Can you help me paraphrase this and more context?

TEXT NUMBER 1 (ANTI-TERROR BILL)

The Facebooks posts directed to the issue on the Anti-Terror legislation, now signed as a law by President Rodrigo Duterte, equally have presented their views on the topic. However, Text 2 is better by inches than 'Text 1.

In just a few words, Text 1 and Text 2 have both captured the readers' attention through their simplistic explanation on why the legislation matters. While Text 1 is able to present a clear definition of the issue, as in the statement "Activism is not a crimeit is a prerequisite to a green, just and peaceful society," Text 2 fails to give readers a concrete view of the problem. Even I the two texts differ in opinion regarding the topic, both still give a convincing tone in their messages as the two texts include suggested solutions or recommendations. Since all the details in the texts are presented using transitional words, both are easy to understand. it's just that, Text 2 uses more cohesive devices making it easier to follow than Text 1. Regardless of which, both are still able to use varied sentences and simple words without errors on grammar, punctuation or spelling.

For those who appreciate brevity in writing, both texts are a fit for your taste. However, if they will only include more details pertaining to some sections in the legislation that are highly debated, it would satisfy the readers curiosity in doing so, they may be able to convince readers better.

TEXT NUMBER 2 (BULLYING)

Both texts delve on bullying, and yet they offer different discussions on the issue. Text 1 adheres more to the standards of an argumentative text; thus, it provides a deeper view of the problem. Text 2, on the other hand, seems to falter in relaying what the real issue is.

Bullying has been with us since time immemorial, but through the discussion of the first text, we are poignantly reminded of what it's like to be bullied and be a bully simply and directly. By clearly presenting the main idea, we are given an real picture of the issue. This is magnified through the inclusion of an incident involving a prominent family in the city. In doing so, the writer can provide a sensible and note-worthy recommendation on how to tackle the issue. Although the text contains faulty parallelism, it still does not fail to deliver its purpose- to remind us of the biggest problem in school. This is made easier through the logical arrangement of ideas, use of simple words and varied sentences.

Text 2, however, fails to capture the bigger picture in its presentation of bullying. Instead of hitting the target straight in the eye, the text beats around the bush and includes unnecessary details. For example, the rhetorical question, "Have you ever experienced bullying? does not capture the author's stand on the issue. In his case, the author can instead provide a clear Thesis statement. Furthermore, the arrangement of ideas in the text lakes readers to a roller-coaster ride in understanding the issue. The problem, though, is that the text fails to put a stop to the ride. That is why readers are left hanging. To engage the readers in a worthwhile read, the author should arrange his ideas Using transitional words. Another problem of the text is the grammar error. in the second paragraph, the phrase "has led" should be changed to "has led". If the author, would simplify the text by going straight to the point, his presentation of the issue would have been better.

In general, text 1 does a better job in convincing readers to take a stand on bullying. Although the second text contains valuable insights on the issue, it needs to undergo total revision so it could achieve its purpose.

TEXT 3 (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY)

Juvenile delinquency has been around the corner for centuries now, but the two editorial texts provide a fresh look to the problem. Using concrete examples presented logically, both articles discuss the issue poignantly and realistically. Although the texts differ in style, they are both worth reading.

The anecdotes at the beginning of each text give a grim look to the problem, creating a serious mood throughout the article. These, however, do not encapsulate the editors' position on the topic. Good thing, the texts contain a sufficient amount of details that thoroughly discuss the issue. For example, in Text 1, the statements regarding "Republic Act 9344, also known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006" gives a convincing and well-researched tone to the article. In Text 2, although it lacks concrete examples, it still manages to end its argument with a remarkable suggestion to the problem by saying, "everyone deserves a second chance, and child offenders deserve it even more."

Another excellent quality of the two texts have is its excellent arrangement of ideas. Both start with anecdotes that are carefully expanded with details and ended with notable recommendations. Through the transitional words used throughout the two articles, readers are given an easy job in following the writer's train of thoughts. Text2, however, shows a clearer development of ideas than Text 1 by inches.

Since the words used are simple, and there are no errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation, both texts appeal not only to the reading adults but also to the young ones who are the subjects of the texts. On this note, the simple choice of words may be attributed to one of the purposes of the textsfor the children to protect and defend their fundamental right.

With a great presentation of details partnered with significant opinions, both texts are on the equal quality that promotes the protection of children.