Bethan_marsden

TL; DR - To disregard the credibility of the attack on the Capitol in January 2021, is to ignore the extreme nature of polarization and partisanship as it exists in the United States today. January 6th is a day that will go down in American history as significant, and rightly so.

• Fuelled by their belief that the November 2020 election was rigged, hundreds of armed, self-declared Trump supporters took it upon themselves to overturn the result. Characterised as a demonstration of violence in an illegal attempt to obtain power I am in no doubt that the actions at the Capitol were indeed part of a credible coup attempt.
• There were several photographs and videos from that day but hitting me more than any other was the gleeful picture of rioter Richard Barnett with his feet up on the desk of House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. I mean it literally doesn’t get any closer than that. What would have happened if Pelosi happened to be in her office at that exact moment? Here in the UK in June of 2016, Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered by a right-wing extremist; her death sparked an important conversation about the protection of elected officials in this country. We can’t ignore the threat posed during the Capitol riot.
• The incumbency of Donald Trump incited hatred and division like no President before him. With polarization becoming so unbelievably extreme in America, both sides of the aisle have shifted the tone of their rhetoric - but only one side has resorted to this level of violence. The attempted coup at the Capitol, was a deliberate and orchestrated attack with the sole intent of returning Trump to power. This is not how democracy works. This was a credible coup attempt.
• 5 people died in the riot. This should be enough to convince you that the threat was credible. The actions of a politically motivated gaggle of rioters, caused people to lose their lives and that is credible. To suggest otherwise, is to underestimate the threat posed by the extreme-right wing of America.

I strongly disagree. I never said it was a successful coup attempt, I said it was a credible coup attempt. The insurrectionists had the intention of overturning the events of the election and people died as a result. I think it's perfectly legitimate to view this as a credible coup attempt. There was a documentary recently on the events of Jan 6th 2021; after having watched it, I'd find it very difficult to view the attack as anything other than a credible coup attempt.

Incels should be considered terrorists because labelling them as anything else underestimates the threat they pose to society.

• Incels want women punished for their status as ‘involuntary celibates’ and have demonstrated acts of terrorism in pursuit of these aims. The term ‘incel’ is used to describe a group of “deeply misogynistic men” who blame women for their lack of sexual relationships. They believe women should be “verbally shamed” and often “physically punished with sexual assault, rape or disfigurement”. This is an extremely dangerous group of people.
• Terrorism is defined as “the use or threat of action” with the intention of influencing government and intimidating the public. To be regarded as terrorism, it must also be “for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause” which, in my opinion, accurately describes an ‘incel’. These people have the desire to rid society of those who they believe to be responsible for their lack of sexual intimacy and will resort to extremely violent means to achieve this.
• Plymouth, UK recently experienced an act of terror at the hands of an alleged incel. Davison was active on social media in the lead up to his attack, where he discussed the movement of incels and expressed his frustration with his negative experiences with relationships. The words of incels are characterised by failure and frustration. Jake Davison killed 5 people, including a child, before turning the gun on himself. Similar acts of terror have happened across the United States, often fuelled by the same incel motivations.
• With what we know about incels and how they operate, think and act, I think it would be irresponsible not to consider them as terrorists. Incels are motivated by their hate and need to punish, often women. In extreme cases, they will go to great lengths to get their message across. I argue that this message is political in nature and therefore counts as terrorism.

But virgins and incels aren't the same thing? No one is saying that virgins are terrorists. There's a difference between choosing not to have sex and hating women and all they represent because they won't have sex with you.

Parents shouldn’t make the decision to pierce their infant’s ears; this is a decision for the child to make themselves when they are old enough.

• I personally don’t understand the need to pierce a child’s ears before they are old enough to ask or express any interest in having it done. I’ve had a few ear piercings, but all of them were my decision and my responsibility. Having my ears pierced wasn't painful, but everyone’s pain threshold is different, particularly infants. It’s an unnecessary pain for a child and makes no sense.
• Ear piercing requires aftercare and always runs the possible risk of infection or problems - why subject a child to this without their consent? I think it’s better for everyone, if the child can express their interest at an appropriate age, whereby they have enough maturity and self-awareness to make that decision.
• If an infant is so young that they can’t verbally express their desire for an ear piercing, then what is thought process of the parent, other than to alter their child’s appearance based on some beauty standard. I don’t understand why it’s necessary, I really don’t.
• Obviously, my argument does pose another question about what age is in fact appropriate and my answer would be that the choice is up to the parents, but it should be once the child can at least verbalise this desire and carry out the necessary aftercare themselves. In my opinion, this should be secondary school age at the earliest, so around 12 or 13. This specific is opinion, but it should be agreed overall, that the child should at least want the piercing.

I think there's a huge difference between vaccinating your child and piercing their ears. Vaccines have an enormous amount of scientific support; they are about health and protecting the health of society. Piercing a child's ears is not; it's just another example of a beauty standard which seeks to tell us what is beautiful and what isn't. In my opinion, having an infant's ears pierced before they decide they want their ears pierced, is a parent's attempt to change their child's physical appearance.

This remains a popular slogan among many on the left and is relevant to discussions of exploitation in society.

• The argument goes that “the wage worker produces a surplus of values in the course of the working day which accrues to the boss - values for which the boss gives the labourer no return.”. Karl Marx called this ‘Profit’.
• Marx argued that the ultimate source of profit, or “the driving force behind capitalist production”, is the unpaid labor of workers. This is exploitation. He argued that workers produce a new value which ultimately ends up belonging to the capitalist. Workers’ wages are paid in accordance with what it takes to “keep workers and their families alive and able to work” and their standard of living is affected by the outcome of “class struggles between workers and capitalists”.
• It is not by charging more than their values that profit is made, but instead by selling/exchanging them at their real values. Effectively the owner sells what has cost him nothing, despite it costing his worker labour. Here in lies the dispute about whether said profit is simply the unpaid wages of the workers.
• To summarise, it’s not as simple as profit being the actual wages of workers, but instead refers to the broader issue of exploitation in a capitalist society. “Capitalists accumulate wealth through a system of organised theft from the working class”.

Democracies shouldn’t need to go to war with each other in accordance with the Democratic Peace Theory.

• Within the theory of Democratic Peace, the assumption is made that democracies are “more peaceful in their foreign relations”. This means that democracies tend to keep the peace with other functioning democracies and ultimately proves the correlation between democracy and peace.
• This is the idea that, when normally “an impetuous dictator on one side might plunge the international system into war”, instead, when the disagreement is between two democratic states, the mere presence of democracy “creates a cooling-off period”, whereby any urge to wage war is dissolved. It is under this assumption that I argue democracies shouldn’t have any reason to go to war with each other.
• And there is support from history: namely the Anglo-French dispute in Fasboda, Egyptian Sudan, over “a series of territorial disputes in Africa between Great Britain and France”. In other words, the Fashoda Incident in 1898 signalled the climax of tensions between the two nations. It concluded with a peaceful resolution between Britain and France, consequently proving the rule.
• Obviously, there are exceptions to any rule or theory, but overall, I would agree with the argument that democracies have no reason to go to war with each other because of the founding principles that build a democracy. Evidence from history supports this theory.

Differences largely exist because society discriminates based on sex.

