"Great Nations Win Without Fighting"- A different angle
 

Dear all,

I am posting the outline of "Great Nations Win Without Fighting" with a different stance. [B][U]Note[/U][/B] These suggestions do not necessarily reflects my point of view. Your comments in this regard will highly be appreciated.

[B][U]Great Nations Win Without Fighting[/U][/B]
(1) Introduction/Thesis Statement
(2) What is a Great Nation? Any examples?
-on Political grounds
-on Economic grounds
-on Military grounds
-on administration/good governance
-Leadership
(3) What is meant by winning?
(4) what is meant by fighting?
-Violence oriented Fights
-Non-Violent Fights
-Struggle- Fight for a cause
(5) Is fighting necessary for Winning?
- A case study of great nations from history.
- Nations only become great after fighting
- But fighting, do not necessarily means violent fighting.
- Fight can be on Economic, Political, Social fronts.
- Military Fights.
(6) Economic Fights
-Communist Russia/China- A fight against Capitalism/Imperialism.
-American Revolution- A fight against Mercantilism.
-French Revolution- A fight against hunger and poverty.
(7) Political Fights
- Creation of Pakistan- Struggle of M.Ali Jinnah
- Mahatama Gandhi- Non violent Self rule Campaign
- Nelson Mendella
(8) Social Fights
- Rise of Socialist/Communist China
- Progressivism - Thedore Rosevelt/Howard Theft/ Woodrow Wilson
(9) Military Fights or Violence oriented fights
- Roman Empire
- Persian Empire
- Islamic Empire
- World Wars
- Polar World
- Gulf Wars
- Srilanka against Tamils
- Afghanistan/ Iraq wars.
(10) Fighting a necessity- a lesson learnt from History.
(11) But violence oriented fights is not a necessity.
(12) Is winning possible with non-violent fights?
(13) what if no fighting (violent or non violent) occurs? Can a nation become a great nation?
(14) what fights are required to win and become a great nation?
-Economic fight
-Social fight
-Political fight
-Military fights- as a last option
(15) Some quotations in favour of struggle/fighting.
(16) Conclusion.

It is like when someone say right with your right hand but you do not listen to him and you start writing with your left hand .

@rarasham please elaborate

[QUOTE=micho;702050]Dear all,

I am posting the outline of "Great Nations Win Without Fighting" with a different stance. [B][U]Note[/U][/B] These suggestions do not necessarily reflects my point of view. Your comments in this regard will highly be appreciated.

[B][U]Great Nations Win Without Fighting[/U][/B]
(1) Introduction/Thesis Statement
(2) What is a Great Nation? Any examples?
-on Political grounds
-on Economic grounds
-on Military grounds
-on administration/good governance
-Leadership
(3) What is meant by winning?
(4) what is meant by fighting?
-Violence oriented Fights
-Non-Violent Fights
-Struggle- Fight for a cause
(5) Is fighting necessary for Winning?
- A case study of great nations from history.
- Nations only become great after fighting
- But fighting, do not necessarily means violent fighting.
- Fight can be on Economic, Political, Social fronts.
- Military Fights.
(6) Economic Fights
-Communist Russia/China- A fight against Capitalism/Imperialism.
-American Revolution- A fight against Mercantilism.
-French Revolution- A fight against hunger and poverty.
(7) Political Fights
- Creation of Pakistan- Struggle of M.Ali Jinnah
- Mahatama Gandhi- Non violent Self rule Campaign
- Nelson Mendella
(8) Social Fights
- Rise of Socialist/Communist China
- Progressivism - Thedore Rosevelt/Howard Theft/ Woodrow Wilson
(9) Military Fights or Violence oriented fights
- Roman Empire
- Persian Empire
- Islamic Empire
- World Wars
- Polar World
- Gulf Wars
- Srilanka against Tamils
- Afghanistan/ Iraq wars.
(10) Fighting a necessity- a lesson learnt from History.
(11) But violence oriented fights is not a necessity.
(12) Is winning possible with non-violent fights?
(13) what if no fighting (violent or non violent) occurs? Can a nation become a great nation?
(14) what fights are required to win and become a great nation?
-Economic fight
-Social fight
-Political fight
-Military fights- as a last option
(15) Some quotations in favour of struggle/fighting.
(16) Conclusion.[/QUOTE]

