AnnaHubbard

Even if Rose shuffled over Jack would have been too cold to lift himself onto the plank! It is clear he is experiencing hypothermia from being in the freezing cold water and because of this it is unlikely that he would have the strength to climb onto the plank. Even supposing Rose tried to help him she also is likely to be experiencing hypothermia (although less severe) and wouldn't be much use in dragging Jack onto the plank because like him, her body is slowly shutting down because of the cold.

TL;DR Globalisation is net negative because it operates in such a way that it only benefits the richest countries of the world, allowing them to continue to dominate the world trade market and prevent developing countries from benefiting in any way.

The main issue with globalisation than proves it as a net negative system is because it makes workers in developing countries have to settle for poor working conditions and bad pay compared to the workers in first world, richer nations. This is because globalisation does not aid developing countries in any way and the only way for these countries to have a chance of creating a successful globalisation market is to create a cheaper labour market.

There are many statistical examples of this. The garment industry in Bangladesh, for instance, employs an estimated four million people, but the average worker earns less in a month than a U.S. worker earns in a day. It appears that globalisation simply enables the rich to become richer and exploits the less fortunate.

According to Luke Martell, a professor of political sociology, globalisation is ‘the integration of poor countries into a world economy of open competition’ – and I’m inclined to agree with this. With all the damage that globalisation causes to developing countries it appears that it remains net negative until it becomes a fair trade system for all.

Completely agree with you! I certainly believe that the Sydner cut is better than Whedon's version.

TL;DR The Mario Franchise has failed to modernise with the gaming industry. Each new game incorporates the same mechanics and storyline. After 35 years, people are sick and tired of Mario.

Nintendo are currently celebrating the 35th anniversary of Super Mario Bros. Yet, after over three decades of fame in the video game world – I believe that the Mario Franchise no longer holds the same relevancy as it has failed to adjust to the new gaming world.

The Mario Franchise originally acted as an inspiration for other gaming franchises around the world. The game was first regarded as a feat of technological genius and through Nintendo the series’ technology developed with the times, notably changing from a 2D scroller to a 3D game in the 1990s. However, in more recent times Nintendo has failed to create a new game for the character which incorporates the elements and expectations of modern gameplay. Today online gameplay is a core element of the most popular games on the market, but the Mario franchise only provides few opportunities to play with your friends or online, and when you can the services are weak and unreliable.

Every Mario game reintroduces players to the same kinds of environments to fight the same enemies to save the same princess from the same villain. Although I understand that many video game franchises do use the same elements throughout their series, they often build on the core game mechanics or change the story drastically between the different games – and Mario games do not do this enough.

Nintendo plays their Mario franchise too safe, rarely making any drastic changes to the mechanics and style of their games even as technological developments advance. If the Mario franchise continues to fail to adapt to what the modern gaming world is looking for, I can see it becoming irrelevant in the same way the Nintendo as a company will likely do.

TL;DR Roast dinners are tasty and also brilliantly versatile, ensuring that the dish is never boring or repetitive.

The roast dinner is a wonderful, versatile dish that is never boring. Each household does their roast differently and even if the same household makes a roast each week, it is always different. Roast dinners take on a variety of different forms, using different meat, vegetables, gravy and additional supplements each time. The roast has the unique ability to be perfectly suited for a normal family dinner, or for special events such as Christmas (in the UK a traditional turkey roast is eaten on Christmas Day) due to its versatility.

On top of all this, roast dinners actually do taste good – or at least they do according to the general British public. A YouGov poll of the most popular dishes in the UK identifies that half of the items in the top 10 come from the iconic roast dinner dish. With its continued popularity, the dish certainly does taste good to many – me included.

Doritos Nacho Cheese will always be the best crisps in my opinion, and the world seems to agree with me. The latest results by Ranker , a site which has been encouraging people across the globe to vote for their favourite bag of crisps, has deemed Doritos Nacho Cheese the winning brand.

The iconic cheesy taste and intense crunch from the triangular tortilla crisp simply makes it the best snack out there. I can even get over the luminous orange cheese dust that it leaves on your fingers because it just tastes so good

TL;DR Religion, for the most part, is a force for good as it creates communities which encourage people to be a kind and charitable force in the world – no matter what religion you follow.

Religious groups often are regarded with a bad reputation in the modern world. However, the multiple religious terrorist groups that are discussed do not encapsulate the values and emotions of the average religious person. We are not often shown the broader picture, where different religious communities have worked to create positive change in the world and have proven that religion is ultimately a force for good.

All religions of the world encapsulate the same values: be charitable and treat the world and its inhabitants with kindness and respect. The figureheads of different religions also all serve similar purposes, to act as an example to others as the ideal figure of compassion. As I have previously acknowledged, although it is well known that some extremist religious groups do not follow these values, they are not examples of the truly religious people who are good and kind.

It is clear that many of the charities and facilities created by religious groups have been able to help people around the world. A few examples include (these are examples which can be applied to all religions):

• Provide shelters and aid to the homeless and vulnerable.
• Provide charitable health care to those who need it most.
• Create food banks and soup kitchens.
• Provide educational classes to children and adults (both religious and non-religious education)

Religion continues to be used incorrectly in the name of politics and extremists. However, at its core, religion often creates positive change and is overall a force for good.

TL;DR Multiple studies have proved that trigger warnings are largely ineffective in preparing people/trauma survivors to face sensitive content. They are unnecessary because they are not effective. However, I still believe that alternative forms of more effective content warnings are necessary.

Trigger warnings, which aim to bring emotional safety by prewarning people of certain ‘triggers’ within content, are being identified as being ineffective according to new studies. Alongside other researchers, the Clinical Psychological Science Journal have determined that trigger warnings “offer little to no help in avoiding painful memories and perhaps are even harmful for the survivors of past emotional trauma”. If trigger warnings no longer work how they are supposed to then they are an unnecessary asset in society today and should no longer be used.

However, although I find trigger warnings unnecessary I still feel that broader content warnings are essential for the modern world. Content warnings are a lot less restrictive than trigger warnings and are used to warn consumers of content that might be generally upsetting for anybody. This differs from trigger warnings which use a system of false hierarchy in its attempt to categorise what content is the most traumatising and disturbing.

Trigger warnings are unnecessary because they are ineffective and prejudiced. They dictate what people can be upset by and what can cause a traumatic episode in an individual, despite the fact that every person could be triggered by a range of different factors. General content warnings are still necessary however, as they provide a more general insight into any upsetting content

TL;DR Although less people are getting married nowadays, the core values behind marriage are still present in many people’s relationships, suggesting that although marriage as an institution is outdated – the values of marriage aren’t.

The most important things that people generally want from a relationship is love, trust, and a strong bond of long-term, or even lifelong friendship. All of these values can be applied to values of marriage, suggesting that it isn’t as outdated as it may seem.

In addition to this, marriage as an institution has also changed in some countries. It is no longer the religious ceremony between man and woman, but can now be a non-religious union between any two people of any gender. It is even possible in a few countries for polyamorous groups to have conjoint marriages. In this way marriage is not always outdated as it has the capacity to modernise itself, if it is allowed to by different governments around the world.

Whether you believe in marriage or not, it is likely that some of the values you hold in regard to your relationships are also held in the vows of marriage. Although marriage ceremonies are decreasing, the values of marriage still remain relevant and essential to many relationships today.

Beyond the frequently discussed benefits of being shorter (more leg room, will never hit your head on a ceiling etc), scientific data has suggested that being short comes with surprising benefits.

Statistically, shorter people have greater a body symmetry and coordination when compared to others who are taller. These physical benefits allow shorter people to naturally have:

• Faster reaction times
• A greater ability to accelerate body movements
• Stronger muscles in proportion to body weight
• Greater endurance and the ability to rotate the body faster
• Less likelihood of breaking bones when falling

Some scientists have also suggested that shorter people have increased longevity. Although these results are far from conclusive, certain studies have identified a correlation between height and mortality risk.

Apple Music and Spotify are equally as good as one another. Although people may argue that one is better, both have the same advantages and there is not one company which can be definitively proven to be better than the other. It simply comes down to your personal taste and what you want from a streaming service which determines which company you might prefer.

Both streaming services have the same amount of music available to stream. Apple Music boasts over 70 million songs on their website. Spotify also claims to have 70 million songs available for its users to stream. The pricing for these two streaming platforms is also identical. Both cost $9.99/£9.99 a month for an individual and offer family plans and student discounts for identical prices too.

In all the ways that it matters, Apple Music and Spotify are equally as good as each-other. They both provide the same services for the same prices. There is nothing which can outright identify one company being the better streaming service. Ultimately, it is the minute differences between the two platforms which help people decide what company to use to download and listen to their music. For example, if you were into podcasts Spotify would be the better platform for you, but if you preferred to listen to the radio instead then Apple Music is the more suited service.

Although people might still argue that one is better than the other, I personally cannot identify any details that would make me inclined to choose one service over the other.

TL;DR Children should be allowed smartphones as they are an essential modern technology that everyone needs to learn how to use. However, it is crucial that children are closely monitored on smartphones whilst they begin to have access to the internet and social media.

Smartphones can help children learn, communicate and prepare for a technology-focused future. If children are introduced to smartphones they can adapt to new technology much more easily compared to when they are older. Similarly, when children go to school nowadays they are introduced to much of the same technology that is available on smartphones currently. School computers also include the internet, which when restricted correctly, allows children to further their educational interests from an early age. There is no reason that parental controls and restrictions cannot be added onto a smartphone, like how they are added onto school and library computers, which would allow parents to control what their child looks at online and ensure their safety.

However, giving a child a smartphone comes with risks if parents fail to monitor the content that their child can access. Smartphones can easily create problems if not used correctly. A few of these issues include

• Cyberbullying
• Accessing harmful online content
• Addiction

Although there are many benefits of allowing children to own and use smartphones, these benefits are only effective when the smartphones have restrictions imposed upon them to protect children from accessing inappropriate, offensive, or age-restricted content.

TL;DR Celebrity culture is not new. There has always been a rampant obsession with celebrity figures from the general public. Celebrity culture is not necessarily growing but rather fans are able to connect and be inspired by their idols and role models better than ever before through social media.

There have always been celebrities across history who people at the time were obsessed with, and many are still fascinated by to this day. These include figures such as Cleopatra, Caesar, and Napoleon just to name a few. Places like Madame Tussauds which opened in the 1800s suggests that a cult for celebrities certainly existed in the past. In more recent history, figures such as Marilyn Monroe and the Beatles, who were just as famous as the modern celebrities of today evidence that celebrity culture was just as big then as it is now. The only difference is that now, thanks to social media, everyone has direct access to their favourite celebrities and are able to get new content as and when they please from their idols.

The obsession with celebrity culture is not necessarily damaging to younger generations either. Although there are certainly celebrities which might have damaging influences upon their fans, there are many, many more public celebrity figures who have positive influences as an idol for younger generations. Many people regard celebrities are influential figures and this can be greatly beneficial upon younger generations who might find their passion and motivation to pursue their goals from celebrities.

Although I do agree that it is okay for celebrities to discuss politics and their political opinions, I also feel that there are risks of celebrities unintentionally spreading political misinformation to their fans when engaging in political discussion. Ultimately, celebrities are not as capable to discuss politics as reliable news outlets and we should not be taking all their political views as gospel, but rather acknowledge them as opinions.

Celebrities should certainly continue to have the freedom to express their political agendas to their fans and the general public. However, people should not simply agree or disagree with a political opinion simply because their favourite celebrity does so. It should be remembered that the average celebrity is no more qualified to speak about political issues than the general public. The most informative discussions regarding politics comes from reliable news outlets, not from a celebrity's tweets.

TL;DR The 'pay as you throw' scheme has been proven to reduce the personal waste generated by people and increases rates of recycling. It should be implented worldwide in order to reduce the amount of unnecessary waste across the globe.

The [‘pay as you throw’ scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_as_you_throw#:~:text=Pay%20as%20you%20throw%20(PAYT,the%20municipality%20or%20local%20authority.) has seen a great reduction in the amount of residual household waste when compared to its similar communities. It has also been connected to a significant increase in people sorting their waste and recycling correctly. The benefits of the scheme evidence that it could help reduce excess waste from people if implemented across the globe.