• At a basic level, sexism is “linked to beliefs around the fundamental nature of women and men and the roles they should play in society” and can adequately explain the differences between men and women. However, there must also be a consideration that ‘differences’ are subjective. For example, are we discussing physical differences, psychological differences, social differences etc?
• For the purposes of this point, I am treating ‘differences’ as inequalities or disparities among men and women. This can include the existence gender roles, stereotypes, bias in the workplace, economic imbalances, and discrimination. I make the argument that ultimately, these things or ‘differences’ exist, because society is sexist. An alternative phrasing could be that society treats men and women differently because it is sexist.
• Sexism tells us that men and women are unequal and should be treated as such; typically, women suffer sexism on a larger scale than men. For example, to be sexist is to hold the opinion or belief that women are inferior or incapable of achieving the same as their male counterparts and this can explain the differences they experience as a result. This can include discrimination in the workplace or an ever-increasing pay gap, or prejudice stereotyping in education. Whatever the difference between the sexes, it can be explained by sexism.
• I’m not at all denying the existence of physical and psychological differences between men and women. Typically, “men are more aggressive than women”, “men feel devastated by failure”, “women are more intuitive” and “women tend to be much more sensitive” etc. But the exaggeration of these differences between the sexes has led to increased and extremely harmful stereotypes characterised by sexism.
• To take the opposite approach that these differences are ‘biological’, would almost excuse the fact that they exist. If we put our differences primarily down to things we can’t control, then we’d be justifying some of the awful treatment experienced mainly by women, purely because they were born women - this is wrong.

The debate around preventative war is highly complex, controversial, and relevant to the times we live in.

• “Preventative war occurs when a state launches a military conflict to prevent another state or other international actor from becoming a threat”. Whilst war is a lot of the time the result of a particular crisis or event, preventative wars are a response to “a perception of a potential change in the future balance of power” between a state and its adversaries. The reason some argue against preventative war, is because prevention “can occur during times of relative peace” and consequently disrupt international order. Others insist the threat posed is sometimes too great to ignore.
• Using the Just War Doctrine, preventative war can be justified so long as it satisfies the basic requirements for going to war such as necessity and proportionality. It attempts to deal with three principles - taking a human life is wrong, states must defend their citizens and protecting human life and morals can sometimes require the use of force and violence. Preventative war can arguably be ok in some circumstances.
• One of the most famous and controversial examples of preventative war, was during 2003, when the US led a coalition of war against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein’s regime was developing weapons of mass destruction. Many agreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq and cited it as a justifiable response to the threat posed. On the other side of the debate, many condemned the war. Regardless “that debate is likely to continue for many years”.

Democracy is one example of a governmental system.

• There are several systems of government - democracy, communism, socialism, oligarchy, aristocracy, monarchy, theocracy, colonialism, totalitarianism, military dictatorship etc. Democracy is probably the most sustainable.
• In a democracy, the people can choose their leadership with the primary goal of governing through “fair representation and prevent abuses of power”. Within a democratic society, this system requires discourse, debate, and compromise. The aim is to please the largest number of public interests with the concept of ‘majority rule’.
• A ‘strong democracy’, is characterised by six key features - respect for basic human rights, a multi-party political system, a democratic voting system, respect for the rule of law, democratic governance and citizen participation.

Fear is an emotion and emotion tends to govern our actions even to the extent of maintaining international order.

• “International order is the sum of certain rules and principles established by all countries”. This is something that will be governed by fear, but some would argue this is not the only emotion at play - maybe compassion is involved, or hostility, or peace. There are different factors which will impact the maintenance of international order, suggesting fear is not the only thing that keeps the peace.
• To place this discussion contextually, it’s helpful to consider the work of classical realists such as Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli. For example, Hobbes believed “fear played a crucial role in creating our social institutions”, similarly to how Machiavelli “advised the Prince that it was much safer to be feared than loved”. Evidently, the topic of fear and emotion in maintaining international order, has been around a long time but still remains relevant.
• There is evidence that fear governs our actions and behaviour. Cited as one of the most powerful human emotions, fear can be particularly persuasive. It is acknowledged that whilst some fears are imagined, others are manipulated and “created by those in positions of power”. Fear as a means of social control is not unheard of. It’s an effective way of controlling how people think; sometimes rationally and sometimes not. In summary, when considering international order, emotion is involved.

British Parliamentary is a style of debate which reflects that of debate in British Parliament.

• Just like in the House of Commons, this style of debate is divided into two opposing sides; the ‘proposition’ and the ‘opposition’. Each side of the debate is further split into an ‘opening team’ and ‘closing team’ - all four teams have two speakers.
• In this debate format, each speaker gives a speech of up to five minutes, sometimes seven if requested. The speeches given alternate between proposition and opposition and begin with the first proposition team. The second teams (final four speakers) have to offer new ideas into the debate and cannot repeat what the team before has already said. The last speaker on each side is the ‘summary speaker’ and cannot introduce completely new arguments. They should summarise the debate so far.
• Each team prepares separately and is judged separately using a ranking system of 1-4. The four teams - opening proposition, opening opposition, closing proposition, and closing opposition - are ranked by a panel of judges and the team with the most ‘1’scores, wins.
• This style of debate is regarded as “one of the most popular debating setups in the world” with a rigid structure which allows both sides equal opportunity to express their view.
• British Parliamentary debate is not the only form of debate practiced across the world. There are many debate formats, including: ‘Australian Debating’, ‘European Square Debating’, Offene Parlamentarische Debatte’, ‘Oxford-Style Debating’ and ‘Paris-Style Debating’.

A society where one group entirely dominates, can never be good.

• Whether we’re discussing social domination or political domination, I don’t think in any case, one group should hold that much power. In a social context for example, I don’t think men should dominate in society, nor do I think white people should dominate in society. I believe in the benefits of diverse multiculturalism, whereby members of society integrate and people of all cultures, sexualities, genders, ethnicities etc, can co-exist peacefully. Similarly, our political society should operate under a system of checks and balances, where no one group or person, has enough power to unilaterally enforce or implement certain decisions or control.
• Dominance is described as “using power, coercion and intimidation in group situations”. Used as a tool to gain power, dominance can be dangerous in the wrong hands, which is why I don’t think any one group should have access to it. This is because dominant leaders “tend to exhibit arrogance, superiority and conceit” with “higher than average levels of aggressive, disagreeable, manipulative personality traits”. Therefore, when one group has access to this much power, it can be extremely dangerous.
• A society where a group dominates, is a society which is probably characterised by inequality and mistreatment of some individuals. For example, a society with male domination likely treats women as inferior and consequently treats them unfairly. Male dominance is one of the “most widespread forms of inequality in human history” and stems from the inaccurate assumption that men are for some reason biologically superior to women. Regardless of who the dominating group is, I don’t think a system where they have ultimate power or control is ever a good thing. This seems to go against the principles of a democracy.

Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived - Henry VIII wasn’t mad, he was a Tudor monarch.

• Henry VIII is an infamous monarch of British history. Most, if not all, kids will learn about him through the British education system at some point in time and will therefore be familiar with his particularly outrageous reputation. But whilst he was an awful guy, I don’t think he was mad - I think he was a product of the times.
• We’re discussing the Tudors here, that’s not recent history. Henry VIII reigned from 1509 until his death in 1547, characterising a very different period. This was a time where women held little to no status in society, where the monarch literally built a new Church to divorce his wife and where beheading the woman you’re married to was a standard practice.
• To say Henry VIII was mad, is to suggest he didn’t have full control or knowledge of what he was doing, and I don’t think that’s true. If he reigned today, then he would almost definitely be mad if not insane. But he ruled at a time when there were no rules, and the law did not treat everyone equally. He had ultimate power and controlled through fear and greed. He did some truly awful things and I don’t think it can be excused with the suggestion that he was ‘mad’.
• I am not doubting that Henry VIII was very physically impaired, and his health deteriorated rapidly towards the end of his life. Whilst some could argue this created symptoms and had effects which made him ‘mad’, I don’t think this was the case. He was just an awful man who did some horrible things with his power, and unfortunately because of the times, it was ok, and no one questioned his rule or way of doing things.

Adultery is absolutely reason enough for politicians to resign.