Good Attempt. Just replace the word Fight with Struggle i.e. a Political Struggle, Economic Struggle etc and the rest will be fine :)

[QUOTE=umarabbas;702361]Good Attempt. Just replace the word Fight with Struggle i.e. a Political Struggle, Economic Struggle etc and the rest will be fine :)[/QUOTE]

Omer sir, that is what i have been saying since day first, but no one is paying attention to me. I have reiterated again and again that there was a sky clear difference between war and fight, but of no use.

Noun: fighting

The act of fighting; any contest or struggle*•*there was fighting in the streets
=combat, fight, scrap


Adjective: fighting

(military) engaged in or ready for military or naval operations*•*review the fighting forces
=active, combat-ready
≈operational

Verb: fight
(fights, fought, fighting)

Be engaged in a fight; carry*on a fight*•*Siblings are always fighting*•*the tribesmen fought each other
=contend, struggle
Fight against or resist strongly*•*Don't fight it!
=defend, dispute, fight back, fight down, oppose
Make a strenuous or laboured effort*•*He fought for breath
=struggle
Exert oneself continuously, vigorously, or obtrusively to gain an end or engage in a crusade for a certain cause or person; be an advocate for*•*She is fighting for women's rights
=agitate, campaign, crusade, press, push

I also interpreted fighting as struggle in my essay, attempted Great Nations taking a position against the topic. My thesis was Nations become great only by fighting and subsequently winning. No winning without fighting. Examples: Rise of Islam, colonial powers etc. Fight is not just traditional warfare but also economic, diplomatic and technological warfare. Realpolitik stuff..

[QUOTE=abbas khan 119;702368]Omer sir, that is what i have been saying since day first, but no one is paying attention to me. I have reiterated again and again that there was a sky clear difference between war and fight, but of no use.[/QUOTE]

there is a big difference between war and fight.

[QUOTE=micho;702050]Dear all,

I am posting the outline of "Great Nations Win Without Fighting" with a different stance. [B][U]Note[/U][/B] These suggestions do not necessarily reflects my point of view. Your comments in this regard will highly be appreciated.

[B][U]Great Nations Win Without Fighting[/U][/B]
(1) Introduction/Thesis Statement
(2) What is a Great Nation? Any examples?
-on Political grounds
-on Economic grounds
-on Military grounds
-on administration/good governance
-Leadership
(3) What is meant by winning?
(4) what is meant by fighting?
-Violence oriented Fights
-Non-Violent Fights
-Struggle- Fight for a cause
(5) Is fighting necessary for Winning?
- A case study of great nations from history.
- Nations only become great after fighting
- But fighting, do not necessarily means violent fighting.
- Fight can be on Economic, Political, Social fronts.
- Military Fights.
(6) Economic Fights
-Communist Russia/China- A fight against Capitalism/Imperialism.
-American Revolution- A fight against Mercantilism.
-French Revolution- A fight against hunger and poverty.
(7) Political Fights
- Creation of Pakistan- Struggle of M.Ali Jinnah
- Mahatama Gandhi- Non violent Self rule Campaign
- Nelson Mendella
(8) Social Fights
- Rise of Socialist/Communist China
- Progressivism - Thedore Rosevelt/Howard Theft/ Woodrow Wilson
(9) Military Fights or Violence oriented fights
- Roman Empire
- Persian Empire
- Islamic Empire
- World Wars
- Polar World
- Gulf Wars
- Srilanka against Tamils
- Afghanistan/ Iraq wars.
(10) Fighting a necessity- a lesson learnt from History.
(11) But violence oriented fights is not a necessity.
(12) Is winning possible with non-violent fights?
(13) what if no fighting (violent or non violent) occurs? Can a nation become a great nation?
(14) what fights are required to win and become a great nation?
-Economic fight
-Social fight
-Political fight
-Military fights- as a last option
(15) Some quotations in favour of struggle/fighting.
(16) Conclusion.[/QUOTE]

1st ov all I must really appreciate the writers indepth knowledge and grip over world history. What a command you possess in world history, quite impressive, that is. But before commenting anything on your outline I would rather request you to please share your Thesis Statement and introduction, if possible.