‘Pay as you throw’ (PAYT) programs allocate waste fees are based on the weight or volume of the rubbish generated, making the producer of the waste financially responsible for the collection and treatment of their specific waste only. By doing this, households have a greater economic incentive to reduce and recycle their waste appropriately, helping ensure that people become more thoughtful about the waste they produce and how much of that waste is unnecessary.

Evidence proves that PAYT systems directly increase recycling rates whilst reducing the overall waste per household. When the program was tested in Treviso, Italy, the town reached an 85% municipal recycling rate, a significant increase in the rates before the introduction of ‘pay as you throw’.

Similarly a study in France exhibited positive results. After an initial breaking-in period of the PAYT program, the amount of household waste per person was 28% less than the national average and amount of sorted and recycled waste per person increased and ended up being 33% more than the national average.

The pay-as-you-throw scheme has the ability to have a great impact on waste reduction and could overall help the world become more aware of the damages to the environment that unnecessary waste can cause. All countries should at least trial the scheme and see how much waste could potentially be reduced worldwide.

Although the BMI is certainly an imperfect system, scientific research identifies that it can be useful to estimate an individual’s risk of chronic diseases. Healthline’s website summarises the results of many different studies that suggest BMI can be partially useful:

• People in the ‘obese’ BMI category had a 20% increased risk of death from all causes and heart disease, compared with those in the ‘normal’ BMI category.
• People who have a BMI of 30.0 or greater had 1.5–2.7 times greater risk of death after a 30-year follow-up.
• People in the ‘underweight’ or ‘severely/extremely obese’ categories died an average of 6.7 years and 3.7 years earlier, compared with those in the ‘normal’ BMI category.

The BMI can often be used as a general snapshot of a person’s risk of chronic disease, so it is not a completely inappropriate indicator of health. However, its flaws should be recognised and the BMI should not be the only diagnostic tool used when accessing the general health of an individual.

The gendering of chocolate seems to be a cultural phenomenon. A study on gender and chocolate cravings saw radically different results between the USA and Spain, suggesting that different cultures can influence ideas about who chocolate is designed for. In America only 59% of men admitted to craving chocolate in contrast to 91% of women. However, in Spain, 80% of men craved chocolate, a very similar statistic to the 90% of Spanish women who also did.

There is no special reason why women supposedly like chocolate more than men do. Rather, it is part of a complex series of learned behaviours and food habits based in certain cultures which promote ideas that chocolate is a women's product.

Although I don't necessarily believe that alcohol should be outright banned, it must continue to be discussed as a serious issue which can create damaging physical and mental problems within people. There should certainly be greater restrictions around the accessibility of alcohol.

Education and introducing greater restrictions on the purchase and consumption of alcohol is vital for helping people to consume alcohol in small, healthy amounts. The WHO asserts that these strategies would prevent such easy access to alcohol from vulnerable and high-risk groups. The current commercial and public availability of alcohol contribute to the promotion of harmful and unhealthy alcohol consumption habits.

Maybe restricting the times and the places where people can buy alcohol to a greater extent would help to encourage people to drink alcohol sensibly. I am not sure whether an outright ban on booze would cause more issues than it might solve. However, there certainly needs to be some form of change in how alcohol is promoted towards people both culturally and socially, and I believe that having greater restrictions around alcohol consumption would aid with this.

Water is wet, even by the definition that wet is 'covered or saturated with water or another liquid'. Water is composed of individual oxygen and hydrogen atoms which surround and touch eachother - meaning that water is always surrounded by more water. By this logic, water matches the definition of being wet: water covers more water, therefore making the latter water wet.

TL;DR Making a vaccine mandatory would be making a mockery of the basic human right for people to have control over their body.

Mandatory vaccination is a step too far in government intervention into an individual’s life and choices. If people are forced to have a vaccine against their will, democracy is lost. It is a human right for people to have freedom of choice over their own bodies. Instead of imposing mandatory vaccinations upon people, governments should rather focus on educating people about the benefits of having a vaccine and encourage people to get vaccinated.

Mandatory vaccinations disregard the personal beliefs and exemptions that people might have against having a vaccination. This includes religious, moral, and medical grounds. Several religions oppose vaccines and enforcing mandatory vaccinations upon them would be to deny an individual’s personal freedom. There remain many uncertainties about what would happen to those who refused to have a mandatory vaccination, would they be regarded as criminals or have to pay a hefty fine because they refuse to have a vaccine?

There are many, many ways to encourage people to have a vaccine instead of legally enforcing vaccinations upon everyone. I’m certainly not against vaccines, but I believe everyone should be able to have complete freedom of their own bodies, and be able to choose to have a vaccine.

TL;DR It is not fair that Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have their own parliaments but England does not. England should be able to govern its own laws without interference from the other nations of the UK.

The creation of English Parliament would establish a space for English only issues to be decided by a parliament elected to represent England only. It doesn’t make sense for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland politicians to have a say on laws that effect England when the English MPs don’t have the same rights in reverse.

The UK's central political institution, Westminster, has become synonymous with the “English voice”. Westminster would be able to be more fair in its representation of all countries of the UK if a separate English parliament was also introduced. England, much like Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, has its own issues which should be addressed in its own parliament.

The UK Parliament website summarises this issue: ‘MPs representing seats in England do not normally legislate on subjects devolved to the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, MPs representing seats in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can [debate and vote on legislation affecting England] (https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-parliament-2015/decentralisation/the-english-question/). These issues would be resolved if England had its own separate parliament which would discuss affairs related to England only.

The 53 million people of England should be able to have what the 5 million in Scotland, 3 million in Wales, and 2 million in Northern Ireland already have – a parliament, a first minister, and government of their own. Until a separate English parliament is established, 84% of the UK population lacks the right to govern itself.

Horror films based on real life events should always be careful in their portrayal of incidents. It would be insensitive, for example, to make dark comedies of movies which portray serious and terrifying real life crimes. However, audiences should always be aware that films are an art form and, although they may be influenced by real events, what is shown on screen is not intended to be a true-to-life recollection of events.

People should remember that when films describe themselves as being 'based off true events’ they are not suggesting that the movie is a documentary. Horror films are primarily intended to do what all films do, evoke intense emotions in their audiences. They should not be concerned with producing a recreation of a real-life events, but they should strive to handle their content in a sensitive way to ensure that people understand that the film should not be taken as a documentary.

TL:DR Obesity is not a ‘disease’ in the sense that other diseases are. Instead, rather than explicitly being termed as a 'disease' it should be seen as a risk factor for diseases. However, this does not make obesity any less serious as a health issue.

Overweightness is positively correlated with a wide variety of different health issues. Often it is these problems which are the risk factors for different diseases. The complications of obesity are diseases in their own right, with issues including heart attacks and strokes, and rather than obesity being a disease it is rather a risk factor for disease.

Similarly, not everybody who is obese suffers from health problems, much like how not everybody who is a normal weight is completely healthy. Obesity cannot be entirely classified as a disease because it doesn’t always contribute to an illness or sickness.

Obesity increases the likelihood of a person having health issues and diseases rather than actually being a direct disease itself. However, the affects that obesity can often have upon people should not be ignored, obesity can have serious consequences and can make people very ill, it just tends to do so through indirect means rather than being a ‘disease’ in its own right.

WORKS REFERENCED
‘Is Obesity Really a Disease?’, (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/06/is-obesity-really-a-disease/277148/)

If it was decided that Australia should not be allowed to compete in Eurovision, we would theoretically also have to remove the other non-European countries which are also involved in the competition. This includes Israel and Armenia.

And then what would become of countries whose borders lie partially inside of Europe? This includes the likes of Azerbaijan and Georgia.

The question of why certain countries which are not a part of Europe are allowed to compete in Eurovision can be answered: everyone has the right to compete in Eurovision if they are a member of the European Broadcasting Union (EBS). Therefore, the contest has nothing to do with actually being within the European Union or even the borders of Europe. Australia, as a member of the EBS, has an equal right to participate in Eurovision, despite not being a European nation.

WORKS REFERENCED
‘Eurovision 2015: Just why are Australia, Israel and other non-European nations taking part in the contest?’, (https://metro.co.uk/2015/05/14/eurovision-2015-just-why-are-australia-israel-and-other-non-european-nations-taking-part-in-the-contest-5198083/?ito=cbshare)

Social media is constantly informing people about a range of political issues and encouraging interest in democratic politics as people seek to find solutions to issues reported in online news outlets.

Online media platforms are vital for the spread of news in the modern age. Social media is able to help us alert each-other many different problems and stories from all across the world. In the process, the existence of social media encourages us to engage ourselves further into understanding democratic ideologies, politics, and policies, as a way for us to debate and discuss solutions to issues and injustices in the world.

Thanks to social media, it is easier for people to have a clear and influential political voice. It gives everyone an equal free space to read and discuss issues, as well as critique those in power. For the most part social media motivates people to be democratic in the sense that it gives us all a new form of free speech to ensure that social justice is met throughout society, and therefore I find that it actually encourages people to be interested in democracy.

Although the presentation of politics on different online platforms have their flaws, social media has now become vital for political knowledge, discussion, and participation. Rather than encouraging a loss of interest in democracy, I believe that it actually inspires people to do further research into democratic politics so that they might engage and discuss politics in a more knowledgeable way.

TL;DR Boxing is one of the most dangerous sports in existence, causing both a series of physical and mental ailments which can worsen overtime. The alarming connections being made between boxers and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) highlights the true danger of the sport and emphasises why it should be banned.

Unlike most other sports, boxing is focussed on causing enough bodily harm on the opponent that they are unable to continue the fight. It can, and unfortunately has, resulted in death and has been linked to creating an increased likelihood of gaining a chronic brain injury from competing in the sport.

The frequent blows to the head which are inevitable in boxing can cause two kinds of injury – short term physical impact, and the troubling long term permanent brain damage. The added weight of boxing gloves causes more serious damage which could have permanent consequences, examples including blood vessels breaking and causing haemorrhages. Large haemorrhages are the main cause of boxers falling into comas or even dying in the ring.

Injuries of boxing also cause long term damage and can cause chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). This has been linked to causing progressive memory and movement problems, as well as personality issues. Although CTE has affected many different kinds of sportspeople, boxers have suffered from it the most. 15 to 40% of ex-boxers at any given time have been found to have symptoms of CTE causing chronic brain injury.

Boxing is the only sport that has the express goal of inflicting injury and causing injury on the body and brain. Both the serious short term and long term consequences of taking part in the sport makes it very difficult to justify its existence.

WORKS REFERENCED
‘Ban boxing – it's demeaning and dangerous’, (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929290-200-ban-boxing-its-demeaning-and-dangerous/#ixzz6nmS8HY00)
‘Why is boxing still not banned?’, (https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/trevor-hancock-why-is-boxing-still-not-banned-1.23834036)

TL;DR With the rise of streaming platforms and their ability to provide blockbuster films to their audiences at a fraction of the price that a cinema can, movie theatres and cinema as we know it will continue to decline.
Movies are moving online and to streaming platforms in the modern age, with this having greatly increased in the last year due to coronavirus causing cinemas to shut down. It is much cheaper to buy/rent a film online and much more convenient than having to travel to cinema to watch a movie, and pay more to see that same blockbuster than it would cost from a streaming service.

Even without coronavirus cinema was in decline – but the recent announcements from massive film companies, such as Warner Bros., to move all their movies to online release on the same day as cinema release throughout 2021 is the final nail in the coffin for cinemas. This completely revokes the period between a blockbuster’s initial release in cinemas, and their later releases online, ensuring that cinemas lose the time period where they made the most business. Others have recognised this too, with movie theatre stocks continuing to slide in response to the statements from film companies who are choosing to value streaming services in the same way that they value cinemas.

I am not blaming streaming companies for stealing cinema audiences, in fact, audiences were practically handed to companies such as Netflix due to the wider coronavirus situation and choices of movie moguls. Usually, there is at least a 90-day period between cinemas showing new releases and content being made available on streaming platforms. Losing these crucial days – as films are released in cinemas and online in quick succession, will mean that less people will be inclined to go to the movie theatres.