• In Britain, this reality is all too familiar with the recent resignation of Matt Hancock following his affair and consequential breach of the coronavirus restrictions he helped to implement. Hancock’s affair led many to question his morals, character and whether he should have been allowed to continue his role in government.
• In my opinion, adultery tells us a lot about someone. Whilst some would argue that the personal is not political, I would disagree. A politician is elected by their constituents to serve and represent the needs of the public. They have a duty to do this morally, legitimately, and responsibly. If you can’t remain faithful to one individual, how can we expect you to be honest with an entire population?
• There is a big difference between being fired and resigning. To take the example again of Matt Hancock - there were two elements to his eventual resignation. Firstly, he cheated on his wife. Secondly, he very obviously and controversially, broke the explicit coronavirus guidelines, which he helped put in place. The utter hypocrisy of his actions still baffles me. With this particular case, I don’t think resignation should ever have come into it, because Boris Johnson should have fired him; not for his affair, but for the rules that he so evidently broke.
• However, in instances where the law has not been broken, I think it becomes difficult to justify/rationalise cases of adultery with firing, and therefore resignation should be the result. If a politician cheats on his or her wife or husband, I think it’s awful and completely immoral, but it isn’t a fireable offence. And it probably shouldn’t be because this sets a precedent for future firings simply because one doesn’t agree with someone’s way of living. To some adultery isn’t that bad.
• It is in cases such as these, where I think resigning is the correct response. I personally wouldn’t trust a cheater with representing my needs or morals, nor would I want a cheater running this country - oh wait... It’s ironic isn’t it. We’re discussing the morality of politicians in this country, whilst our own Prime Minister continues to hold an office, I think, he’s beneath and doesn’t deserve.
• To summarise, adultery is definitely a legitimate reason for politicians to resign.

It’s not uncommon to view politics and power as synonymous.

• Considered one of the ‘founding fathers’ of realism, Hans Morgenthau defined power as a “man’s control over the minds and actions of other men” and stated that all men are driven to achieve such dominance. The ‘struggle for power’, is described as “universal in time and space and an undeniable fact of experience”. The desire for power is a key element of politics and international politics more widely.
• At a basic level, a struggle for power, is a situation where two or more people or groups, compete for influence with the aim of establishing power and control. Historically, there are several instances of contests for power, regardless of the social, economic, or political conditions of the time.
• Morgenthau’s theory centres around the understanding that power is the dominant goal in international politics and dictates national interest. He maintained that “all state actions seek to keep, demonstrate, or increase power”, and called for the recognition of the nature and limits of power. He encouraged the use of “traditional methods of diplomacy, including compromise”. The work of Hans Morgenthau sought to explain and understand the dynamics of power which facilitate the administration of control in society.

Multiculturalism builds society, it certainly doesn’t destroy it.

• Multiculturalism is described as “the manner in which a given society deals with cultural diversity” and can occur both at a national and community level. The most common way a multicultural society is formed, is through immigration whereby people come to live permanently in a foreign country. As immigration has diversified society and, in my opinion, enriched the lives of those living it, many people massively disagree which has caused huge tensions over recent years.
• In principle, the idea of a multicultural society is very positive. It should include tolerance of different cultures, more understanding and respect for different traditions, an appreciation for the benefits of diversity and freedom to speak your native language. However, many societies across the world unfortunately don’t demonstrate very much acceptance to those they deem a threat to their way of life.
• Multiculturalism creates diversity and brings different cultures together whilst enabling them to co-exist. It allows for learning and progress; children are given the opportunity to grow up with a greater understanding of different beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours. Having expanded their knowledge of others, children are thought to consequently become more tolerant of difference. It’s important to teach kids about multiculturalism from a young age.
• The reason some would argue multiculturalism ‘destroys’ society, is because not everyone agrees that it’s a good thing. Some people don’t agree with immigration nor the action of helping refugees flee war-torn countries. Many people are hostile towards immigrants because of the myths perpetuated often by the right; ‘they’re stealing our jobs!’ This results in prejudice and harmful stereotyping where, people suffer intolerance and mistreatment because of the thing that makes them ‘different’, be that race, religion, sexuality, or political beliefs.
• I would argue it isn’t multiculturalism that is bad for society, but instead intolerance which ultimately threatens to destroy it. I think that when people become fearful, they tend to respond with anger and hostility, which makes it very difficult for different cultures to merge and immigrants to assimilate.

Spanking is both physically and psychologically damaging to children and I would absolutely class it as child abuse.

• Child abuse is defined by the Metropolitan Police, as occurring “when anyone under the age of 18 is either being harmed or not properly looked after”; this is separated into four types of abuse - physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect. In my opinion, ‘spanking’ or any kind of hitting, counts as child abuse, and should be treated as such.
• Spanking has long been excused as a form of child discipline, which seeks to teach a child not to repeat an incorrect behaviour via a physical punishment. It is more common in some cultures than others. For example, in the USA the practice of spanking is used and accepted a lot more than somewhere like New Zealand, where it has been outlawed. A shocking 81% of Americans think spanking is an appropriate form of punishment!
• It has been proved that being spanked as a child can have extremely negative repercussions, including increased aggression, antisocial behaviour, physical injuries, and mental health problems. I don’t think there are ever any excuses for spanking a child or inflicting any kind of physical or emotional pain. It’s wrong and in my opinion, demonstrates bad parenting.
• Further to this, spanking has been shown to negatively impact someone’s ability to form healthy relationships later in life. This is largely to do with the fact that one of the few memories people have from their childhood, is times they were hit. Children who experience violence at home, are more likely to end up being violent themselves, especially in relationships. This is explained by the fact that children observe their parents resorting to violence, and consequently end up using it later in life as a coping mechanism.
• A study published in 2017, asked over 8,000 adults aged 19 to 97 about their experiences with spanking as children, and found that those who were spanked, were more likely to drink heavily, use drugs and attempt suicide. This demonstrated a correlation between being a victim of abuse and later suffering detrimental consequences.
• Using the definition cited above, it is pretty evident that spanking is child abuse. Hitting a defenceless child is not punishment, it’s abuse and to call it anything else is, in my opinion, to be complicit. A child growing up thinking that it is ok to use violence as a form of punishment, can only be a bad thing for society.

It shouldn’t, but it does. Our names mould the assumptions of others around our characters, personalities, and capabilities, consequently influencing who we become.

• It has been found that your name is associated with several later characteristics you develop. Research studies have established that a person’s name is related to how people see them. This revealed that there are common perceptions between people’s physical characteristics, and assumptions of their names. At a basic level, this demonstrates the fact that people are ultimately judged for a name that they did not choose, which is going to impact who you become.
• Arguably, each name is associated with certain characteristics, behaviours, and features which can then often unfairly impact how they are viewed and treated. This has led to the formation of stereotypes and inaccurate assumptions that can damage someone’s access to opportunities.
• Whilst name discrimination is completely wrong and illegal, it does unfortunately happen in many industries. For example, this can be as simple as the alphabetical position of your name on registers which can impact how you are subconsciously treated by a teacher or boss. Moreover, your name can also signal your gender which highlights another form of discrimination. In a research study where, identical CVs were distributed to employers, differing only by traditionally male and female names, gender discrimination was found to exist both ways. In typically male jobs, such as engineering, those with typically male names were more likely to be hired over females. Similarly, in stereotypically female jobs, such as administration, the researchers found that more women were hired over men. Research supports the fact that your name does largely impact the likelihood that you are hired, which I would argue shapes the kind of person you become.
• I think that whether it’s how we’re treated at school, or the career path we end up taking, the name we’re given at birth, does impact the assumptions people form about us. Therefore, I would consider it accurate to state that your name does influence who you become - whether I agree that it should or not.

Freedom of Speech is an important and absolutely vital aspect of any democratic society, but we should be aware of those who use it as an excuse to defend some truly awful behaviour.