[QUOTE=Naveed_Bhuutto;702704]1st ov all I must really appreciate the writers indepth knowledge and grip over world history. What a command you possess in world history, quite impressive, that is. But before commenting anything on your outline I would rather request you to please share your Thesis Statement and introduction, if possible.[/QUOTE]

Naveed Bhutto Bhai,

I would share the thesis statement and introduction in few days. It would be kind of you, if you could comment on the outline.

[QUOTE=micho;704854]Naveed Bhutto Bhai,

I would share the thesis statement and introduction in few days. It would be kind of you, if you could comment on the outline.[/QUOTE]

Foresure I will.

Great......

Out Line...Give your valued opinion seniors.
Great Nations win without fighting.
Probably no nation is rich enough to have both war and civilization, make your choice we cannot afford both.
(Albert Ellis)


Great nations cannot fight to cause sour wounds on surface of mother earth as:

Greatness lies in peace.
Prosperity lies in peace.
Peaceful nations leading the globe.
Peaceful nations a demand not a deed.

Greatness cannot be achieved by fighting.
Fights...humans betrothing humans.
To befriend an enemy is to finish an enemy.
Victories of force....short lived.
Winning without fighting is long lasting.



Great Nations that won without fight...A glance at history
Arabs...establishment of Muslim rule and changed dimensions.
Scandinavian Nations..... Germany, Finland etc.
Establishment of Pakistan.

Only Peace can make progress.
China..... a sleeping giant.
Malaysia...Robust economy
Srilanka, Finland, Switzerland.


Fights can cause downfall of nations;
Fall and decline of great nations: Paul Kennedy
America....fighting webs entangled and engulfed its economy.
India wasting its potential.


Peace is constructed not fought for.
why do nations fight?
when suppressed and oppressed (Egypt, Syria,)
when justice fails to deliver (Tunisia, Kashmir).
when minorities are injured (Myanmar).

Establishment of peaceful nations: dire need of globe

Green planet getting red...
Love humanity indiscriminate of caste and creed.
Let,s not wage wars in name of Peace
Let true Democracy deliver
Address the problems of humanity
Let us establish the great nations to heal the wounds of mother earth.
If a nation wants an everlasting winning, it has to win without fighting as great nations win without fighting.

Come close, remove your sandals from your feet as the place we are standing is holy earth.

Seniors kindly evaluate my above mentioned outline......

I personally think Diversity of ideas is required

[QUOTE=kinza kazmi;705216]Out Line...Give your valued opinion seniors.
Great Nations win without fighting.
Probably no nation is rich enough to have both war and civilization, make your choice we cannot afford both.
(Albert Ellis)


Great nations cannot fight to cause sour wounds on surface of mother earth as:

Greatness lies in peace.
Prosperity lies in peace.
Peaceful nations leading the globe.
Peaceful nations a demand not a deed.

Greatness cannot be achieved by fighting.
Fights...humans betrothing humans.
To befriend an enemy is to finish an enemy.
Victories of force....short lived.
Winning without fighting is long lasting.



Great Nations that won without fight...A glance at history
Arabs...establishment of Muslim rule and changed dimensions.
Scandinavian Nations..... Germany, Finland etc.
Establishment of Pakistan.

Only Peace can make progress.
China..... a sleeping giant.
Malaysia...Robust economy
Srilanka, Finland, Switzerland.


Fights can cause downfall of nations;
Fall and decline of great nations: Paul Kennedy
America....fighting webs entangled and engulfed its economy.
India wasting its potential.