Cinema will die as we know it, even when coronavirus restrictions become a distant memory movie theatres will cease to exist. It is clear that the majority of people are happy to adopt the ‘straight-to-stream’ concept, which will make it increasingly difficult to return to the traditional model of streaming platforms having to wait their turn to show the newest blockbusters. Cinema has been set on a path to become a thing of the past, and it will be eventually be lost completely to online streaming platforms.

WORKS REFERENCED
‘Cinemas are dead. Long live the movies’, (https://www.ft.com/content/e971f0fa-3547-4e44-b760-faa1b5a2efbe)
‘Warner Bros to movie theaters: Drop dead’, (https://www.zdnet.com/article/warner-bros-to-movie-theaters-drop-dead/)

Learning latin is not pointless, rather is it highly useful as it helps us to understand our own language, as well as other languages better.

Around two thirds of all English words are derived from Latin. Therefore, studying Latin means that you can gain valuable insights into general English vocabulary. Learning Latin helps to explain the structure and meaning of many English words.

Even though Latin does not exist as it used to, many words that we still speak have their origins in the Latin language, so learning Latin helps us to better understand their meaning. For example, learning Latin is especially useful for understanding medical terms. As medical terminology is largely derived directly from Latin, learning the language is almost essential for everything in the medical field.

As Latin is a mother language, with many modern languages that exist today having their origins in Latin, learning it can help us to better understand our own language. Learning and having a basic education of Latin not only teaches you about your own language, but also creates an easier education of another half-dozen languages - which can be mastered much quicker with a basic understanding of the Latin language.

WORKS REFERENCED
‘Benefits of Latin’, (https://mcl.as.uky.edu/benefits-latin)
‘The Unique Benefits of Learning Latin’, (https://davenantinstitute.org/benefits-learning-latin/)

TL;DR Although classical music is great to listen to whilst studying, electronic dance music is equally as great as its fast beats and rhythm keeps you motivated.

Multiple reports have shown that listening to music without lyrics is best for studying. Of course, classical music falls into this category of beneficial study music. However there are other genres of music which do not have lyrics, such as electronic music, which are equally as great to listen to whilst studying.

The chill but upbeat music within the electronic dance music (EDM) genre has equal study benefits to listening to classical music. According to the WeRaveYou website, studies show that electronic music for students improves concentration. The site also suggests that listening to electronic music will boost a person’s spatial reasoning skills, which will greatly help people to absorb knowledge and solve problems quickly. [1]

I find that I focus better when listening to EDM in the background whilst I am studying. And others agree with me too - with the repetitiveness of many electronic songs helping people focus. The Journal of Consumer Research agrees that 'unlike all of the ups and downs of a symphonic piece, there are quite a few producers [...] that focus on a few melodies that repeat and build on each other' in EDM music. The article concludes that the song’s focus will help your focus, and that the repeating tones of EDM are beneficial to listen to when studying. [2] [3]

By offering a continuous and mellow soundscape without lyrics, electronic music is equally as beneficial as classical music for studying. It can greatly improve performance in tasks by increasing focus as well as boosting the moods of listeners. Although classical music is beneficial to listen to whilst studying, it should be remembered that it is not the only genre that can greatly help improve study skills.

[1] ‘Why is electronic music so good for studying?’, (https://weraveyou.com/2020/06/why-is-electronic-music-so-good-for-studying/)
[2] ‘Is Noise Always Bad? Exploring the Effects of Ambient Noise on Creative Cognition’, (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/665048?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents)
[3] ‘Electronic Music Can Actually Improve Your Focus and Productivity’, (https://www.edmtunes.com/2014/08/electronic-music-can-actually-improve-your-focus-and-productivity/)

Although nostalgia has its benefits, having too much nostalgia can be damaging to people as it often leads to heightened sadness and worry.

A study by David B Newman for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology concluded that nostalgia is a mixed emotion with both positive and negative affects: 'consciously making an effort to recall the past was found to elevate our moods. But everyday moments of nostalgia were found to be more likely to have a negative effect'. [1]

Similarly, some have determined that nostalgia can develop into 'anticipatory nostalgia', which is a form of nostalgia that creates heightened anxiety and sadness. This affects how we react to nostalgia, instead of learning from nostalgia we might in turn become uninspired for the future and be unable to live in the moment. [2]

Nostalgia is a good thing until it goes wrong. Those with too much nostalgia fail to live happily in their current life due to their inability to stop reminiscing. Despite nostalgia’s benefits, the limitations of it should also be acknowledged.

[1] 'Nostalgia and Well-Being in Daily Life: An Ecological Validity Perspective', (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330546573_Nostalgia_and_Well-Being_in_Daily_Life_An_Ecological_Validity_Perspective)
[2] 'When Nostalgia Tilts to Sad: Anticipatory and Personal Nostalgia', (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01186/full#B31)

Spring is the best season because it has the most wonderful weather, the temperature is perfect and the sun shines again. The reason why spring days are better than summer days is because spring days are accompanied by a fresh breeze. The hot summer sun makes people sweaty and sticky, whereas the spring sunshine is perfect and marks the end of the cold winter.

The mild temperature of spring is warm enough that you can comfortably go out and enjoy the fresh air, whereas I find myself too hot in summer months. A study by the University of Michigan suggests that many others feel the same, determining that spring is 'beneficial, with pleasant weather improving mood, memory and broadening cognitive style' but that 'hotter weather during the summer, however, lowered mood levels and the effect of pleasant weather was far less noticeable in other seasons.' [1]

[1] 'Warm weather boosts mood, broadens the mind' (https://www.ur.umich.edu/0405/Oct25_04/31.shtml)

TL;DR Living forever would be terrible as you would never be able to forge a friendship or family connection that could continue for all time. Any new friends you would make would eventually die and same with family.

Being immortal would mean that you would have to witness the deaths of everyone you have ever loved, leaving you forever isolated and preventing you from ever being attached to people.

If you’re the kind of person that thrives of close social connections and making strong friendships that last for years, immortality guarantees a very lonely life. Even if you’re not a particularly social person – everyone still needs people around them and living forever you will never truly achieve that because people who are around you will die. From your friends and your family, even new family (if you had children/grandchildren you would still outlive them), to even acquaintances and local friendly faces, everyone will die. You’d be losing people all the time, for all time – and there is nothing more awful than loss.

Immortality comes with an eternal suffering, you would endure centuries of grief by loss combined with the eternal feelings of loneliness. Why would you want to live forever and have nobody to experience eternal life with? The misery that would come with outliving everyone that you ever had known or would know leaves me with an uneasy feeling in my stomach. Immorality brings a gruesome pain as you would be in a constant state of grieving for your next friends death.

To be immortal would be a curse. The eternal feelings of loneliness and grief would not be worth having the chance to live forever. Watching everyone you ever loved die and living with the knowledge that anybody you will ever love in the future will also eventually pass away and leave you alone makes eternal life unappealing to me.

((TW: Discussion of eating disorders, depression, and suicide.))
TL;DR The original Skins TV series sensationalises and romanticises mental health conditions. This creates a harmful promotion of ideas to audiences and encourages them to seek the same dark, sad aesthetic that the show romanticises

The original British TV series Skins focuses on a different set teenage students each series, aiming to portray the ups and downs of adolescence. It is famous for tackling issues such as such as depression, eating disorders and bipolar disorder in its episodes. However, even though the show tries to portray its characters and their issues in a realistic and mature way, the way Skins handled its depictions of conditions including eating disorders and depression was highly romanticised.

The most infamous portrayal of mental illness in Skins is through Cassie. She is characterised primarily through her eating disorder and throughout the series audiences also witness her undergo multiple ambiguous suicide attempts. She is highly romanticised because of her anorexia, being the prime example of alternative originality in the first two series of the show, with her mental illnesses prominently influencing her cool quirkiness. Her anorexia is romanticised to the point that it is even promoted, in one scene she gives another character a detailed demonstration of how she tricks people into thinking she’s eating.

The romanticisation of Cassie’s character is further seen through the character’s wide spread online presence in the real world, where she has been used as a symbol of ‘thinspiration’ across different social media platforms. Her infamous quotes, including lines such as ‘I didn’t eat for three days so I could be lovely’, which romanticise her eating disorder, are posted as pro-anorexia slogans still today. It is clear then that Cassie’s anorexia has been so heavily romanticised that it can in theory be used to promote eating disorders to the teen audience that the show aims at. [1]

Similarly, Effy, a character who we follow in series 3 and 4, has multiple mental illnesses which the show romanticises. Although Skins makes attempts to handle the mental illnesses in a mature way, as Effy is sectioned because of her suicide attempt, the complications of her therapy again ends up romanticising her depression. All sources of therapy that Effy undergoes are false and are attempts to hypnotise her. Instead of the show highlighting therapy as a way in which Effy could have gotten support, all forms of treatment are portrayed as attempts to get people to conform, again creating a cult of quirkiness and sensationalised edginess around mental illness instead of acknowledging it as a serious issue. [2]

Skins teaches it’s audience that mental illnesses are things to be romanticised and glorified, and as something that makes a person more quirky, alternative, and perhaps even cooler than others. Instead of revealing characters actively getting help themselves, the show is damaging by instead portraying therapists as untrusting and uncaring - actively discouraging those who need help from seeking it. The series fails to generate an effective social commentary and instead potentially damages audiences of the show.

[1] ‘Ten years on, how Cassie from Skins’ eating disorder affected a generation of teenage girls’, (https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/tv-radio/2017/01/ten-years-how-cassie-skins-eating-disorder-affected-generation-teenage)
[2] ‘Skins and the glamourising of mental illnesses’, (https://theboar.org/2016/05/skins-glamourising-mental-illnesses/)

TL;DR: There is certainly an issue with celebrity profiles on 'OnlyFans' taking away the business of ordinary sex workers on the platform. However, banning celebrities from the site may make the issue worse, as it will drive people away from the 'OnlyFans' site and to alternative NSFW sites that celebrities can post on.

Banning celebrity profiles from 'OnlyFans' will only encourage celebrities to create content on new websites which are similar to 'OnlyFans'. As demonstrated by Bella Thorne, people are more interested in seeing explicit celebrity content than that from an average sex worker, and by banning celebrities from the 'OnlyFans' site a lot of business may be lost for the ordinary content creator on the platform. It is clear that celebrity presence on the site drives more people to interact with 'OnlyFans', and this increased engagement on the site might lead to more business and income as people discover and interact with the non-celebrity profiles on the site coincidently.

If the sexual material provided by celebrities such as Thorne moves over to another website, people interacting with their NSFW content will follow. This will likely drive more people away from seeing the content provided by normal people/sex workers on 'OnlyFans'. Despite this, it is clear that whether celebrities are banned from 'OnlyFans' or not they will still be stealing business and income away from the everyday sex worker, as they will be able to continue to post their content on other alternative NSFW sites.

Although time as we know it, and by that I mean how humans perceive time in terms of seconds, minutes, hours, days, years etc. is abstract, time in the sense that things constantly move forward is real and concrete. Time does exist outside of our consciousness in terms that nothing in the universe is frozen at any particular moment.

Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute argues that time is not an abstract concept and that it is concretely real: ‘Time seems to be real. Things happen. When I clap my hands, it happened’. [1] Whether we apply that action to the human categorisation of time (which would be how many seconds did it take to clap) or not, the event still did happen and time moved on since that event. Does that not mean that time does exist as a truth, rather than a concept, which can identify that events will always be passing?

Therefore time does exist in a clear format that measures events constantly happening, showing that the universe is unable to be static and ‘frozen in time’. It is humans who have made the concept of time abstract by trying to categorise time into different linear amounts which do not truly exist according to physicists.

[1] ‘The Illusion of Time: What's Real?’, (https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html)

TL;DR Animal testing should be banned for beauty products, however in the case of developing new medicines, animal testing is necessary.

Animal testing should certainly be banned for cosmetic industries across the world. As the RSPCA argues: ‘There are already more than enough cosmetics products available and thousands of existing cosmetics ingredients are accepted as safe. It is simply not justifiable to cause animal suffering to develop more’. [1] However, in medical fields, until a better alternative is able to be safely used by all labs, animal testing unfortunately is necessary to ensure that medical products are safe for further tests on humans.