• Whilst there are differing definitions of free speech, it is ultimately agreed that it is about “the legal right to express or seek out ideas and opinions freely without fear of censorship”. This is part of the concept of ‘freedom of expression’, which more broadly concerns the fact that individuals have the right to express themselves however they wish. In principle, there is nothing wrong with this. But this right is often abused.
• In the UK, as part of the Human Rights Act, Article 10 protects the right of the individual to hold their own opinions and express them freely without interference from the government or the state. This includes “the right to express your views aloud or through published articles, television, works of art and the internet”. The law also protects the rights of the audience to receive information from others. But there are restrictions to this right, and so there should be.
• For example, public authorities have the power to restrict this right if they can defend their actions as lawful to protect national security and prevent crime or protect the rights of others etc. There are more conditions that can be found here. It is ultimately agreed in this country (the UK), that we should all have access to freedom of speech and expression, but also understand that this right can be taken away if expression breaches beyond speech into hate.
• There should be limits on freedom of speech once it becomes ugly. Something to consider though, is who determines the boundaries of this right and whether any one person should ever wield enough power to ever take this right away. For example, freedom of speech can mean different things in different cultures and has produced differing standards of freedom and liberty. Freedom of speech should mean the same thing universally and I can only hope one day that I live in a world where it does.

Organ donation is unbelievably important, but we must be careful about labelling such decisions as mandatory.

• The reason I am mixed on this statement, is because I think it becomes quite messy when we invoke the term ‘mandatory’. It can be difficult to engage people in an issue, once you make it compulsory that they partake. For example, both vaccinations and voting are two social issues which have sparked numerous debates about civil liberties and what it means to live in a democracy. Whilst I strongly support organ donation, vaccinations, and voting, I also recognise and accept the fact that I don’t have the legal power or right to enforce them.
• We should do absolutely everything we can to encourage people to become organ donors, have their vaccinations and exercise their democratic right to vote. But I really believe that this is as far as it should go, because I don’t know if I want to live in a society where any one person or group has that much power over my existence. Although I would completely be on board with all three of these things, I don’t have the right to determine that decision for everyone else.
• Regarding organ donation, as of May 2020 in England, the law was changed to adopt an ‘opt-out’ system, whereby you are automatically an organ donor when you die, unless you are under 18, you have opted out, or you are in an excluded group. This basically means that unless you explicitly say you would like to be removed from the organ donor list, you will be an organ donor. In my opinion, this is the best system for a few reasons.
• Having an ‘opt-out’ system is the most effective way to organise organ donation, in my opinion. This is because it filters out the problem of people who are simply ‘lazy’ or ‘uninformed’ such that they don’t know they are supposed to register. Part of the problem with the ‘opt-in’ system, was that people often didn’t know they had to register and sometimes assumed they were automatically included, which led to a reduction in donors purely because people were unaware of how it works.
• I also think the ‘opt-out’ system is the most democratic way of addressing this topic, because people still have the choice if they wish, but they must actively make this decision themselves. This system isn’t a ‘mandatory’ way of getting organ donors, but instead opens up a discussion about its importance and highlights the absolute necessity for organ donation in this country.

Deciding someone is savage or civilised is going to depend on how you define savage and civilised; some would argue these conflicting characterisations are proof that differing cultures exist.

• When initially voting on this statement, I disagreed because from my perspective, there are definitely savage and civilised people. But then after reading some of the opinions already posted, my understanding changed slightly. This is because standards of ‘savage’ and ‘civilised’ are going to change depending on who you ask and where you ask.
• “Culture is the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, encompassing language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts”. This explicitly suggests that definitions of savageness and civilisation, are determined within cultures; therefore, perhaps different cultures are all that exists.
• I think the reason I initially disagreed with the statement, was because I was looking at it from a unitary perspective. I would consider myself as someone who lives in a civilised country with law and order. However, this is not the only type of society or ‘culture’ to exist. Whilst I think savage and civilised people exist, this is because of where I have grown up and the education, I have received about what it means to be savage or civilised.
• But to expand my understanding, leads me to consider the fact that characterisations such as these can mean different things. Therefore, it could make more sense to understand behaviour and societal characterisations, through identifying the different cultures to exist, rather than assuming everyone uses the same yardstick.

I’m a feminist and a huge advocate for the rights of women, but I’m also not naive to the uncomfortable truths of how women are treated in today’s society.

• The reason I ultimately think men should protect women, is because unfortunately the law doesn’t. It shouldn’t be necessary for men to protect women, nor should women not be able to protect themselves, but that isn’t a realistic understanding of the world as it currently exists. I think it’s ok to want equality for men and women, whilst also appreciating that it will require effort from both sexes.
• The recent murder of Sarah Everard in the UK is evident enough of the fact that society is anything but a safe place for women, and began an important discussion in this country, about why women are still so far from feeling protected. This case was particularly awful and disturbing as her murderer was a police officer. She was out walking at night, and although she was wearing bright, reflective clothing and made sure to stick to well-lit streets (as we're advised to), she was murdered. Her death provoked many people to reconsider why women remain so vulnerable in society, particularly at night, despite doing everything we’re told to keep ourselves safe.
• I wish women didn’t need protecting, but to make a change, men must be part of the conversation and accept the fact that they are privileged. They don’t need to be walked home to get there safe, they don’t have to consider what they wear on a night out at fear of being held responsible if something happened, they don’t have to be suspicious about meeting someone you haven’t met before on a first date. It’s the harsh reality for women, which is why men must step up to protect us when we can’t protect ourselves.
• I guess the main reason I think men should protect women, is because the opposite would suggest that men shouldn’t protect women, and that seems very extreme and unrealistic considering the privilege they hold in society.

“All Lives Matter” is a deeply divisive slogan but understanding why is vital to overcoming its assumptions.

• This rhetoric has developed as a result of the common practice to respond to ‘Black Lives Matter’ with the argument that ‘All Lives Matter’. Ultimately, this attitude is because of misinformation and a lack of understanding about what BLM really stands for.
• There is an assumption, that saying ‘Black Lives Matter’ is an attempt to promote the interests of Black lives over all others, which is completely inaccurate. BLM is not about anyone’s lives being more important, but rather aims to highlight the fact that huge inequality currently exists as a result of racism and violence against Black people.
• This is particularly true in the United States at the moment, where BLM is gaining more and more recognition by attempting to highlight the systemic racism that facilitates police brutality. The infamous murder of George Floyd, by a police officer in May 2020, sparked BLM protests all over America. Those responding to these protests with the rebuttal that ‘All Lives Matter’, were effectively downplaying the legitimate experiences of the Black community.
• Therefore, by saying ‘All Lives Matter’, many think this detracts and diminishes the valid claims of racial injustice experienced by a huge proportion of the Black community. It is argued that this is harmful, because to be silent is to be complicit. In other words, to deny the existence of racial injustice, is to obstruct progress to achieving equality.

Toughness isn’t determined by sex; sometimes women are tougher than men, and sometimes men are tougher than women.

• Characterised as being “able to withstand great strain without tearing or breaking; strong and resilient”, the term tough can be interpreted both physically and mentally.
• As a result of the patriarchal assumption that women are the weaker sex, many harmful stereotypes have been formed which has negatively affected both perceptions of men who aren’t ‘strong enough’ and women who are too dominant.
• There are arguments on all sides which you’re obviously going to adhere to dependent on beliefs of your own strength. For example, regarding physical strength, one may argue that men are stronger. They can generally run further, they can lift more, they can build more muscle etc. But on the other hand, women experience periods once a month which come with all sorts of emotional and physical challenges. Women also experience smear tests, pregnancy, childbirth etc.
• When considering mental and emotional strength, society’s expectations have had a large impact on how we view toughness. For example, there are expectations on men not to show emotion, which can lead to internalised mental health problems and unfortunately an increase in male suicide rates. Therefore, it can be dangerous to have hierarchies about who is the toughest. We don’t need even more reason to divide men and women in society.
• So clearly there are different examples of both physical and mental strength that separate men and women - but how can we definitively determine who is tougher? We can’t. Perceptions of ‘toughness’ will always be based on our own experiences.

Britain’s Prime Minister is racist; I can’t defend some of the awful things he has said.