Peace is constructed not fought for.
why do nations fight?
when suppressed and oppressed (Egypt, Syria,)
when justice fails to deliver (Tunisia, Kashmir).
when minorities are injured (Myanmar).

Establishment of peaceful nations: dire need of globe

Green planet getting red...
Love humanity indiscriminate of caste and creed.
Let,s not wage wars in name of Peace
Let true Democracy deliver
Address the problems of humanity
Let us establish the great nations to heal the wounds of mother earth.
If a nation wants an everlasting winning, it has to win without fighting as great nations win without fighting.

Come close, remove your sandals from your feet as the place we are standing is holy earth.[/QUOTE]

Dear, although your Outline seems to be pretty good but I am not satisfied with the examples that you have given.

Do you know how many died during [B]Zedong Mao Era in China[/B]? Approx 1 Carore
[B]Sri Lanka[/B] is in state of war for last 26 years between the Hindu Tamil separatists and the Sinhalese Buddhist.
For Economy you could have quoted the example of [B]Singapore [/B]rather then Malaysia because Singapore is more successful after it was separated in 1965.
[B]Finland [/B]again is not a very strong argument dear as Finland itself was a part of Sweden, before it fought a war for their Independence.

thanks kinza

If it is worth to write on wars and fights for a nation to become great, don't you believe it may add twist in essay if we add-up a line in outline "Is winning worth to become a great nation?" Giving examples of Japan; who despite losing learnt from the lessons of war, is world's great nation.

[QUOTE=iFarazAhmed;722513]If it is worth to write on wars and fights for a nation to become great, don't you believe it may add twist in essay if we add-up a line in outline "Is winning worth to become a great nation?" Giving examples of Japan; who despite losing learnt from the lessons of war, is world's great nation.[/QUOTE]

Thank you iFarazAhmed for your response. Twist is already added in the outline.
"(5) Is fighting necessary for Winning?"
But if we add "Is winning worth to become a great nation?", will it not go off-topic?

[QUOTE=micho;722551]Thank you iFarazAhmed for your response. Twist is already added in the outline.
"(5) Is fighting necessary for Winning?"
But if we add "Is winning worth to become a great nation?", will it not go off-topic?[/QUOTE]

However the topic was: Great Nations Win WithOut Fighting; so it is not mandatory to support such arguments that "If they (Great Nations) fight they must win."
I guess the objective of this essay was "Great Nations" other portion of topic - Win WithOut Fighting - was merely added to examine one's analytical approach.
I think they are already Great whether they fight or not; they are already winners.
Please comment if I'm wrong.
This is my personal opinion, I'm just beginner and eager to appear at least after 2 years!

[QUOTE=iFarazAhmed;722704]However the topic was: Great Nations Win WithOut Fighting; so it is not mandatory to support such arguments that "If they (Great Nations) fight they must win."
I guess the objective of this essay was "Great Nations" other portion of topic - Win WithOut Fighting - was merely added to examine one's analytical approach.
I think they are already Great whether they fight or not; they are already winners.
Please comment if I'm wrong.
This is my personal opinion, I'm just beginner and eager to appear at least after 2 years![/QUOTE]

Thank you for posting your query. Topic was "Great Nations win without fighting". Keywords in this were Great nations, winning, and fighting. So according to the demand of the essay, you have to stick in your writings to these keywords. I hope you understand it now. Yes the essay required analytical approach, but the analysis should circulate around the keywords.
Seniors could also comment on this.

[QUOTE=iFarazAhmed;722704]However the topic was: Great Nations Win WithOut Fighting; so it is not mandatory to support such arguments that "If they (Great Nations) fight they must win."
I guess the objective of this essay was "Great Nations" other portion of topic - Win WithOut Fighting - was merely added to examine one's analytical approach.
I think they are already Great whether they fight or not; they are already winners.
Please comment if I'm wrong.
This is my personal opinion, I'm just beginner and eager to appear at least after 2 years![/QUOTE]

It wasn't merely added. It is actually the topic. Great Nations win without fighting. Now you can take a position either for it or against it and proceed with your essay. You can also take a middle ground. Now 'winning' and 'fighting' and 'Great' are vague terms. You have to define them. What's a win? Economical, technological, scientific, geo-political, militaristic win?? And what's a 'fight'? A brawl in the club? A battle? A war or just any struggle?