Although it is important to realize that medical animal testing is not able fully represent or mimic the human condition, it provides relevant and crucial information when the genetics and molecular pathways are similar to a humans. Animals are essential to understanding the complex interactions between cells and tissues in response to a medical treatment. [2]

The Stanford Medicine Research Centre states that ‘The use of animals in some forms of biomedical research remains essential to the discovery of the causes, diagnoses, and treatment of disease and suffering in humans and in animals.’ [3] Despite the increase in new alternatives to animal experiments which continue to be developed over the years, until they are widely accessible for all scientists, animal testing will have to suffice.

There is no need for animal testing on beauty products, as there is no real harm to humans if the components of a beauty product are not correct in a testing stage. However, animal experiments are unfortunately necessary if we want to continue to make progress in medical/scientific research and to help create drugs to combat life-threatening illnesses and diseases.

[1] ‘Cosmetics testing using animals’, (https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/laboratory/testingchemicals/cosmetics)
[2] ‘Why animal research is necessary’, (https://vib.be/science/why-animal-research-necessary)
[3] ‘WHY ANIMAL RESEARCH?’ (https://med.stanford.edu/animalresearch/why-animal-research.html#:~:text=The%20use%20of%20animals%20in,in%20humans%20and%20in%20animals.)

TL;DR Zoos certainly have their issues, but completely banning them would also stop all of the preservation and conservation work that is put in to save animals that are going extinct as a result of human action.

Although I believe that zoos need to be dramatically altered in order to give their animals better living conditions and an overall improved quality of life, I think that the work that zoos do towards conservation of species justifies their existence.

The modern zoo acts as a hub for the preservation of endangered species, as well as being a safe facility for animals who had previously been removed from their original habitats by those with malicious intent. It also acts as a necessary breeding ground for species that risk going extinct.

Reintroduction Programmes, Breeding Programmes, and Conservation Projects that zoos participate in allow for species to be saved from extinction. Currently, 31 animal species which are classified as ‘Extinct in the Wild’ are being bred in captivity at zoos, with reintroduction into the wild underway for six of these species. According to the IUCN, conservation breeding and reintroduction have helped prevent the extinction of six out of 16 critically endangered bird species and nine out of 13 mammal species, including species previously classified as ‘Extinct in the Wild’. [1]

I believe it is better to see these 'extinct' species within zoos as part of breeding programmes that aim to reintroduce the species into the wild, than to not see these species on the earth at all. Unlike previous establishments, the modern zoo is not only able to show the general population these animals but also helps to repopulate the earth with them in the future. However, any zoo which still exists today and does not do its part to protect its animals as well as wider animal conservation should not be considered as an approved facility and should be banned or reformed.

[1] ‘Zoos and Endangered Species Conservation’, (https://www.treehugger.com/zoos-and-endangered-species-conservation-1182068#:~:text=Six%20Species%20Saved%20From%20Extinction%20by%20Zoos&text=As%20of%202017%2C%201%2C000%20animals,were%20living%20in%20zoo%20environments.)

TL;DR The #MeToo movement needs to focus on creating social change for the future. The movement should be reformed with an emphasis on creating cultural changes to prevent the same injustices from occurring in the future, ending the cycle of people being afraid to speak up about sexual abuse.

Despite the great things that the #MeToo movement has achieved, it lacks any clear actions for preventing the events that it is currently battling from happening in the future. The movement must create cultural change as well as find ways to support legal justice that could lead to punishment for sexual perpetrators and rapists. The current emphasis of the movement is still on the law, which handles individual cases via either conciliation or charges. Though I agree this is the best action for the movement in the short term, it equally needs to focus on creating social changes for the long term. The legal process is unable to generate complete action: conciliation of cases does not allocate blame, so is not a change agent and if charges are laid, the process often also damages the complainant, as they are questioned and often shamed, even if they win. [1]

While these responses are needed in the short term, they are not effective at driving the cultural and gendered power changes we need to be promoting and educating. The movement needs to work on creating wider political action and large campaigns for change, as this is the only thing that will be able to change the future of speaking out against sexual assault. In order to be serious about the abuse of gender-based power, we must look at its causes and make structural and cultural changes that can be implemented and create change for future generations.

Girls are still subliminally being taught to be meek and mild in their childhood learning. A study by Lin Bian for the Science journal highlights that by age 6, girls start to characterize themselves differently to boys, no longer identifying themselves as being brilliant or having the capacity for brilliance (where the boys continued to identify themselves as "really, really, smart"). [2] The longer-term effects of these characterizations are that girls are less likely to have the confidence to speak up for themselves and this therefore will allow the cycle that the #MeToo movement is trying to supress, to continue. #MeToo must reform to overcome the serious, widespread gender-biased socialisation of boys and girls which still continues.

#MeToo has always been about raising awareness of the prevalence and impacts of sexual violence, creating great change on individual cases through legal action. It however needs reform in order to continue to create social change that is truly effective in the future, as this will theoretically lessen the amount of people who are afraid to speak out and will educate the next generation on sexual assault/violence and why it’s wrong. Always using the law, even if that law is based on already existing rights, does not create the serious social change to attitudes or power that needs to be implemented for future generations.

[1] ‘#MeToo is not enough: it has yet to shift the power imbalances that would bring about gender equality’, (https://theconversation.com/metoo-is-not-enough-it-has-yet-to-shift-the-power-imbalances-that-would-bring-about-gender-equality-92108)
[2] ‘'Good Girls Are Quiet': How Society Tells Our Daughters To Self-Silence’, (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/yollanda-zhang/society-tells-girls-self-silence_a_23450724/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIRFJXz-v1vd9hlqMNnNS60k63e-zcDS0hisgSZKrMkr3fnRGAcZhIB1NGQEeskycZI6UGZTJtihVSM0oPEtw1Z5w28XzkPN22McmZFc4s0B-YiaTP4KnKxmUc5LQaGUZd9ZLxf_EC0DEGk0VBb_mBNsAHmoweAd-dj5RfwMZzJ1)

TL;DR Although nicotine e-cigarettes and vapes were originally created as an aid to help people reduce or even give up smoking, it is instead creating new addicts in younger age groups and acting as a dangerous gateway to heavy smoking habits.

The appeal of the sweet flavours of e-cigarettes makes them easily marketable to a younger audience more-so than normal nicotine cigarettes usually do. Although e-cigs are safer than normal cigarettes, only carrying ‘a small fraction of the risk of cigarettes’ and are beneficial for those who want to smoke less - they are a cruel enabler for a new generation who go onto smoking cigarettes and suffer health problems after becoming addicted to nicotine through vapes and other nicotine e-cigarettes. [1]

Studies show that vapes and other e-cigs have introduced a greater culture of smoking onto teenagers. More than one in four teens vape according to the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention and a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that 12% of 16 and 17-year-olds in America were already addicted to nicotine. [2] The addictions that e-cigarettes cause are likely to turn people onto using normal cigarettes, having the opposite intended effect of the product. A study in the UK for BMJ Journals concluded that the continued use of e-cigarettes in an individual is linked to an increased likelihood of initiation into cigarette use as the individual develops nicotine addiction (if the e-cigarettes contain nicotine) or develops friendship networks with smokers and decreasing the perceived risks of smoking. [3]

The results of these studies suggest that e-cigarettes and vapes are enabling a new audience to try normal cigarettes and become addicted to them, which will in turn create new health risks in these people. [4] Because most e-cigarettes still contain nicotine (99% of e-cig products in the USA contain nicotine), which is the substance that people get addicted too in cigarettes as well, many move onto smoking tobacco after they use vapes. [5]

Despite the benefit that e-cigarettes and vapes help heavy smokers to ease their habits, their overall creation of a whole new generation of nicotine-addicted youth is what makes them more bad than good. They should be replaced with other forms of ‘stop smoking’ aids, such as nicotine patches, so that people may continue to decrease their cigarette smoking but there is no new appeal to other groups of people to begin smoking.

[1] ‘Using e-cigarettes to stop smoking’, (https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/quit-smoking/using-e-cigarettes-to-stop-smoking/)
[2] ‘The great vape debate: are e-cigarettes saving smokers or creating new addicts?’, (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/18/the-great-vape-debate-are-e-cigarettes-saving-smokers-or-creating-new-addicts)
[3] ‘Do electronic cigarettes increase cigarette smoking in UK adolescents? Evidence from a 12-month prospective study’, (https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/27/4/365#T2)
[4] ‘What are the health risks of smoking?’, (https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/lifestyle/what-are-the-health-risks-of-smoking/)
[5] ‘Quick Facts on the Risks of E-cigarettes for Kids, Teens, and Young Adults’, (https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/Quick-Facts-on-the-Risks-of-E-cigarettes-for-Kids-Teens-and-Young-Adults.html)

TL;DR Although he is the greatest and most successful CEO of all time, Jeff Bezos’ limited humanity despite his immense fortune is what prevents him from truly being great.

Jeff Bezos is one of the most successful and rich CEOs that we have seen in history, but this does not necessarily make him the greatest. With his net worth currently at $190.8 billion, making over $500 million every day, there is much potential for Bezos to be a great person and invest his money in charities and other forces for good in the world. [1] However, he does not. In 2019 when the Amazon rainforest was being rapidly lost to a fire, not once did Bezos provide any form of aid to help put out the flames – despite being the richest man on earth. Similarly, Bezos only donated a million Australian dollars which is roughly $690,000 in USD for wildfire aid in 2020. That might sound like a lot, but this is really pocket-money for the man who was worth $145 billion at the time. Elton John and Metallica donated more than Bezos did to help put out the wildfires, despite having minute amounts of wealth compared to him. [2] Although Bezos ranks higher in net worth than other billionaires like Gates and Zuckerberg, he does not donate as much money as they have to charities, between 2000-2017 The Chronicle of Philanthropy estimated that Bezos donated 0.1 percent of his wealth to charities annually. [3]

Bezos is the richest CEO of the internet era, but he is not the greatest. His apparent lack of empathy towards others and unwillingness to part with his any amount of his immense fortune, even to good causes, makes him cruel and unkind. I applaud him for his smart business ventures but his humanity should also define his greatness, and this is where he lacks.

[1] ‘Jeff Bezos: Real Time Net Worth’, (https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-bezos/?sh=7575dbe41b23)
[2] ‘World’s richest man cuts health benefits for 1,900 workers—and 14 more terrible things Jeff Bezos has done',(https://frontpagelive.com/2020/02/04/worlds-richest-man-cuts-health-benefits-for-1900-workers-and-8-more-terrible-things-jeff-bezos-has-done/)
[3] ‘How Much Does Billionaire and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos Donate to Charity?’, (https://marketrealist.com/p/does-jeff-bezos-donate-charity/)

Chivalry is not sexist, it is polite. Acts of chivalry have now evolved into modern society and, although they may have had sexist roots in medieval times, today chivalry can be extended unto others by both men and women.

Chivalrous acts today include opening doors and giving up seats for others, there is nothing but respect in these actions; everybody can do them and I argue that anybody can be chivalrous to others today, regardless of gender. Someone who is truly chivalrous would treat everyone with respect and politeness regardless of gender or status, they would not hold the door open for a woman then close it again if there was another man approaching. Because chivalry has been able to adapt to the modern age, it has been able to largely lose the sexist aspects behind its conception in the Medieval period.

'IS CHIVALRY SEXIST?', (https://inretrospectmagazine.com/article/is-chivalry-sexist/)

TL;DR Boris Johnson has tried his best to tackle COVID-19 in the UK. Although he has made many errors, we have the ability to look back and critique his actions with newer knowledge about the virus which was not previously known.

It's very easy to look back and use hindsight to argue that Boris Johnson did not do his best to tackle COVID-19. There have certainly been many errors in the government's handling of the coronavirus pandemic, however I believe that he tried his best to handle a situation that we have not really ever seen before in recent history. The difficulty of handling an entire country's response to a new virus means that mistakes were likely to be made by Johnson no matter how hard he could have tried, as the majority of countries also learned through their mistakes also. For the most part of this pandemic, Johnson has made decisions based off scientific advice/guidance and although many decisions were made too late or were incorrect, that doesn't mean that he has not done his best to tackle the virus.

The overall handling of the coronavirus pandemic by Johnson and his UK government has, and continues to have, many errors. Despite this I still believe that Boris Johnson has done his best to attempt to tackle COVID-19. Although his responses to the virus have been weak, I'm not sure whether any other UK politician would have done significantly better when responding to the pandemic in real time, and not in retrospect where we have the luxury to look back and critique.