• Labelling someone ‘racist’ is an extremely weighty accusation and one that requires evidence, which is why I ultimately believe Boris Johnson is. Upon reading this statement, my first reaction was, “well he’s said racist things, but is it bad enough to be racist” which completely contradicts itself. If he’s said racist things, denied the existence of racism, refused to support footballers taking the knee and made excuses for his derogatory remarks, then he’s racist and we shouldn’t be hesitant about calling this out because otherwise we are complicit.
• Describing the people of Africa as “flag-waving piccaninnies” with “watermelon smiles” in 2002, Johnson himself made some awful comments whilst referencing the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair’s, visit to Africa. Deemed racist by many, Britain’s Prime Minister continues to deny his previous comments as racist or apologise for his remarks, instead insisting that they had been “taken out of context”.
• And it doesn’t stop there - in 2018, Johnson compared Muslim women who wear burqas, to “letter boxes” and a particular female student as a “bank robber”. Islamophobia is something he has been accused of before, making it even more alarming to me that this country elected him Prime Minister in July of 2019. Johnson has only made this country more divided and encouraged people to think that it has become acceptable to be so disgustingly discriminatory.
• After the awful racism endured by many Black England football players after the Euro 2020 loss to Italy, Boris Johnson condemned how “appalling” the abuse was. However, many people in this country cannot get past the utter hypocrisy of such comments from the same man who said the problem with Africa is that Britain is “not in charge anymore”. Boris Johnson has said some truly awful and racist things - I think that makes him racist.

I ultimately think that proportional representation, despite its faults, should replace FPTP in the UK.

• Using proportional representation in the UK, would be much more democratic than what we currently have. Rather than being stuck with a system that excludes smaller parties from having a say, moving towards a system of proportional representation would stop a repeated cycle where votes are wasted.
• My main issue with First Past The Post, is that it often doesn’t allow for new candidates to stand for positions in government. To take the example of my constituency, I have had the same Member of Parliament since I can remember. More specifically, since 2010 (I was 9!!). So as long as I have been interested and active in politics, my local area has only ever seen one representative in government because this country uses a system which facilitates the existence of ‘safe seats’. I really don’t like the idea that constituencies across the UK stay the same purely based on party allegiance, rather than through any acknowledgement of what is happening more broadly in the party.
• The concept of ‘safe seats’ can also reduce voter-turnout due to a public reluctance to cast a vote that probably won’t have a difference to the overall result. Obviously, the problem with this is that voters become disengaged and fail to participate in the democratic process because they can’t see how it’s worth their time or effort. This is a real problem, and one of the reasons I’m so passionate about getting younger people involved in voting.
• Adopting a system of proportional representation, would allow the public to feel as though their votes count and their voices have been heard. I think this would ultimately benefit voter turnout and see more people become actively engaged in exercising their democratic right. As far as I’m concerned, although it has faults, proportional representation is the fairest way to elect a leader in the UK.

Domestic violence is not a male nor a female crime.

• Women can be abused, women can be the abuser, men can be abused, and men can be the abuser. Treating domestic violence as a gendered crime, ultimately devalues the experiences of some over others - I am not denying this. But it also cannot be ignored that women statistically suffer domestic abuse at an increased rate over men.
• For example, in England and Wales for the year ending March 2020, it was estimated that 1.6million women and 757,000 men aged 16-74, experienced domestic abuse in the last year. Described as “significantly more likely” to be victims of all kinds of domestic abuse, women are disproportionately affected by this type of violence. We shouldn’t overlook this.
• This does not mean however, that we should in any way ignore the fact that domestic abuse happens to men as well. This is particularly important, since it can be harder to identify with men, even though the threat can still be extremely serious. Domestic violence is characterised by an imbalance of power, which although demonstrated more by men over women, can also happen vice-versa.
• More of an effort should be made to understand the complexities of domestic violence against men to challenge the assumption that it doesn’t exist. But I disagree with the idea that this actively disservices male victims or promotes prejudice, because I don’t think it helps move the conversation forward.

Capitalism is an unfair system characterised by greed, inequality, and undistributed wealth .

• Capitalism has been defined as “an economic system in which a country’s trade, industry and profits are controlled by private companies, instead of by the people whose time and labor powers those companies”; in other words, it’s extremely problematic.
• The opinion you hold on capitalism, depends largely on who you are and the role you play in society - for example, a worker or a boss? For those who own businesses and employ workers, capitalism is an economically effective and sustainable system. Alternatively, for those who are the workers, capitalism breeds inequality and exploitation.
• Supporters of capitalism hold the view that greed is good for business and consequently drives innovation and financial development. In theory this should mean that when businesses prosper, so do those who work for them. But the problem is that this doesn’t happen a lot of the time and wealth is not distributed. Capitalism divides society by class and wealth resulting in the unequal treatment of the working-class over the ‘elites’. I think the idea that capitalism is the only practical solution to structuring society, is a myth.
• Capitalism is immoral and encourages the best of humanity to resort to greed and selfishness. It’s also anti-democratic because power and control is dictated by the wealthiest members of society. With poverty as it currently exists today, I cannot subscribe to the argument that capitalism is good for society. Half of the world’s population - more than 3 billion people!! - live on less than $2 a day. Is that ethical?

To pull the lever or not to pull the lever, that is the question - and a really horrid one at that.

• The reason I’m against this statement, is because I don’t think this hypothetical scenario tells us anything about someone’s morals or character. This is because either option results in innocent death; pull the lever and you are making the conscience decision to kill 1 person or don’t pull the lever and let 5 innocent people die.
• I know this is looking into it deeply, but I don’t have the right to decide who lives and who dies. If I pull the lever, I’m deciding to save the lives of 5 in return for killing 1. And although numerically that preserves more lives, who am I to determine that those 5 lives are any more important than the 1 life?
• You can also add lots of ifs and buts into this scenario which inevitably alter your answer; What if it was 5 prisoners and 1 Nobel prize winner? What if it was 5 old people and 1 child? What if it was 5 ordinary citizens and 1 member of the Royal Family? The point is, the decision to pull or not to pull the lever, is obviously going to change depending on who you ask because everyone, rightly, has different opinions, different morals, and different beliefs about right or wrong. But for me personally, I don’t know if I could make the decision to kill 1 to save 5, because that would suggest the value of life is statistical, and I don’t know if it is.

I cannot morally get on board with the argument that it is right to pay for sex.

• This statement uncovers a really complex and highly controversial debate about sex work and its repercussions. In my opinion, the sex industry is exploitative and undermines the work of so many feminists to allow women to be more than just their bodies.
• Women are intelligent, ambitious, strong, successful, educated, independent beings with the ability and knowledge to achieve anything they want to. So, why must they be reduced to their physical and sexual attributes.
• The concept of paying for sex, is contextually difficult to defend. The ‘sale of sex’ facilitates the awful and deeply abominable sex trafficking of often underaged girls; this is particularly prevalent in underdeveloped countries. The fact that there is a demand for sex work, means it is exploited and abused such that a lot of the time it isn’t consensual. This creates a huge imbalance and increases sexual violence towards women - especially low-income women who often feel they have no choice but to financially depend on this kind of work.
• There is also evidence to suggest that prostitution can cause long-term psychological damage which some have claimed facilitates sexual violence against women.
• This is an extremely controversial debate and is highly emotional. I’m not going to pretend I understand the depths of prostitution nor have read widely on the case for sex work. But at first glance of the statement, combined with my personal morals and attitudes on the subject, I don’t think that sex is something that should be paid for.

I don’t know if the length of campaign season in the United States is democratic or extreme.

• This opens a really interesting debate about how democracy works and whether or not it is wrong or necessary to have such a long period for campaigning. To take the example of the 2016 US presidential election, the campaign period was 597 days old by Election Day in November. This is particularly long in comparison to Britain where the cycle lasts 139 days or France where the candidates are only supposed to spend 2 weeks campaigning.
• Arguments for - making campaign season shorter in the US, would help encourage more American people to engage in the voting process and focus more on policy as opposed to popularity. Long campaigning periods historically affect the attitudes and motivations of voters and encourage divisiveness and rivalry between candidates. Debates often become opportunities for personal attacks and dissuade the American people from wanting to participate. Fundraising is also extremely excessive due to the amount of time needed to sustain staff and advertising etc.
• Arguments against - on the other hand, there is an argument that long presidential campaigns are part of America’s character and part of the country’s democratic process. Comprised of primaries, conventions, rallies, and debates, they are all important parts of deciding who to vote for. Each of these gives voters another opportunity to see the kind of person they’re voting for and ultimately decide if they want to elect them as the next leader of the free world. Having a long campaign season allows candidates multiple occasions to attract new voters and considering the size and scale of the United States, it isn’t really any surprise it takes so long.