If we interpret fight as struggle, then the only arguments that are strong go against the topic. No Nation becomes great without striving for it. And what is a great nation? What parameters are needed to gauge greatness? It must have a big economy, its economic indicators should be high enough, standard of living should be above the world average. Finland fits the profile. But how about geo-political influence? A say in the world affairs? For that you need Armies, technology, alliances etc. then the United States comes to mind. How did it become a great nation then? After winning the second world war, and then the cold war. So economic, scientific, technological, militaristic struggle or fight is necessary for a nation to become Great.

Are you writing a book?

[QUOTE=LSJan;723312]Are you writing a book?[/QUOTE]

No. It's just an essay I wrote for my exam

Great Nations win without fighting.......
 

kindly evaluate my outline.........kindly seniors give me marks out of 10 for my outline and your valuable suggestions.
Introductions:
Topic Defined
General Remarks
What makes Great Nations great:
Political Stability
Sound economics Policies
Accountability and Justice
Technological Advancement
Social Maturity
military Power
Fighting .......Does not mean Violence rather it means competition.
Competition of Economy
Competition of Military
Competition of Scientific innovations
Competition of Diplomacy
Great Nations wins without bloodshed
Economic monopoly
Diplomacy ......victory without wars.
Technological advancement.....long term victory over world
Political Stability.........Leadership of the world
Huge Military........threatens rising revolt against their supremacy.
An overview of few great Nations of 21st century.
Americans.........lead the world
Chinese..........Economic Big Wigs.
Germans........heirs of Romans
Japanese.......worshippers of rising sun.
Can Pakistan be ranked among great nations
Conclusion:

[QUOTE=Matee ur Rehman;726469]kindly evaluate my outline.........kindly seniors give me marks out of 10 for my outline and your valuable suggestions.
Introductions:
Topic Defined
General Remarks
What makes Great Nations great:
Political Stability
Sound economics Policies
Accountability and Justice
Technological Advancement
Social Maturity
military Power
Fighting .......Does not mean Violence rather it means competition.
Competition of Economy
Competition of Military
Competition of Scientific innovations
Competition of Diplomacy
Great Nations wins without bloodshed
Economic monopoly
Diplomacy ......victory without wars.
Technological advancement.....long term victory over world
Political Stability.........Leadership of the world
Huge Military........threatens rising revolt against their supremacy.
An overview of few great Nations of 21st century.
Americans.........lead the world
Chinese..........Economic Big Wigs.
Germans........heirs of Romans
Japanese.......worshippers of rising sun.
Can Pakistan be ranked among great nations
Conclusion:[/QUOTE]

Did you write this in exam or wrote this after reading the thread?

Wow. If i have come across the best outline for this essay, its this one. When i looked at the topic for the first time, I sketched an imaginary outline almost same as yours.

Most aspirants didnt consider the other side of the topic - Great nations DO engage in fight/wars if its a requirement of the time.

Plus the fight against evils that you mentioned - Though most people elaborated the Nation versus Nation fight, the perspective - that a nation has to fight against many things internally too to become great- is a desperate requirement to score in the 50's or 60's band.