TL;DR 'Clap for Tom Moore' was not meant to intentionally distract the public from the mismanagement and underfunding of the NHS. If anything, the clap brought these issues into the forefront of many people's minds as they remembered all the money that he raised for the NHS service.

I don't believe that the 'Clap for Tom Moore' was meant to intentionally distract us from the government's failings to the NHS. The national clap was to simply pay tribute to the man who in some ways has come to define the coronavirus pandemic in the UK, as well as to the NHS staff. Johnson told the Commons that the purpose of the clap was to 'show our appreciation for (Captain Sir Tom) and all that he stood for and believed in' and I don't believe that there is any sinister plot behind the clap to distract the public from the mismanaged and underfunded NHS. [1]

The NHS’s underfunding has rarely been forgotten throughout this pandemic. The British public are fully aware of the NHS's situation, this is the reason why Captain Sir Tom Moore set out to raise money in the first place. If anything, the clap may have even emphasised the lack of NHS funding as the public remembers all that money he raised for the company. As this pandemic continues to rage on throughout the UK, there is no event big enough that could truly distract the public from the NHS's mismanagement.

[1] ‘Boris Johnson to lead national clap for Captain Sir Tom Moore after death’, (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/boris-johnson-national-clap-captain-sir-tom-moore-death-today-b918475.html)

TL;DR Increasing surveillance ensures that more crimes are detected and caught on camera, as well as being a beneficial deterrent for crime in general.

Greater surveillance acts as an increased deterrent to would-be criminals and is more effective at catching crimes when they are committed. Studies based in the UK have determined that surveillance cameras can significantly reduce crime (14/15 studies agree on this). The UK has an estimated number of 4-6 million surveillance cameras and is one of the heaviest users of the surveillance in the world. The study therefore suggests that the number of surveillance cameras must be sufficiently high in order to achieve their full crime-reducing potential, so having greater surveillance is more beneficial to society. [1]

In relation to this, Martin Gill and Angela Spriggs’ study on Assessing the Impact of CCTV concluded that ‘the more cameras in an area, the more chance of reducing crimes’ in terms of general surveillance. The California Research Bureau’s studies on Measuring the Effect of Video Surveillance on Crime in Los Angeles also makes a similar conclusion in regards to surveillance in America, stating that increased surveillance is beneficial and ‘helpful in solving crime if caught on camera’. [2]

Both of the studies also determined that if greater surveillance is combined with additional police forces it is even more effective. The likelihood of crimes being caught and prevented is far greater when the two forces are combined where surveillance is also increased.

Greater surveillance increases its ability to be a natural deterrent that might prevent criminal activity from occurring. If a crime does occur, surveillance can provide a documented and accurate account of events. [3] The only people who should be concerned and wary about having greater surveillance are those who intend to commit criminal acts. For the rest of us, having greater surveillance allows additional protection to both prevent crimes as well as catch and identify those committing those crimes.

[1] ‘Surveillance cameras and crime prevention’, (https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/economics-of-crime/0/steps/20272)
[2] ‘Is There Empirical Evidence That Surveillance Cameras Reduce Crime?’, (https://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/knowledgebase/there-empirical-evidence-surveillance-cameras-reduce-crime)
[3] ‘16 Pros and Cons of Government Surveillance of Citizens’, (https://connectusfund.org/16-pros-and-cons-government-surveillance-of-citizens)

TL;DR Jack Nicholson (in Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman film) has managed to play the Joker better than any other actor because he successfully embodies the unpredictability of the character in his performance.

The greatness of Nicholson’s Joker comes from his nature. He plays a true wild card with some great comic gags, but still manages to pose a serious threat as a villain. As an audience, you don’t know if he’s going to kill the other characters or if he is tricking you and it makes his character interesting, he is unapologetically outlandish. With other portrayals of the Joker, the audience always knows exactly what he intends to do and that goes against his character’s core. Similarly, Nicholson’s iconic sets of outfits and memorable lines (‘Ever danced with devil in pale moonlight?’, ‘If you gotta go, go with a smile’) feed into this characterisation and can make the audience laugh, although his unpredictability keeps us on the edge of our seats whenever the character is on screen.

Having Jack Nicholson, famously known for his many portrayals of psychotic characters (including Jack Torrance in The Shining), play the Joker is a Hollywood match made in heaven. From his creepy smile to his unnerving and uncomfortable gaze – Nicholson’s Joker embodies all of the expressions of the psychotic clown perfectly. Whilst there have been many different adaptations of the Joker character on film, for me Nicholson’s will always top the list because of the sheer versatility he has. He can make you laugh (much like the earliest versions of the character), before quickly switching to the psychotic and unhinged character which we see more often in modern media. Along with his plethora of whacky outfits, weapons, and lines, he is not only the best but perhaps also the most iconic.

‘18 Reasons Why Jack Nicholson Was A Better Joker Than Heath Ledger’, (https://screenrant.com/why-jack-nicholson-best-joker-better-than-heath-ledger/)

TL;DR Tactical voting is better than always voting for your preferred political party as it is more effective in creating the political change that you want to see. By using your vote as a stand against the party that you do not want in power (rather than voting for your preferred party) your vote makes more of a change in the ‘first-past-the-post’ voting system, which is largely unrepresentative of the widespread votes of individuals and is only concerned with geographic majorities.

I find that tactical voting is better for creating actual political change than for voting for your preferred party. Although this method may have its issues in the fact that you might not be voting for the party that you are most passionate about, you are more likely to make change in electing one of the major political parties into power over another main political party that you might not agree with.

In swing counties/states tactical voting is particularly effective. For example, in the UK's 2019 election, 49% of tactical voters said they would vote for a party which was not their first choice in the hope of stopping a party whose views they opposed. [1] This created some positive outcomes in the 'make or break' counties, where voters supported another candidate more strongly than their sincere preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome. The Best of Britain site claims that tactical voting, in the case where people who did not want the Conservatives in power voted for Labour (regardless of whether Labour was their preferred party in the first place), caused Labour to win at least six new seats that would have likely gone to the Conservative party. [2] Tactical voting clearly has its benefits in creating change in the first-past-the-post voting system, which has its flaws in ensuring that every vote has equal importance. [3]

Despite the issues of tactical voting, as the individual might not be voting for the party they truly want to get into power, the benefits of having an increased likelihood of creating strong political change outweighs this. The tunnel vision of politics does not look like it is going to go away anytime soon, and in the meantime voting strategically might be the best bet to create the political change you want to see. Instead of voting for you party you want in power, tactical voting still allows you to vote against the party that you do not want in power effectively.

[1] ‘Who’s tactically voting, and why?’, (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/whos-tactically-voting-and-why)
[2] ‘Tactical Voting Impact on the 2019 UK General Election’, (https://www.bestforbritain.org/2019electionimpact)
[3] ‘First-past-the-post voting’, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#:~:text=Members%20of%20Congress%20are%20elected,win%20no%20representation%20at%20all.)

TL;DR: The Lion King is Disney's best film because it has superior characters when compared to Mulan whilst also providing an amazing plotline and great music.

The Lion King trumps Mulan as the best Disney film any-day! The Lion King has great musical numbers (Hakuna Matata, Can you Feel the Love Tonight, Be Prepared) and deep moral messages (Circle of Life, 'Never run from your past'). The story conveys strong messages about family and I argue that this is what gives Simba his strength as an adult, allowing the film to avoid an unintentional focus on masculine strength and assuming that this is what will save the day. Much like Mulan, the story has unique and more meaningful qualities which are sometimes absent in other Disney films.

What makes The Lion King the superior film in my opinion is its characters. In a direct comparison between these two films, it is clear that The Lion King has more interesting and recognisable characters than Mulan. Timon and Pumbaa as a duo outnumber Mushu in comedic terms as well as creating some brilliant musical numbers. Scar is also one of Disney's most famous, greatest villains - I'm not sure the same can be said for Shan-Yu in Mulan?

TL;DR - Joan of Arc was not hearing the real voices of angels, she was experiencing hallucinations caused by a neurological or psychological condition, most likely schizophrenia. She was not chosen by God and God did not speak to her, she was only interacting with her own voices.

Although we will never truly know whether the voices that Joan of Arc were real or not, a series of documents and claims made by Joan herself exhibit all the traditional symptoms of someone suffering hallucinations, and possibly having schizophrenia. There was no understanding of these conditions at the time, why is most likely why she was hailed as a prophet, however modern science can link her to a couple of conditions which would explain her hallucinations and debunk concepts of her being one of God’s chosen messengers.

Joan of Arc testified throughout her life that she had both heard the voices of and seen St Margaret, St Catherine, and the archangel St Michael. She claimed in her trial that she encountered these angels ‘two or three times a week’ at least. However, many scientists have suggested that, although Joan was convinced she interacted with angels, she actually experienced schizophrenia, a type of psychosis where a person is unaware to distinguish their own visions from reality. [1] This would explain why Joan appears completely convinced that she interacted with angels, stating that she could even touch and smell them - she presents the traits of someone with paranoid schizophrenia. According to psychiatrist Ied Bleuler, Joan is likely to have had this condition, he argues that her 'clear cut delusional system which is not open to argument' connects to her hallucinations which reinforce ‘false ideas'. [2]

Other researchers have argued that Joan of Arc suffered from a form of epilepsy that caused hallucinations, again using Joan of Arc’s own comments made in the trial to support their claims. Neurologists Guiseppe d’Orsi and Paola Tinuper argue that Joan may have had a condition called ‘idiopathic partial epilepsy with auditory features’. [3] Symptoms of this type of epilepsy predominantly include auditory and visual hallucinations, which could be used to explain Joan of Arc’s visions. The comfort Joan took from the voices and visions suggests ecstatic auras and combined with evidence from her trial that she saw the angels when she heard church bells suggests that she had reflex epilepsy, where her hallucinations were triggered by the bell’s noise. [4] This would mean that Joan of Arc was only interacting with the voices in her head, rather than voices of angels. She cannot be categorised as a prophet then, as it was most likely that a mental or neurological condition generated her voices. God did not choose Joan of Arc, but rather she thought He did.

The likelihood that Joan of Arc suffered from one of these disorders is much greater than the limited chance that she actually was interacting with any angels. We need to reassess her claims with modern understanding of neurological disorders. The claims that she made about hearing and seeing angels would have been much more readily accepted in the 15th century than today due to their significantly limited understanding of mental disorders.

[1] ‘Schizophrenia’, (https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/schizophrenia/)
[2] ‘The Schizophrenia of Joan of Arc’, (https://www.medievalists.net/files/09012321.pdf)
[3] ‘Neurologists speculate that Joan of Arc heard voices because she suffered from epilepsy’, (https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/neurologists-speculate-joan-arc-heard-voices-because-she-suffered-epilepsy-020929)
[4] ‘What Really Caused the Voices in Joan of Arc's Head?’, (https://www.livescience.com/55597-joan-of-arc-voices-epilepsy.html)

TL;DR - Any public place where babies are allowed ought to allow breastfeeding as it is not fair to deny a mother from nursing when her baby is hungry. Although some might see the breast as an erotic part of a woman’s body, there is nothing sexual about breastfeeding and, on an anatomical scale, breasts only exist for feeding purposes.

In the United Kingdom women have the right to breastfeed in any public place, yet there is much controversial debate about whether this should be allowed, and there are still many limitations that make women unable to breastfeed in public. For example, women are still not permitted to nurse in some locations, including the House of Commons chamber [1]. Breastfeeding is important as it optimally supports the health and well-being of mothers and infants and is the best source of nourishment which is available whenever the baby needs it. [2] It is the most sustainable way to fuel infants on the go, and I believe that because of its importance to the development of babies it should be allowed in public as and when necessary.

There is some social disapproval of public breastfeeding which is attributed to the sexualisation of the breast. It is a body part that is also perceived as being sexually attractive and involved in sexual activity but that also provides milk and nurture to children. [2] However it is the individual’s problem if they find anything inherently sexual about a woman breastfeeding as there should not be any sexual undertones associated with it in breastfeeding. If we are looking only at the human anatomy of the breast, it exists solely to provide nourishment for babies, but in our present society, particularly Western cultures, they have been profoundly sexualized.