Nuclear weapons are unbelievably dangerous, destructive and should not exist in this world.

• What I don’t understand, is how a weapon with the capability and intention of wiping out millions of humans, could possibly make the world any safer a place. Many people hold the argument that everyone having nuclear weapons prevents or deters nations from using theirs at fear of retaliation. But I don’t agree.
• By simply existing, nuclear weapons have the potential to take and destroy an unimaginable number of lives, and I just can’t contemplate why or how this would ever be ok or justifiable. The threat posed to humanity is just incomprehensible and especially in the times we’re currently living in, frighteningly possible.
• Trump vs. North Korea - in a series of outbursts projected by Donald Trump into the twitter verse, talk of nuclear weapons was unnervingly colloquial. After North Korea’s leader admitted that his country’s nuclear weapons could reach anywhere in the US and signalled the nuclear weapon he keeps on his desk, the 45th President of the United States responded with a tweet describing his nuclear button as ‘bigger and more powerful’. I found this terrifying. No human should ever possess this amount of power.
• We should learn from history: namely the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities and ultimately killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people - most of whom were civilians. Pictures of those scenes are horrifying. Completely horrifying.

The universe came about through the Big Bang, not God.

• The ‘Big Bang Theory’ is an explanation about how the word was formed and centres around the idea that around 13.7 billion years ago, an explosive expansion of extremely hot matter started and is still happening to this day. I think this is the most logical and scientific explanation for how the universe came to be.
• The main reason I have absolutely no cause to believe God created the universe, it because there is not a shred of evidence suggesting so. The whole concept of God creating the world, is based solely on belief and undermines the work and findings of so many highly intelligent academics.
• Stephen Hawking - arguably one of the most intelligent and fascinating figures of my lifetime, Hawking said “there is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe” and I agree. I think something as intricate and complex as the beginning of the universe, can only be explained by science.
• Evidence exists: I’m not going to undermine its credibility by attempting to explain it, but I know that proof exists and trust the scientists and astrologists who have made such discoveries. There are countless theories and equations and studies into how the universe came to be, but God being involved is not one I consider possible.

Justice is an extremely important feature of society, but who am I to rank it as the most important?

• I have a real passion for social justice and wholeheartedly agree that it is an important requirement for society. But I don’t know if I would make it the most important because there are other elements of significance, like equality, tolerance, freedom, security.
• Justice is important because it is about enforcing the law and managing public order. This extends to preventing, controlling, and punishing crime - all essential components for the formation of a civilised society. We must have law and order; anarchy does not work.
• Otherwise described as “fairness in the way people are dealt with”, justice is about upholding the law and committing to the principles that build a society. This is important.
• But and it’s a big but - justice does not mean the same thing everywhere, nor does it come with the same assumptions and consequences. For example, in parts of the US, the death penalty is used in the name of ‘justice’, and I cannot agree that this is ok or acceptable. Similarly, being gay is still not ok in many parts of the world, and as a result can come with some awful punishments again in the name of ‘justice’.
• It is for this reason that I cannot fully get behind this argument. For me, justice is important - but that’s easier for me to say when I live in a democratic country with free speech. This is not the same for everyone, so I can’t claim that justice is the most important requirement for all societies when some countries abuse the trust and moral responsibilities that come with the administration of justice.

It isn’t right to kill a human being but can be a necessity in very extreme situations.

• It is wrong to kill. I do not agree with the death penalty nor the principle of ‘an eye for an eye’. So, 99.9999999% of the time I would argue that it is never right to kill a human being. But there can be exceptions in extremely specific cases.
• For example, self-defence or killing to stop someone from taking a life are a couple of the explicit scenarios where I think it’s not as simple as obeying ‘do not kill’. I think this comes down to circumstance and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Situations that come to mind are mass shootings or terrorist attacks where I think it can be reasonable to use excessive force to prevent further atrocities.
• I want to briefly explain the case of the Lindt Café siege in Sydney, Australia in December 2014, when an Islamic extremist held a café full of people hostage for 16 hours, eventually claiming the lives of two innocent people. I remember watching this unfold on the news and couldn’t take my eyes off what was happening. The attack culminated in police fatally shooting the attacker - a decision, I think, was necessary to prevent any further deaths of civilians.
• Therefore, I think it’s ok to believe that killing is wrong (as I do), but also recognise that sometimes it’s the only way of preventing further deaths.

Corporations and politics do not mix well.

• Sums of money paid by corporations to political campaigns are effectively bribes disguised as ‘donations’. If they were truly donations, they would not be accompanied by the expectation of policy change and political favours.
• Corporate money in politics is a particularly controversial topic. Morally, there is a lot wrong with the concept that companies and corporations with a lot of money, can buy into a politician or party and then benefit from their position of power. This can be on different scales - donations can be made to smaller politicians, like those running for Congress, or similarly bigger politicians, like those running for President of the United States.
• For example, once elected to the office, Donald Trump approved the construction of an oil pipeline, which was particularly controversial considering the climate crisis. During his 2016 Presidential campaign, Trump took a lot of donations from oil companies - it’s estimated that the energy sector contributed nearly 1 million dollars to his campaign. This obviously poses a considerable ethical problem.
• Money in politics is a real problem. It has been for a long time and will probably continue to be while the American political system remains as it is. Buying political influence is extremely wrong and is why I agree that corporations should not be able to donate to political campaigns.

CRT is an important part of understanding the systemic and institutional racial inequalities that exist and is necessary to improve society.

• Critical Race Theory is an approach to understanding inequalities that exist, through an acknowledgment that racism is not just about individual prejudice but is embedded in the structures of society. This theory involves the argument that race is a [“culturally invented category used to oppress people of colour”](, https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory) which is an explanation for why racism exists as it does today.
• Originating in the United States during the 1970s, CRT was developed by activists in an attempt to understand progress or lack thereof in the Civil Rights movement. This was based around the idea that systemic and institutionalised factors of the legal system were facilitating the race-based oppression of people of colour.
• I think Critical Race Theory is necessary to improve society, because it ultimately creates awareness around the racism that still exists today. I think it’s important to appreciate and understand the systemic inequalities that exist and how white privilege has contributed and allowed for this.
• To take the example of the education system, there is an argument for the fact that institutional racism is embedded in schools. This can include bias surrounding teaching, punishment, academic expectations etc. Therefore, I think it’s vital we educate the educators to be aware of their own, often implicit, bias and work to dismantle the institutional racism that exists.

I think the suspicious circumstances around Jeffrey Epstein’s death only begin to touch the surface.

• The Jeffrey Epstein case is very odd, and I’d argue the sheer magnitude of this scandal is yet (if ever) to be uncovered completely. I think there are discrepancies in the autopsy and confusion surrounding his supposed ‘suicide’.
• The case for suicide: It is no great surprise that one would think Epstein killed himself considering the charges he was facing and the horrendous nature of his crimes. As well as this, Epstein had previously attempted to kill himself - although surveillance proving this is now allegedly missing - which adds weight to the argument that he would try again.
• The case for murder: In the events leading up to his death, Epstein had been taken off suicide watch just a day before he was found dead, which is odd. In the autopsy, it was ruled that he had died by hanging and had consequently broken his neck. But what is particularly odd about this theory, is that it changed. Initially, the medical examiner Dr Kristin Roman, who conducted the autopsy, did not classify the death as a suicide and instead listed it as ‘pending’ - a few days later this was changed to suicide due to additional evidence; not that anyone knows what this evidence was. As well as this, the two guards in charge of watching his cell that night conveniently falsified reports and have since been charged with conspiracy to defraud the government.
• Ultimately, I believe Jeffrey Epstein was probably murdered. Questions have been raised surrounding the involvement of other famous people in some awful crimes and I think some people in very high places wanted him quiet. Obviously this is just an opinion.
• The best source I have found for details surrounding the death of Epstein, is the report by 60 minutes.***CONTENT WARNING: just be aware before viewing, that this article includes pictures from the autopsy which some may find disturbing.