:clap :clap

[QUOTE=Matee ur Rehman;726469]kindly evaluate my outline.........kindly seniors give me marks out of 10 for my outline and your valuable suggestions.
Introductions:
Topic Defined
General Remarks
[B]What makes Great Nations great:
Political Stability
Sound economics Policies
Accountability and Justice
Technological Advancement
Social Maturity
military Power [/B]
Fighting .......Does not mean Violence rather it means competition.
Competition of Economy
Competition of Military
Competition of Scientific innovations
Competition of Diplomacy
Great Nations wins without bloodshed
Economic monopoly
Diplomacy ......victory without wars.
Technological advancement.....long term victory over world
Political Stability.........Leadership of the world
Huge Military........threatens rising revolt against their supremacy.
An overview of few great Nations of 21st century.
Americans.........lead the world
Chinese..........Economic Big Wigs.
Germans........heirs of Romans
Japanese.......worshippers of rising sun.
Can Pakistan be ranked among great nations
Conclusion:[/QUOTE]

I like the following point,

What makes Great Nations great:
Political Stability
Sound economics Policies
Accountability and Justice
Technological Advancement
Social Maturity
military Power

One of my dictionaries defines fighting as:
<--- Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English --->
fighting
n [uncountable] when people or groups fight each other in a war, in the street etc
fighting between
--- heavy fighting between government and rebel forces
--- Fighting broke out in the crowds.
Now, what I mean to say is: You can take the topic in either way, against the topic or in favour of the topic. But, if your stance is against the topic then your argumentation should be very strong to convince the examiner that ''Great nations win by fighting/struggling''. Moreover, for perception in either way, you must throw some light in the very start that how do you perceive the topic. Like, you should define the topic, the keywords I mean, according to your own perception. This thing will make your essay confusion-free even for the common man who would read your essay. Consequently, making things simple an easy and hitting the target(Topic of essay) result in getting good marks.
Anyone can differ in opinion. :)

[QUOTE=The Shah Ends;727147]One of my dictionaries defines fighting as:
<--- Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English --->
fighting
n [uncountable] when people or groups fight each other in a war, in the street etc
fighting between
--- heavy fighting between government and rebel forces
--- Fighting broke out in the crowds.
Now, what I mean to say is: You can take the topic in either way, against the topic or in favour of the topic. But, if your stance is against the topic then your argumentation should be very strong to convince the examiner that ''Great nations win by fighting/struggling''. Moreover, for perception in either way, you must throw some light in the very start that how do you perceive the topic. Like, you should define the topic, the keywords I mean, according to your own perception. This thing will make your essay confusion-free even for the common man who would read your essay. Consequently, making things simple an easy and hitting the target(Topic of essay) result in getting good marks.
Anyone can differ in opinion. :)[/QUOTE]

An essay is not merely expansion. You can go against the topic. Even going for the topic requires strong and convincing argumentation. There isn't such criteria that going for the topic will be easier and fetch more marks than going against the topic. In every essay you have to define keywords according to your own perception because the keywords given are often vague or ambiguous. For example, according to the Google dictionary the word 'fight' means to take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons, engage in a war or battle; quarrel or argue; struggle to overcome, eliminate, or prevent; strive to achieve or do something; to endeavour vigorously to win (an election or other contest) etc.

[QUOTE=Buddha;727151]An essay is not merely expansion. You can go against the topic. Even going for the topic requires strong and convincing argumentation. There isn't such criteria that going for the topic will be easier and fetch more marks than going against the topic. In every essay you have to define keywords according to your own perception because the keywords given are often vague.[/QUOTE]

Yes, you're right, it's not that easy to convince them even if someone perceives the topic in favour of it. :) And, defining the key points is really necessary in the start, that's what I put emphasis on. However, some of the outlines do not give an idea about the writer's perception of the topic in the start. So, it may prove fatal for them. Allah na karay. :)
I wish good luck to everyone.

[QUOTE=The Shah Ends;727147]One of my dictionaries defines fighting as:
<--- Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English --->
fighting
n [uncountable] when people or groups fight each other in a war, in the street etc
fighting between
--- heavy fighting between government and rebel forces
--- Fighting broke out in the crowds.
Now, what I mean to say is: You can take the topic in either way, against the topic or in favour of the topic. But, if your stance is against the topic then your argumentation should be very strong to convince the examiner that ''Great nations win by fighting/struggling''. Moreover, for perception in either way, you must throw some light in the very start that how do you perceive the topic. Like, you should define the topic, the keywords I mean, according to your own perception. This thing will make your essay confusion-free even for the common man who would read your essay. Consequently, making things simple an easy and hitting the target(Topic of essay) result in getting good marks.
Anyone can differ in opinion. :)[/QUOTE]

I strongly disagree with your point "[B]But, if your stance is against the topic then your argumentation should be very strong to convince the examiner that ''Great nations win by fighting/struggling[/B]''". Arguments need to be strong in either case.
Regarding the point "[B]you must throw some light in the very start that how do you perceive the topic.[/B]", thesis statement is there. Secondly the flow of essay will definitely make the essay confusion free.