The misogynistic bid to turn the necessary act of breastfeeding into a sexual act is depraved and lessens the importance of nursing for both babies and mothers. Breastfeeding is essential as a source of sustenance when an infant needs nourishment and it is for this reason that it should be allowed in all public spaces so mothers can feed their baby whenever and wherever they need to do so.

[1] ‘Why Britain's attitude to breastfeeding is still a disgrace’, (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/mar/05/why-britains-attitude-to-breastfeeding-is-still-a-disgrace)
[2] ‘Benefits of breastfeeding’, (https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/baby/breastfeeding-and-bottle-feeding/breastfeeding/benefits/)
[3] ‘It’s okay to breastfeed in public but…’, (https://internationalbreastfeedingjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13006-019-0216-y)

Whether an afterlife exists or not, I find the thing that personally gives my life the most meaning is my bonds to family and friends, who will (hopefully) be able to retain memories of me after I pass.

We continue to exist through the memories of others, particularly our children if we have any, as they live on after we pass. Our photos, writings, and most importantly our family, memories, and achievements which are recalled by others gives us a lasting impression on this planet, even if that impression is small. Personally, I find that this makes my life more meaningful than an afterlife ever would.

Although I am still unsure of my own beliefs on God and the afterlife, I remain motivated by the concept of my spirit continuing to live on through others moreso than being motivated to live my entire life in hopes of experiencing an afterlife. For me, leaving a small legacy behind on this world through my future family generations is more meaningful than the experience that an afterlife could ever provide.

It seems utterly ridiculous to me that all residents of the UK have to pay £157.50 annually to the BBC in order to access a range of TV channels, radio stations, and a range of online content (including non-BBC media). [1] It makes no sense that everyone has to pay for the privilege for one channel which refuses to rely on advertising and government grants, like every other UK channel does.

People have to pay TV licence even if they don’t want to watch the BBC. The law states that you must have a TV licence if you: [4]

• watch or record live TV programmes on any channel, even if it's not on the BBC
• watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV and Sky Go
• download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer

These rules apply to any device on which a programme is viewed. Even if you don’t have a TV, if you watch or stream and channel/show on your phone, tablet, or laptop you have to pay the full TV licence fee. I think it is ridiculous that even if you decided to watch a live show by a non-BBC channel on your phone, you still have to pay the full £157.50 price annually.

The TV licence affects the poorest in society the most. It is not fair that some people who cannot afford to pay the fee lose their right to gain immediate access to important news as well as other programmes. It is also unjust that young people (particularly students) and the elderly, who often have no stable income have to pay for this access. Currently, TV licences are only free to over 75s who rely on pension credit and those who are disabled and in care – everybody else has to pay fully. [2] If you do not pay this fee, enquiry officers are legally allowed to apply for a search warrant to your house and if they find evidence that you should be paying a TV licence, you could face a fine of up to £1000. [3] On top of the immorality of charging almost everyone a full TV licence fee instead of the BBC using advertisements to make their money, it is greatly unfair to place such heavy charges upon people who do not pay the TV licence fee.

TV licensing is an outdated concept that gives the BBC too much power as a company in the UK. Having to pay £157.50 annually to the BBC, when you might not even watch or listen to any of their outlets, but instead want to consume other forms of media which are not BBC branded, is unethical and immoral. I believe that the TV licence fee should be scrapped completely, or people should at least have the option to only pay for what they want out of the media that is currently included in the licence (e.g if you only want to listen to radio and not watch TV, the fee should be reduced).

[1] ‘What Does your TV Licence Fee Pay For?’, (https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-does-your-licence-fee-pay-for-top13?&WT.mc_id=mec_Search_Brand&gclid=CjwKCAiAu8SABhAxEiwAsodSZOdh-eEOneNxBXG-x6q24gd8keUyIN9hZO7csV357S-WJ7H9FV4texoCU5QQAvD_BwE)
[2] ‘Are there any concessions available?’, (https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ101)
[3] ‘What Happens if I Don’t Pay for a TV Licence?’, (https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ71)
[4] ‘Do I need a TV licence and what does it pay for?’, (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51376255)

The character of Batman/Bruce Wayne and his accompanying rogues gallery is the shining jewel at the centre of the DC Comics crown. The best thing about Batman is that he is recognisable to everyone, and that everyone remembers him differently. Whether you grew up watching the ’66 Adam West, or the ’89 Michael Keaton, or the ’08 Christian Bale or even Ben Affleck, everybody can recognise the character. The franchise will always remain the best because of its versatility and continued accessibility for everyone.

By himself, Batman is by far the best superhero. His vigilantism is refreshing and unique against many other heroes who work for corporate organisations or governments (see Marvel’s Captain America). His unique and complex ‘no-killing’ rule has existed almost right from the start of his existence back in the 1940s and has been used as the character’s main identifier throughout the years. [1] All of Batman’s morals come back to his tragic origin story. Despite the traumatic loss of his parents, Bruce Wayne is able to become a hero instead of choosing the easier option to become evil. The fact that Batman was born out of tragedy and that Bruce himself possesses no otherworldly powers also makes the character great. In theory, he is a normal man who has dedicated his life to fighting crime, training for years in order to become strong enough to put on the mask and become ‘Batman’: the perfect dark hero for the ever-gloomy Gotham City.

In addition to the greatness of Batman’s character, it is his own villains and aides which make the franchise the best. Almost anyone will be able to quote a line that the Joker has once said or recognise the famous outfit of Robin because these characters are also iconic and great in their own right. From the Riddler, to Cat-Woman, to Two-Face, to Bane, almost the entirety of Batman’s rogues gallery is recognisable, and I don’t believe that this can be said for any other superhero. These characters combined have been able to generate some wonderful and independent comic and film storylines over the years, both serious and with adult themes (the Joker killing Robin in 1988), to the light-hearted and more fun (anything in the LEGO Batman movie). [2]

The innovative nature of the Batman franchise throughout history is additionally something that I consider makes it better than any other superhero franchise. The 60’s Batman show and Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman movie have been credited as launching the ‘superhero action film’ into popular culture. [3] Similarly, the Batman ‘Arkham’ Series in the 2000/2010s was so popular that it is claimed to have revitalised superhero games. [4] Without the Batman franchise, the general superhero craze that exists today may have not occurred.

With over 80 years of history with its iconic characters, location, and storylines, Batman will forever be the best superhero franchise. Compared to other heroes, Batman is easily the most recognisable and the most iconic. The greatness of Gotham City and its heroes and villains is not matched by any other superhero franchise in my opinion.

[1] ‘Batman’s One Rule and Why It’s So Important’, (https://medium.com/@farrtom/batmans-one-rule-and-why-it-s-so-important-67ed4e8ed562)
[2] ‘How "A Death in the Family" Shook the World’, (https://www.dccomics.com/blog/2020/10/12/how-a-death-in-the-family-shook-the-world)
[3] ‘How the 1989 'Batman' Helped Create the Modern Superhero Genre’, (https://reelrundown.com/movies/The-Grace-of-1989s-Batman-How-Helped-Create-the-Modern-Superhero-Genre)
[4] ‘10 Years Ago, Batman: Arkham Asylum Showed Us That Superhero Games Could Be More’, (https://www.usgamer.net/articles/10-years-ago-batman-arkham-asylum-showed-us-that-superhero-games-could-be-more)

I completely agree, I am not sure whether there is a definitive term to describe Batman because of the many different portrayals of his character as you said. For me, I would lean slightly more towards the vigilante term, as I find that more often than not Batman goes against legal methods to take down evil. Batman is certainly not a 'superhero' in the same sense that Superman and Wonder Woman are because he has no true powers, although he certainly is heroic.

As you said, I think the complexity of what Batman really stands for as a hero is something that furthers the greatness of the franchise. It makes the character feel more unique than the typical superhero and creates further depth.

Although Disney has certainly produced a number of films which are culturally or racially insensitive in the past, the more recent films of the company are just as inclusive as DreamWorks films. I don't think it is necessarily fair to judge Disney completely on its older, insensitive films, which the company are trying to restrict today. Recently, it was announced that Disney+ is banning children under 7 from watching old Disney films which breach 'content advisories', including Peter Pan, Dumbo, and The Aristocats. [1]

The most recent Disney films which were made around the same time at DreamWorks began producing movies are much more sensitive and lack the controversy that early Disney films had. Some of the most notable Disney movies which have been able to showcase different cultures or convey complex ideas that are able to teach children correctly about issues such as race and sexism include: [2]

• Mulan (1998)
• Lilo and Stitch (2002)
• Brother Bear (2003)
• The Princess and the Frog (2009)
• Wreck-It Ralph (2012)
• Frozen (2013)
• Moana (2016)
• Zootopia/Zootropolis (2016)

These films are both fun and magical but also have very mature, adult themes within them, just as DreamWorks movies also do. Still, a direct comparison between Disney films from 1994 (after DreamWorks was founded) and the movies of DreamWorks highlights Disney as being a better company in terms of success. There have been 57 Academy Award wins for Disney since 1994, (these awards also include categories as ‘Best Actor’/’Best Actress’ to those participating in live-action Disney films). [3] In comparison, DreamWorks has only won 3 Academy awards, despite making 39 films in this time period whereas Disney (animation studios only) made 26. [4]

The sheer amount of different popular franchises that Disney owns also makes the company better than DreamWorks, because there is more content that people can enjoy. Disney now owns Star Wars (LucasFilms), Marvel Studios, and Pixar on top of its own company’s franchises. DreamWorks only owns the franchises of its original films, Wallace and Gromet, and Captain Underpants. Additionally, Disney’s creation of a number of company specific theme parks around the world makes the company better than DreamWorks as it attaches a new form of experience for people to enjoy: rather than just watching a film, people can experience that film on a ride.

Unlike DreamWorks, Disney is not only limited to animation features today. Instead, they have been able to expand to such an extent that they now produce many live-action films as well as a series of different documentaries and TV series. Disney’s victory over DreamWorks in awards also makes the company more successful in terms of statistical analysis, as well as subjective fun.

[1] ‘Disney+ blocks under-sevens from watching 'racist' Peter Pan, Dumbo and The Aristocats for breaching 'content advisories'’, (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9179987/Disney-blocks-sevens-watching-racist-Peter-Pan-Dumbo-Aristocats.html)
[2] ‘List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films’, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios_films)
[3] ‘Academy Awards’, (https://d23.com/a-to-z/academy-awards/#:~:text=As%20of%202020%2C%20Disney%20has,Guinness%20Book%20of%20World%20Records.)
[4] ‘DreamWorks Animation’, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DreamWorks_Animation#:~:text=The%20studio%20has%20earned%20three,Golden%20Globe%20and%20BAFTA%20nominations.)

The Lost City of Atlantis is famously written about by Plato, however there are no other existing accounts of Atlantis by any other sources across history. Surely there would have been more than one account from this great and modern city if it were a real place? Instead it appears that the city was created by Plato’s imagination only and was not a real location. It was only in Ignatius Donnelly’s 1882 book about Plato's description of Atlantis where it was suggested the island could have been a real place. However, the lack of any historical evidence of Atlantis existing in a time where modern archaeologists and scientists are able to efficiently discover and analyse evidence raises questions about the legitimacy of the city’s existence. [1]

There is no core scientific evidence that can prove or even confidently theorise that Atlantis was a real place. Sonar mapping of the ocean floor in the Atlantic waters have found no evidence of this city, even though Plato describes it as being as large as 'Libya and Asia combined'. [2] Of course, there are islands which may fit the basic description of the location of Atlantis, such as the Island of Thera; but these locations have no historical evidence that matches Plato’s description of the city. [3] Modern science is able to explore the ocean floor, and if Atlantis did exist wouldn’t it have been discovered by this?

The lack of scientific evidence that can prove Atlantis existed, combined with the limited number of accounts of the city makes it difficult for me to believe that Atlantis is real.