Life can have plenty of meaning without God; it’s rude to suggest otherwise.

• The suggestion that life can’t have meaning without religion is ridiculous and offensive. As an atheist, I obviously do not believe in God along with 41% of the British people and so this makes no sense.
• I don’t agree at all that to have purpose and ‘meaning’ in your life, you must believe in God or a higher power. I mean that would literally suggest 41% of British people currently don’t have meaning in their life, purely because they don’t believe in God.
• Having meaning in life does not just refer to religion - this could mean pursuing career goals, being a parent, travelling the world, owning a house, achieving a university degree, having a family etc. The list is endless. People find meaning and purpose in so many aspects of life; for some that is religion and God, but for a huge number of people, that is not the case.
• Another reason I disagree with this, is because not everyone needs ‘meaning’ to reach fulfilment in life. Many people don’t feel the need to identify what it is in their life that gives them purpose - and that’s ok.

’Man Up’ is bad advice and just makes it even harder for men to display emotion.

• I don’t agree with the phrase ‘Man Up’ - it’s unhelpful, dangerous and sets unrealistic and unfair expectations. Considering the fact that in 2018, males accounted for ¾ of suicide deaths, I think it’s clear that society is going wrong somewhere when it comes to the expectations we place on men and the messages we are sending about what a ‘real man’ represents. The phrase ‘man up’ just contributes to this harmful stereotype.
• The phrase comes from the stereotypical expectation that a man should be a certain kind of way - he should be a provider, he should be a protector, he should be strong, and he shouldn’t show emotion. All these pressures have resulted in a dangerous expectation and when they can’t conform, a lot of men feel like they have failed.
• ‘Man Up’ tells men that they are not man enough and that they are not what society needs them to be. This comes with a lot of shame and embarrassment which unfortunately sets unrealistic expectations and can have detrimental effects on male mental health.

Corporal punishment is completely wrong and does not work.

• I’m against corporal punishment; it’s immoral, ineffective and makes no sense. How can anyone think punishing bad behaviour with more bad behaviour is going to make anything better?
• Defined as “the physical punishment of people, especially of children, by hitting them”, corporal punishment covers a lot of violent actions - from spanking or washing mouths out with soap, many parents still use extreme, physical punishments to discipline their children and it’s really not ok.
• Not only do I not think it works, but I think it demonstrates an inability to parent properly. If the only way you can teach your child how to behave is by hitting them, then you probably shouldn’t have children. You wouldn’t slap someone in the street if you didn’t agree with something they did, so why on earth is it acceptable to inflict that upon a defenceless child? It makes no sense.
• It has also been found that corporal punishment can have detrimental repercussions on children. From behavioural problems to mental illness, it’s no surprise that violence has consequences.
• I find it particularly interesting, that in a study by Murray Straus at the University of New Hampshire, it was found that college students are more likely to break the law, if they were spanked as children. This proves a direct correlation between experiencing violence as a child and going on to be a violent adult. But how can we be surprised? Hitting children or punishing them by physical means, teaches them that it’s ok to do so - but it’s not.

Nationalism has become an extreme right-wing ideology and is definitely oversold.

• Nationalism has taken over a lot in recent years accompanied by an increase in support for right-wing groups and ideologies, and this isn’t a coincidence. This idea of solely devoting yourself to your country and its customs can be dangerous. It comes with a reluctance to accept new traditions and outward hostility towards immigration. This is why it’s oversold.
• Both the election of Donald Trump and the Brexit referendum in 2016 encouraged the emergence of far-right populism across the US and the UK, with many citing ‘nationalism’ as the reason for this.
• Ultimately, I think nationalism is oversold because of the consequences that come with it. Trump’s presidency saw America reach new levels of polarisation and the Brexit referendum equally divided Britain - and yet nothing was achieved.

The Suffragette movement is why I believe rioting can be justified.

• Rioting is defined as “a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons” which is why I think it can sometimes be justified.
• During the earlier part of the 20th century, the Suffragettes fought relentlessly for women’s equality, marking a really significant time in British political history. Their actions were characterised by uprising and protest - from hunger strikes to destroying artwork and arson to smashing shop windows, the work of the Suffragettes was extreme but unbelievably important for women achieving the right to vote. Therefore, I think rioting can be justified.
• Can be is an important distinction though because I don’t think it’s always the case. For example, rioting at the US Capitol in January 2021 was not justified. This was an attempt to overthrow the government and revolt against the Democratic process that saw Joe Biden appointed as President. The Suffragettes used violence to fight for their equality, but we will never know whether this would have happened without their actions, so I wouldn't want to suggest it can never be justified.
• Justification is subjective and so I think opinions about rioting are always going to vary depending on who you ask. But for me, I think that rioting can be because of my admiration for the Suffragette movement. It represents a part of history I am proud of and consider particularly relevant to my position as a young female today.

Feminism has problems but is not a racist ideology.

• Feminism is about the fight for women’s equality and the basic principle that we should have equal rights to men. But although the movement has made significant progress over the last decade, this doesn’t mean it’s without fault.
• There are often debates within the feminist movement about how representative it really is of all women and whether this can do more harm than good. Black women have spoken up in the past about the exclusivity that feminism can sometimes exude and how this has therefore resulted in their disassociation with the movement.
• Problems exist within the feminist movement and often by only focusing on the historical oppression of white women, feminists have failed to consider the key role that race plays in the inequality that exists. But I don’t think this makes it a racist ideology. Nor is it particularly helpful to give it such a weighted label.
• However, the feminist movement must do more to highlight the importance of inclusivity and promote intersectionality such that more people feel able to identify with the core principles of feminism.

TL; DR - Expecting immigrants to assimilate is unhelpful and reductionist.

• I accept the fact that many people want immigrants entering the country to respect and adapt to their customs and traditions. There isn’t anything particularly wrong with this. But what I do have a problem with, is the enforced expectation for immigrants to assimilate, alongside the consequential exclusion of their cultural heritage.
• This is obvious when considering immigration to the United States, where a strong allegiance to American exceptionalism prevails. The American people have a huge commitment and love for their country and ultimately many believe this makes them superior and unlike any other nation on earth. This has resulted in much of the right-wing of America, being extremely anti-immigration and therefore against the integration of new people to ‘their land’.
• With regard to citizenship in the US, acceptance is particularly specific and has a reputation for being somewhat ridiculous. An organisation called the Immigrant Archive Project took to the streets of Miami, to test out the difficulty of some of these citizenship test questions and the results really make you think about the difficulties involved in assimilation for so many immigrants. It can be found here if you want to check it out.
• There isn’t anything wrong with encouraging immigrants to learn the language for example, to widen their job prospects and allow them to engage and participate as part of society, but to demand that they do so seems completely wrong and unjustified.
• Assimilation can bring with it prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination which in itself can make the process of entering a new country difficult. I think we need to work towards compassion and participation as opposed to assimilation and the preservation of a singular national identity.

TL; DR - Don’t get me wrong, Trump was bad - like really, really bad. But I don’t know if he was the absolute worst.