[QUOTE=The Shah Ends;727157]Yes, you're right, it's not that easy to convince them even if someone perceives the topic in favour of it. :) [B]And, defining the key points is really necessary in the start, that's what I put emphasis on.[/B] However, some of the outlines do not give an idea about the writer's perception of the topic in the start. So, it may prove fatal for them. Allah na karay. :)
I wish good luck to everyone.[/QUOTE]

@ The Shah Ends
any comments about this?
(1) Introduction/Thesis Statement
(2) What is a Great Nation? Any examples?
-on Political grounds
-on Economic grounds
-on Military grounds
-on administration/good governance
-Leadership
(3) What is meant by winning?
(4) what is meant by fighting?

I dont think we must narrow down our options when we define FIGHTING or write about it. Essay is all about how one perceives the meaning of the term and how he/she defines it. You fight in a war [bloodshed] and you fight for the rights of the minorities [peaceful] -- Plus, a great nation fights in several ways with other nations ranging from raising voice against a nation to a full scale war.

[QUOTE=micho;727179]@ The Shah Ends
any comments about this?
(1) Introduction/Thesis Statement
(2) What is a Great Nation? Any examples?
-on Political grounds
-on Economic grounds
-on Military grounds
-on administration/good governance
-Leadership
(3) What is meant by winning?
(4) what is meant by fighting?[/QUOTE]

Dear brother! I am not in authority to criticize a specific essay on the grounds of my own opinions. However, I am positive about the outlines you mentioned. Simply, clearly mention your perception about the topic in the start, then go forward accordingly.
And for your above post: I am talking about the outlines. The start of your outline should include the headings of your perception of the topic you're going to give in your essay.

[QUOTE=Roshnain Swati;727181]I dont think we must narrow down our options when we define FIGHTING or write about it. Essay is all about how one perceives the meaning of the term and how he/she defines it. You fight in a war [bloodshed] and you fight for the rights of the minorities [peaceful] -- Plus, a great nation fights in several ways with other nations ranging from raising voice against a nation to a full scale war.[/QUOTE]

Rightly said.

[QUOTE=The Shah Ends;727187]Dear brother! I am not in authority to criticize a specific essay on the grounds of my own opinions. However, I am positive about the outlines you mentioned. Simply, clearly mention your perception about the topic in the start, then go forward accordingly.
And for your above post: I am talking about the outlines. The start of your outline should include the headings of your perception of the topic you're going to give in your essay.[/QUOTE]

Yes the perception needs to be made clear and should be made clear in introduction/thesis statement, else it won't make any sense. I don't think so that the start of your outline should include the perception. This is the role of thesis statement and the arguments, which will define the course of essay.

[QUOTE=micho;727218]Yes the perception needs to be made clear and should be made clear in introduction/thesis statement, else it won't make any sense. I don't think so that the start of your outline should include the perception. This is the role of thesis statement and the arguments, which will define the course of essay.[/QUOTE]

You're taking me wrong brother. OK let me make it clear for you. The outlines you mentioned is according to what I am saying again and again. I am not into essay yet, cause no one has posted his/her essay here.
Still you can differ. :dd

[QUOTE=The Shah Ends;727274]You're taking me wrong brother. OK let me make it clear for you. The outlines you mentioned is according to what I am saying again and again. I am not into essay yet, cause no one has posted his/her essay here.
Still you can differ. :dd[/QUOTE]

Okay got it.

I am preparing for PMS and therefore started from CSS paper 2014.