require specialized preparation schools don't offer. They're high-stakes gateways to careers. Students without tuition compete empty-handed against equipped armies. Ideally, schools should prepare for these. They don't. Until they do, tuition remains necessary—unfair advantage, yes, but disadvantage without it is worse.

However, tuition is deeply problematic. It increases inequality—wealthy families afford the best tutors; poor families strain financially or go without, falling further behind. Tuition creates a parallel system, suggesting schools are insufficient. Worse, some teachers deliberately teach poorly in class to create tuition demand—corruption turning education into ransom.

Critics argue tuition steals childhood, loading students with 12-14 hour days. True. Critics say it rewards economic privilege over merit. Also true. Finland and Singapore educate effectively without widespread tuition culture. Absolutely true.

But here's reality: Indian education is under-resourced, examination-focused, highly competitive. Reforms take decades. Students have years, not decades. Telling them to wait for systemic fixes while their present suffers is cruel idealism.

The solution isn't banning tuition—desperation finds ways around bans. The solution is fixing schools: smaller classes, better teacher pay, engaging curricula, redefining success beyond rote exams. Until then, tuition is the crutch for a system that broke its own legs.

Essay 10: Examinations Remain an Effective Assessment Method

The Imperfect Measuring Stick