[1] ‘Myth of Atlantis all took place in Plato's mind’, (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/16/humanities.books)
[2] ‘Where Is the Lost City of Atlantis — and Does It Even Exist?’, (https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/where-is-the-lost-city-of-atlantis-and-does-it-even-exist)
[3] ‘Top 6 Theories About Atlantis’, (https://www.history.com/news/top-6-theories-about-atlantis)

My issue with personality tests is that they try to put people in particular boxes based off the answers that one may pick to determine their personal traits. With over 7 billion people in the world, all coming from different cultural backgrounds with differing societal influences, it becomes almost impossible for a personality test to accurately inform someone of their personality through categorisation.

People's personalities can also greatly change over time and depending on mood. [1] It may be that if the same person took the same personality tests at different times, the results differ greatly. [2] Personality tests flaw because they are unable to consider these other factors, meaning that a person might not be able to gage an accurate summarisation of their personality in test results.

Personality tests fail to portray the wide range of human emotions and behaviours that make an individual's unique personality. Instead, they apply general labels to wide groups of people who in reality may have completely different personalities, limiting its effectiveness and overall benefit.

[1] ‘The Problem with Personality Tests’ (https://www.wethetalent.co/experience-at-work/problem-personality-tests/#:~:text=A%20lot%20of%20personality%20tests,make%20a%20test%20scientific%20though.)
[2] ‘How Accurate Are Personality Tests?’ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-accurate-are-personality-tests/)

Trail hunting in today’s society is unnecessary and cruel. Although Britain banned fox hunting in 2004, many have claimed that trail hunting (which remains legal) acts as a ‘smokescreen’ that allows people to continue to fox hunt undetected. [1] Chris Luffingham, the Director of Campaigns at the ‘League Against Cruel Sports’, argues that trail hunting has been immorally designed to ‘(mimic) traditional hunting as much as possible. In fact, it so closely mimics hunting; it has become clear it is a deception and cover-up for illegal hunting activity’. [2] It is clear that trail hunting is simply a sport that has been created from a loop in the Hunting Act.

Trail hunts still use hounds, unlike other forms of non-lethal hunting in the UK. The problem with this is that the dogs are still trained to follow and track the scents of animals, notably foxes, in the countryside whilst the hunt is taking place. [3] This means that during a trail hunt, it is likely that the hounds may end up killing an animal after tracking it’s scent. The National Trust testifies that trail hunting is being used as a ‘false alibi for the hunting of foxes, deer, mink and hares with dogs’, making the practice the same as the now banned traditional hunts. [4] Trail hunting continues the same immoral practice as traditional lethal hunts and should be banned completely in order to prevent any further encouragement to harm animals in a hunt.

Many campaigners for hunting would argue that hunting has a great history that should be continued. However, in the UK, hunting now is elitist and outdated. Trail hunting only helps to promote the classist values that traditional hunting has done since the 18th century. Hunting has always culturally been a sport associated with the wealthy. Trail hunts in Britain remain accessible to the elite only, rather than it being the sport of the everyman. In order to join a trail hunt you must not only own your own horse/trained hounds and buy a plethora of equipment, but must also be a member of a Hunt Secretary’s organisation, including paying regular subscription fees. The terminology and dress of trail hunting remains elitist to this day, there are ‘Masters’ and ‘Hunt Servants’ who wear red coats or hunt livery while out hunting, whereas ‘Gentleman subscribers’ are only permitted to wear black coats. [5] The overall order of a trail hunt is therefore rooted in old classist values, where the most wealthy and influential have different titles and different dress from others, making them easily identifiable. In the 21st century, do these elitist values need to remain so clear within the sport? Although seeing the flurry of red coats and shiny buttons on people as the hunt leaves may be wonderful to see, it should be remembered that the sport has limitations in it’s accessibility, and that only the most wealthy and influential can be a part of that crowd.

Sports should remain approachable for all despite monetary and societal differences, and this is something that trail hunting fails to achieve. Trail hunting also fundamentally fails to achieve its aim of ethical morality, which is why it was created in the first place. It is for these reasons that I believe that the activity should be banned, just as most forms of hunting have already been following the 2004 Hunting Act.

If you would like to know more on trail hunting and the differences between traditional fox hunting, drag hunting, and trail hunting, I’d recommend ITV’s summary: https://www.itv.com/news/2020-11-24/what-is-trail-hunting-and-is-it-legal

[1] ‘Trail Hunting’ (https://www.league.org.uk/trail-hunting)
[2] ‘Hundreds of illegal hunts took place in British countryside last autumn, animal rights group says’ (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hunts-illegal-hundreds-autumn-season-figures-animal-rights-hunting-ban-england-wales-a8286336.html)
[3] ‘Don't be fooled by Boxing Day trail hunts – they're just as cruel as illegal animal hunting’ (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boxing-day-hunts-trail-hunting-foxes-animal-cruelty-a8127611.html)
[4] ‘Trail hunting faces ban on National Trust land as members threaten rebellion’ (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trail-hunting-ban-national-trust-land-members-rebellion-a8011861.html)
[5] ‘Fox hunting in the UK: facts, history and the law’ (https://www.countryfile.com/wildlife/fox-hunting-facts-history-and-the-law/)

Virtually all cultures contain independent accounts which describe ghosts and spirits existing amongst the living. Across history, there have been many personal records that describe spirits and in more recent times, photographs and other forms of media have been used to capture (what is claimed to be) spectres on camera. Many cultures hold beliefs that the dead can communicate and interact with the living in the form as a ghost. [1] For example, in China, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand, there is an annual ‘Hungry Ghost Festival’, where it is believed that ghosts are temporarily released to visit and interact with their living relatives, much like Mexico’s ‘Day of the Dead’ celebrations’. [2]

Some may argue that the existence of ghosts can be traced back to ancient religious texts and that those who believe in the paranormal today are influenced by their faith. Yet, it doesn’t seem that people’s beliefs about ghosts are necessarily rooted in religion. Although many religions speak of paranormal events, McDaniel states that ‘in places like Japan where secularism is very strong, the belief in ghosts is still high. Even hyper-modern and liberal Scandinavia has a high percentage of people believing in ghosts’. [3] The fact that so many individuals and collective cultures believe in the existence of ghosts, despite the wide range of social and religious differences between these societies, supports the notion that supernatural spirits do exist. Why would the presence of ghosts be a worldwide phenomenon that be traced back into the far history of almost all cultures if it was certain that ghosts aren't real?

The most obvious reason why people don’t believe in ghosts today is that there is limited scientific knowledge that can concretely support the existence of spectres. However, there has also been no scientific research that can outright disprove the existence of ghosts either. Hallucinations have been claimed to be responsible for “ghost sightings” by some. But, as both hallucinations and ghost sightings can only be described through an individual’s personal experience, only the person who witnesses unusual action can decide whether it is a trick of the imagination or if it is a true paranormal figure.

The existence of ghosts is also arguably able to be justified and applied to some scientific theory. Einstein’s theory on the conservation of energy determines that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only transferred from one form to another. [4] Could it be that after we die, instead of our energy being transferred through the decomposition process, the energy remains but takes on the form of a spirit? With the overall lack of clear science which can undoubtedly disprove spiritual existence, it seems logical that there is a chance that ghosts can and do exist.

[1] ‘Why so Many of us Believe in Ghosts’, (https://theconversation.com/i-see-dead-people-why-so-many-of-us-believe-in-ghosts-148886)
[2] ‘Ghost Festival’, (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ghost_Festival)
[3] ‘Why do People Believe in Ghosts?’, (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/why-do-people-believe-in-ghosts/379072/)
[4] ‘Conservation of Energy’, (https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy)

Is it not better for governments to take action and ban trans fats in order to generate better public health? I certainly agree in democratic values which give people the freedom to choose what they can and can’t consume. However, statistically, banning trans fats can be justified. In America alone, it is estimated that banning artificial trans fats would prevent 50,000 annual deaths. [1]

There are many other substances that are also banned by food safety and quality laws that cannot enter food chains in the US. Many additives are banned by the FDA due to a range of negative health consequences they are linked to. [2] American citizens have no freedom to consume these products much in the same way that they wouldn’t be able to consume trans fats products if they were banned. There are also very similar laws that apply worldwide in relation to food safety. In these instances, public health comes before democratic freedom. Shouldn't the trans fats problem be resolved in a similar way to this? Surely it is better for governments to prevent citizens from consuming goods with trans fats instead of giving them to freedom to greatly increase the likelihood of having cardiovascular illness.

[1] Trans Fat Bans and Human Freedom, (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3941190/#:~:text=Trans%20fat%20bans%20can%20promote,and%20severity%20of%20cardiovascular%20disease.)
[2] Banned Additives, (https://cspinet.org/banned-additives)

The other comments on this thread all include well researched opinions about homework and some of the negative consequences it has. However, homework also has two very important benefits that I believe justify its existence; it primarily helps to reinforce what is learnt in the classroom and encourages independent study in students. [1]

Although there is limited evidence that doing homework directly improves academic achievement for all students, it improves organisational skills and time management abilities. Many of the skills that children learn through the act of doing homework are essential for adult life. Some examples of the benefits of homework listed by the ‘Edugage’ website include: [2]

• Gives students another opportunity to review class material
• Students learn to take responsibility for their part in the educational process
• Trains students to work independently
• Students learn to stay organized
• Deepens students’ understanding of a subject matter
• Students learn about time management

[1] DOES HOMEWORK IMPROVE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT?
(https://today.duke.edu/2006/09/homework_oped.html)
[2] 10 Homework Benefits:Purpose & Facts,(https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/edugage.com/10-homework-benefits-purpose-facts/amp/)

‘The Crown’ depicts a series of events following Queen Elizabeth II’s ascension to the throne in 1952, following the life of the Queen and her children, with the most recent series focusing on Prince Charles and his marriage to Lady Diana. The contents of the show are however highly dramatized, and portray an inaccurate history of the Windsor family. Despite Netflix’s attempt to incorporate the history as accurately as possible with the drama of the show, it is inevitable that some aspects of the portrayal of these royal figures will be inaccurate as nobody can accurately summarise the royals, apart from the royals themselves and those close to them.

A notable example of the misrepresentation of the royal family comes from the relationship between Prince Philip and Prince Charles portrayed in series two. It appears that Philip does not show any love to his son and is instead cold and distant towards him. However, this portrayal is supported by no historical evidence and arguably is completely fabricated. Palace insiders agree on this point, stating that the cruelness that Philip showed towards his son ‘simply did not happen’. [1]

The show also takes liberties to portray the Queen disliking Margaret Thatcher so much that she explicitly instructs the royal press secretary to leak her opinions to the newspapers. Again, this appears to be a misrepresentation of the Queen. Although ‘The Sunday Times’ featured an article in 1986 that claimed the Queen disliked Thatcher, the palace team, who represent the Queen, strongly denied the report. Margaret Thatcher’s biographer, Robert Hardman, also holds the opinion that this event was a misrepresentation of the Queen as ‘no one at the Palace or Downing Street [...] seriously believed that the Queen had authorised, or even nudged, anyone to speak in those terms about her government’. [2]

Perhaps the most significant inaccurate representation comes in the most recent series of the show, where a royal plot to break up Charles and Camilla, so that Charles could marry Diana, is hinted at. In reality there is no evidence of accounts from any members of the royal family or Princess Diana which support this. [3] Similarly, historians including Bedell Smith, who has written biographies of the Queen, Charles and Diana, debate on Netflix’s portrayal of Charles and Camilla’s affair as occurring entirely throughout his marriage to Diana. [4] Instead she asserts that this didn’t occur until around 1986, where Charles’ marriage to Diana had already broken down.

Of course, as a show, creative liberties are needed to be taken in order to make the series interesting and keep audiences engaged. Recently, the Culture Secretary urged Netflix to introduce a disclaimer for the series that highlighted that it was a work of fiction, stating that ‘I fear a generation of viewers who did not live through these events may mistake fiction for fact’. [5] I hope that as royal scandals and drama are introduced by the show to a new set of viewers who may not have known about these events historically, audiences are able to remember that the show is not to be taken as a documentary.