• The Presidency of Donald Trump will go down in history for all the wrong reasons. The racist, sexist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric he spouted, made him an awful President - I am not for a second doubting this. He incited and encouraged violence across the country, he attacked the media relentlessly, he baited North Korea over Twitter, he nominated an accused sexual assaulter to the highest court in America… the list goes on.
• When people read the statement above, I don’t think it’s uncommon to immediately think yes, of course, definitely! But to claim Trump was the worst President in the history of America, is to ignore and undermine some of the awful things done by previous leaders of the free world; namely James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson.
• For example, as the 15th President of the United States, James Buchanan believed black people were "not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution” . He was extremely problematic and is often credited with driving the country towards the eventual Civil War of 1861. Taking Office shortly after as the 17th President of America, Andrew Johnson was in charge as the Civil War was concluding. As an extremely racist segregationist, Johnson vetoed Civil Rights legislation and made life very difficult for many Black Americans.
• Trump was a bad President. I am not at all denying or defending his awful actions. But the term ‘worst’ is subjective, and rankings will differ depending on which party you support and the political opinions you hold. I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that Trump was and hopefully will remain the worst US President of my lifetime. Except American history spans way beyond my lifetime, so it would be inaccurate to claim he was the worst without fully exploring the terms of previous Presidents.

TL; DR - Churchill was an iconic figure but labelling him as a hero might be going too far.

• The meaning of the term ‘hero’ is inevitably going to differ depending on who you ask, which is why some view Winston Churchill as deserving of that title and why others disagree.
• As a Brit, the first thing I think of when someone says Churchill, is the Second World War and the role he played during that period, which is characterised as important, influential, and imperative to overcoming the Nazis and eventually winning the War. His speeches were one of the reasons for this and are still today referenced within discussions of bravery, leadership, and heroism.
• But as far as I’m concerned, this is as far as any discussion of ‘heroism’ goes when talking about Churchill.
• A huge proportion of his career was extremely problematic and is often overshadowed by Britain’s victory in WW2. He had some outrageous views, which make it very difficult for me personally to label him a hero. He believed strongly in racial hierarchies and eugenics and failed to help India in preventing the awful Bengal famine of 1943. Whilst slightly less extreme, he also facilitated some pretty bad treatment of strikers.
• Considering my political standpoint, I find it very difficult to label any Conservative Prime Minister in this country as a ‘hero’ - but this doesn’t mean they haven’t existed for other people. Whilst I wouldn’t necessarily use this term to describe him, I also accept the fact that I didn’t live through the Second World War and therefore wouldn’t necessarily understand, to the same degree, why some consider him a hero.

TL; DR - Qualified immunity wrongfully protects the often-unlawful actions of public officials in the US.

• The doctrine of qualified immunity provides a loophole in the law such that public officials can escape justice and is particularly true with regard to American police. To live in a functioning society, we must be able to hold those with power to account and this isn't the case sometimes in the United States.
• For a country that holds its Constitution in the highest regard, it is ironic to me that they would have such a law, that would allow officers to violate the Fourth Amendment for so many Americans, and suffer no consequences.
• Everyone is aware of the ongoing tension between mostly the African American population and the police in America - qualified immunity only exacerbates and increases these tensions. A lack of accountability within law enforcement, can be extremely damaging to victims themselves, as well as their families and the wider community. It would explain why there is so much distrust and anger towards police in many neighbourhoods and raises the question about whether America’s Constitution only protects some of its population.
• Just as they brought it in, the Supreme Court can also take it away, so unlike the debate about abolishing the US Constitution for example, this is something which can be dealt with relatively easily. I also like to think this would improve things the divide between law enforcement and the American people.

TL; DR - As a member of the European Union, Britain was a nation I could be proud of, but not anymore.

• As a Brit and an avid remainer, I believe wholeheartedly that we should have remained in the European Union. And whilst I could sit here and recycle in detail the numerous reasons why Britain was better off in the EU; I think it comes down to something quite simple - tolerance.
• We didn’t just benefit from free trade and the ability to live, work and study across Europe, but ultimately being an EU member was an incredibly important part of our identity. Leaving this behind has riddled the UK with divisiveness and tarnished relations with our allies.
• The Brexit referendum on the 23rd of June 2016 (omg was it that long ago!), saw the British public vote to leave the European Union. With 48% of the country voting to remain and the other 52% to leave, the outcome was incredibly close - but by no means over. What followed was a never-ending cycle of debate, argument and disagreement which split this country right down the middle.
• The far-right in the UK took Brexit and ran with it. The likes of Nigel Farage decided that immigration from Europe was the root of all this country’s problems and our now Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, stood next to a big red bus brandishing the absolute lie that leaving the EU would directly fund £350 million for our NHS. It was all a lie. But dishonest or not, their messaging resonated with a huge proportion of the British public and had a massive impact on the racism, division, and hatred we are still experiencing today in this country.
• Not only has leaving the EU changed the internal dynamics of Britain, but also our relations with our important neighbours. We have isolated ourselves in the name of ‘nationalism’ with nothing to show for it, but an un-united United Kingdom.

TL; DR - The criminal justice system must strike a balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

• This should not be a question of importance, but rather a discussion about the kind of society we want to live in. Should we punish criminals and be done with it, or consider and work towards how they will reintegrate into society?
• The reason I am mixed as opposed to against this statement, is because I think punishment plays an important role in the structure of the justice system. For example, without punishment, there is no deterrent, and without a deterrent, people are less likely to be dissuaded from committing crimes. It is for this reason that I really don’t think we can pitch one as more important than the other, because both are necessary.
• Rehabilitation is an equally important part of criminal justice because it matters what happens once the punishment has been served. After someone has carried out a prison sentence for example, we must work to help them reintegrate, otherwise what’s the point?
• There is an argument to be had, that the balance between punishment and rehabilitation, should be dependent on the situation. For more severe crimes, you could argue punishment is more important, as perhaps the point of rehabilitation has passed. Similarly, with smaller crimes and the potential for those committing them to turn into hard criminals, it could be more effective to focus on rehabilitation.
• Regardless, I think both punishment and rehabilitation are important - but in different doses depending on the crime committed and the circumstances of the situation.

TL; DR - As an undemocratic, unrepresentative and unfair institution, the House of Lords holds no place in Britain and must be abolished. This system facilitates the reign of elitism in the UK.

• The House of Lords is an unelected chamber of British Parliament, in which members claim money from the British taxpayer and accept the titles they are bestowed. Whilst independent from the House of Commons, members in the House of Lords have a significant influence over the shaping of laws and policies - except they have no expertise.
• Members of the House of Lords are appointed by the Queen, on recommendation of the current Prime Minister. This means ultimately, that rather than the British public electing these people, they are pawns in the government’s game, ready and waiting to support the Prime Minister wherever necessary. I don’t believe this is moral.
• The institution is deeply rooted in religion, with numerous archbishops and bishops of the Church of England presiding within the chamber. There is obviously an enormous problem with this. Similarly, the presence of hereditary peers in the House of Lords, makes it guaranteed that certain families will hold these positions of entitlement for years and years and years. Appointments like this should not be inherited or passed down.

TL; DR - In a society where men dominate the possession of power, it is undeniable that we live in a patriarchal system of inequality. Issues of gender, race and class are commonplace in discussions around the patriarchy, and consequently can’t be ignored.

• When looking back at Britain’s political history, it is immediately apparent that men have held the power. This is clear from the very simple fact that this country has only ever seen two female Prime Ministers. Not only is this evident of the parliamentary gendered imbalance that exists, but also demonstrates just how reluctant we are to elect women to positions of political authority.
• The gender pay gap exists. There is no denying the fact that financially, women earn less than their male counterparts for doing the same job. Whilst the gap is closing in a lot of sectors, its existence promotes the notion that women are not as good as men, and they are therefore not afforded the same opportunities.
• Culturally, women are told that they are subordinate to men. Our society continues to emphasise the importance and the value of marriage by teaching young girls and women that this is what we must strive for. From the tradition of fathers giving away their daughters, to the expectation for women to dress a certain way, the institution of marriage is structured in such a way that men remain powerful and dominant. We are told that we show too much emotion and therefore must be weak. Until this changes and until women achieve equality, we will always live in the patriarchy.