If you’re looking for more information about the other inaccuracies of the show, as well as learn about the history behind some of the events depicted in ‘The Crown’, I’d recommend giving this article by ‘HistoryExtra’ a read: (https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/real-history-netflix-the-crown-series-queen-elizabeth-prince-philip-charles-camilla-what-really-happened/)

[1] Dan Barna, ‘Glamour’, 25th September 2018, (https://www.glamour.com/story/queen-elizabeth-wasnt-happy-with-the-crown-season-2-scene)
[2] Michael Hein, ‘PopCulture’, 17th November 2020, (https://popculture.com/streaming/news/the-crown-10-biggest-historical-inaccuracies/#10)
[3] Lauren Cahn, ‘Reader’s Digest’, 23rd December 2020, (https://www.rd.com/list/what-the-crown-gets-wrong-british-royal-family/)
[4] Jonathan Bucks and Holly Bancroft for ‘The Mail On Sunday’, 21st November 2020, (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8973723/Proof-TV-audiences-believing-fiction-Netflix-series-Crown.html)
[5] Sophie Barnes, ‘The Telegraph’, 6th December 2020, (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/06/netflix-refuses-warn-viewers-crown-series-historically-inaccurate/)

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’, remains widely classified as children’s literature, as Stowe originally categorized the novel herself upon its publication in 1852. Although the story is often commended for its moral teachings and portrayal of slavery, in today’s society many of the lessons that the story teaches are perceived as regressive and racist.

Stowe’s plotline does not show an accurate portrayal of American slave trade and contains many messages that may be seen as highly racist in today’s society, even though at the time of the story’s original publication it was seen as progressive. The frequent application of Christianity as the justifying factor that makes slaves such as Tom ‘good’ is an act that can be seen as racist today. The novel teaches that only Christianity creates morality. Stowe does very little to attempt to solve any of the issues of slavery and instead asserts that the power of Christian love can overcome evil.

Similarly, the language of the slaves is regarded as racist by modern readership. The ethics of the story do not relate to people living in the 21st century and need to be contextualised within its historical time period. Children are less likely to be able to comprehend this and may lead to a misinterpretation of the story’s overall message and what is classed as racist in modern society. The racial slurs and use of derogatory language are content that is not appropriate for young children to read within a fictional novel. I certainly agree that children need to be educated on the topic of racism and the slave trade, but reading non-fiction written specifically for the 21st century would warrant better than ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ for both children and adults. The social message of the novel is also horrendously outdated in comparison to modern thinking about the slave trade. Assuredly, teachings about the slave trade should be concerned with the accurate historical facts and descriptions that Stowe’s novel cannot adequately provide.

‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ should not be regarded as children’s literature because, by today’s standards, the novel contains insensitive language and is not able to accurate educate children on the slave trade more so than a modern historical non-fiction book could. Instead, the novel should be reclassified as a work of historical fiction that can be better comprehended and understood by adults, who are more widely educated on the history the story covers and are able to pick up on the inconsistencies and racial subjectivity much better than a child can. The outdated views of ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ need to be understood before they are read, and letting children read the novel before they have comprehended the history behind it is wrong and may easily lead to youngsters learning the wrong lessons from the book.

Heather Gilligan, ‘The most famous book about slavery has been rejected by black thinkers since it was published’, 11th January 2017 (https://timeline.com/the-most-famous-book-about-slavery-has-been-rejected-by-black-thinkers-since-it-was-published-b8dce54984c8)
Margaret Logan, ‘Harriet Beecher Stowe: She's Not What You Think’, 2019, (https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studentpub/274/)

I believe that 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' should not be classified as children's literature because of this exact reason; it is not a story that is appropriate for children to read. Categorizing the story as 'children's fiction' further encourages the novel to be given to youngsters to read and I believe this is where the issues that I stated previously arise. If the story was instead reclassified as a text for adults, as a contextual and historical understanding is needed before reading, confusion around the morals of the story and how they differ from today's society is reduced.

'Uncle Tom's Cabin' contains very little in its plot and language that can be enjoyed or properly comprehended by children in today's society. When Stowe classified her novel as being for children originally in the 1850s, societal values greatly differed from modern times. Critics such as Martha Crippen state that children's literature is primarily focussed with generating moral development within kids. The issue then arises if a child reads 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' - a story where the moral teachings are based in the context of the 1850s when thoughts on slavery greatly differ from today, and learns that these morals are acceptable in modern society. If children's literature is concerned with educating youngsters and teaching morals in a fun way, then there is certainly no place for Stowe's story to remain classified under this term.

Martha Crippen, 2012, (https://www.luther.edu/oneota-reading-journal/archive/2012/the-value-of-childrens-literature/)

Non-violent resistance is more effective at rallying greater networks of people to support a particular campaign. More people can confidently rally and become politically active in peaceful protests, many are not willing to pick up weapons and fight in a violent rally. Radical change can only occur if there are large numbers of people who support movements that protest for change. By using passive methods of protest, a singular movement is able to garner more supporters and widen its sphere of influence. Increasing the number of supporters of a particular movement increases the probability of action being taken towards a particular cause.

Passive protests also decrease the likelihood of police and military involvement that might cause a campaign to collapse. This reduces the chance of de-escalation within a rally, as there is less reason for police forces to respond with brutality to a passive movement. As non-violent resistance is more likely to prevent an aggressive intervention from militia, peaceful protest creates less casualties in comparison to violent rallies and is therefore the safer form of resistance.

Statistics also prove that peaceful protest has been able to create positive change more so than violent demonstrations. The research by political scientist Erica Chenoweth exemplifies this, she states that ‘countries in which there were nonviolent campaigns were about 10 times likelier to transition to democracies within a five-year period compared to countries in which there were violent campaigns — whether the campaigns succeeded or failed’. [1] Most notably the non-violent campaigns of Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi have shown the success of peaceful methods of resistance. The peace in their campaigns proved the violence amongst the groups that they were protesting against and created empathy which generated more supporters to create change.

[1]. Erica Chenowth in Michelle Nicholasen’s interview. The Harvard Gazette, 9th February 2019, (https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/)

It is clear that violent protests can create change significantly quicker than peaceful resistance by creating a sense of urgency around a particular issue. However, the lack of long term impacts in many aggressive campaigns have been seen as a factor that weakens the overall movement in comparison to a peaceful movement. Gordana Rabrenovic, associate professor of sociology and director at the Brudnick Center of Violence and Conflict states that 'violence might be the quickest way to achieve your goals, but in order to sustain your victory, you would need to use coercion and have some kind of apparatus in place that keeps people in constant fear of punishment'. [1] This suggests that non-violent resistance is more effective in the long term at maintaining a movement when compared to violent rallies, as peaceful movements tend to be more organised throughout and require significantly less violent techniques to maintain the power they gain. Although I agree that the non-violent approach takes longer to generate action when compared to violent methods of protest, I wouldn't say that there is any particular typology of protest where a non-violent approach would be a failure as although the power might take longer to gain in the short term, in the long term the movement is more likely to be sustained for longer periods of time.

[1] Gordana Rabrenovic in Emily Arntsen's interview, 'News@Northeastern', 10th June 2020, (https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/06/10/are-peaceful-protests-more-effective-than-violent-ones/)

There are some brilliant points here. However, would abolishing private schools really be able to solve these issues of injustice within the school system? Stephen Gorard, the Professor of Education and Public Policy in the School of Education at Durham University provides an interesting argument that some of the parents of private school pupils would opt to pay for home education in the absence of private schools. He argues that 'the result would be the same as now', as whether private schools exist or not, parents with more money would be more willing to pay more to aid their child's professional development (through private tutors and extracurricular activities such as music lessons which may be seen favourably be others). [1] This suggests that schools themselves may not really be the issue behind many of these social injustices. Would you argue that private schools should do more to help ease the 'old ties' system by creating more scholarships and reducing fees instead of being completely abolished?

[1] Stephen Gorard, 1st October 2019, (https://www.dur.ac.uk/research/news/thoughtleadership/?itemno=39792)

This is an interesting opinion piece and I agree that populism has many complex impacts upon democractic ideals. However, in terms of worldwide statistics, the number of democracies within the world has been continually increasing since the 1970s. In 2016, studies by the Lexical Index of Electoral Democracy concluded that 62.2% of the world's nations now operate under democratic governments. Would you say that, because of factors like populism, the principles of democracy are weakening despite the increasing precense of governments which classify themselves as 'democratic'?

Drew DeSilver, 'Pew Research Center', 14th May 2019, (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/14/more-than-half-of-countries-are-democratic/)
Mélida Jiménez, 'The Washington Post, 15th November 2017, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/11/15/is-democracy-in-a-worldwide-decline-we-measured-it-heres-what-we-found/)

By banning these kinds of films or removing them from the public sphere, society remains uneducated on some of the issues that were culturally acceptable in the past, but are now acknowledged as intolerable. Removing these films alters cultural history as it denies that some opinions of the past did not exist. The controversial content within many of these films tends to consist of racist, sexist, and homophobic characters and comments which are now generally seen by modern audiences as unacceptable. If these films were not allowed to remain available to the public, people will forget that society has not always held the same values throughout time and the history of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of intolerance will be partially undermined. The controversial content should remain available to the public so people can educate themselves on some cultural history of the past, no matter how uncomfortable that history may be to confront.

Additionally, banning these films is a form of censorship and goes against democratic rights. Having organisations choose what films are acceptable for individuals to watch is immoral and oppressive. People should have the free will to choose whether they want to watch these films, rather than having institutions decide for everybody that certain films cannot been viewed by audiences. Many film companies have now introduced content warnings and prefaces to controversial classic ‘Old Hollywood’ films, including HBO Max’s new introduction to ‘Gone With the Wind’, which now includes two videos explaining the racism in the film and feature a disclaimer that states the film ‘denies the horrors of slavery’. [1] This information makes it apparent that the views in these movies have never been acceptable and do not represent the views of media companies today, ensuring that audiences understand the film’s cultural controversies whilst still allowing people to watch the film if they choose to do so. Preventing classic films with controversial content from remaining in the public sphere limits the historical understanding of the past, it is much better to keep these films available in order to acknowledge the past and to educate people on the history of different forms of oppression.

[1] Emma Kelly, ‘Metro’, 25th June 2020, (https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/25/gone-wind-returns-hbo-max-disclaimer-about-film-denying-horrors-slavery-12900820/)

When discussing who is responsible for banning these films, it comes down to the film censorship departments and classification boards of individual countries. However, on a smaller scale, individual media companies and streaming sites also have the power to remove content and effectively ‘ban’ particular movies. Before HBO Max reintroduced ‘Wind in the Willows’ onto their streaming service they had completely removed it from their site and it was unable to be accessed by audiences who had the freedom to watch it previously. Much like this, Disney has been able to erase its ‘Song of the South’ film, which is famous for its racist depictions of black characters, out of existence. Although this erasure does not count as an official ban, because the film becomes inaccessible for everyone as the remaining copies exist in the “Disney vault”, the movie effectively is 'banned' from the public sphere.

Undoubtedly, countries which operate under strict systems of government or dictatorships are responsible for censoring larger numbers of films within their respective countries today. However, many democratic nations have removed a number of highly controversial films and outright banned many others. For example, over 1200 propaganda movies including the 1935 Nazi film ‘Triumph of the Will’ are still banned in Germany and remain prohibited in archives. These films could effectively be introduced to modern audiences again to illustrate how far Nazi propaganda had spread into media in the 1930s and to acknowledge and confront the ideas of the Nazi regime. Similarly, in America the original version of the 1915 movie ‘The Birth of a Nation’ remains banned in many states, as the film portrays the Klu Klux Klan in a positive light. Versions of the film have been heavily censored to avoid a complete ban. By removing this film from the public sphere America chooses to not teach people about racist attitudes within their country in the early 20th century. This film was even praised by the President at the time, Woodrow Wilson, and by banning the film the US refuses to acknowledge gruesome aspects of its past and educate society on it. By banning these films and refusing to accept the shame that these movies carry within society today, modern audiences receive less primary evidence of historical groups with shared opinions and the overall understanding of cultural history becomes undermined.

David Fear, Joshua Rothkopf and Keith Uhlich, ‘Time Out’, 5th August 2019, (https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/the-50-most-controversial-movies-ever)
Michael Pullen, Paxton Rigby, Shane Walker, ‘The Censorship Files’, 15th November 2016, (https://thecensorshipfiles.wordpress.com/the-birth-of-a-nation/)
Matt Singer, ‘Screen Crush’, 4th March 2016, (https://screencrush.com/song-of-the-south-racism/#:~:text=After%20a%20return%20engagement%20in,on%20any%20home%20video%20format)