Laura

Parents should be free to choose the ethos of their child's school - but faith schools do have their issues...

• There is a strong case to suggest that the state should not be funding faith schools, as it could be argued that they encourage segregation on cultural, religious and socio-economic grounds and other people with different beliefs. Faith schools are free to not teach about other religions and may have limited sex education. One National Secular Society study finds that 77% of faith schools teach sex education in accordance with religious scripture. This could limit knowledge about safe sex for students who do not choose to follow these teachings, or contribute to LGBTQ+ discrimination among students by omitting information relating to them from the curriculum.

• As children from faith backgrounds are given priority, people are also encouraged to baptise their children for the sake of a school place in many church schools. I think many religious and non-religious people would agree that this is problematic.

• That being said, school is compulsory and parents should have the freedom to choose the ethos of the school that their child attends, without having to pay fees. Faith schools are a popular choice, accounting for about 34% of state-funded schools as of January 2019. It could be argued that faith schools, including independent ones, should be banned completely, however people who advocate for this usually argue that secular schools are a neutral space without any agenda, which many religious people would disagree with.

• If we agree that parents should be free to bring up their children with a particular faith, then it follows that they should be able to choose a school that preaches the same values, as school is hugely formative. However, perhaps faith schools do have a stronger agenda than non-faith schools, making them less inclusive and more biased in their educational approach.

Lasting happiness (or perhaps 'joy' is a more suitable term), is a product of a purposeful life, not the purpose itself.

• Happiness can be found when we live in accordance with our purpose. That doesn’t mean that the purpose of life is itself happiness.

• I don’t think looking for happiness is the goal of life as this is not truly achievable. The ‘hedonistic paradox’ says that if your sole purpose is finding happiness for yourself, then you are less likely to find it. Surely our purpose would be something within our capabilities, and which brings about happiness as a product?

• The wellness industry exhibits this problem well as it encourages people to focus intensely on their individual wellness or happiness. While the movement can make people happier to an extent, it can also make people obsessive about their life and themselves as an individual, an issue described as ‘wellness syndrome.’

• Personally, I believe that the purpose of life is to live in accordance with how God has made you and to reflect God's love in the world. In my view, it makes sense that the purpose of life must necessarily have a moral dimension for it to be truly meaningful. By doing this, a deep sense of happiness or joy can be found, an indication that we are living in the way that we are supposed to.

Perhaps we should try and move away from this name altogether, but the Right has definitely done a lot to deserve it.

• A ‘snowflake’ is defined as ‘an insulting way of referring to someone who is considered by some people to be too easily upset and offended’ (CED) This term is usually thrown at young liberals by people on the right, especially at people who protest speakers.

• While I object to the way the right use this term, I would hesitate to throw it back at them, as it seems to be based on the premise that being offended is in itself inherently bad, or that feelings do not matter. While free speech is extremely important and necessarily causes offense sometimes, it does not follow that the way people feel is of no relevance. We need to listen to people who are offended by ideas and expressing genuine pain to properly appreciate their experience and point of view.

• Furthermore, people who protest speakers shouldn’t be seen as halting discourse, or at least not in such black and white terms. Yes, allowing people to speak should be allowed in most cases, but people who protest speakers attending spaces very much form an active part of the conversation, just by doing so.

• That being said, you could definitely turn the term ‘snowflake’ on those that throw it around so easily. The venomous, hate-filled tone often used by the right suggests that they have absolutely no willingness to engage with liberals. You could say that Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos was ‘easily upset’ when he told a protestor, [‘F*** your feelings’] (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/28/snowflake-insult-disdain-young-people)

I’m conflicted about whether I think using the term 'snowflake' is helpful. Either way, it is ridiculous for the Right to think that they are somehow better at civil discourse while attacking liberals with venom and derision.

Bold choices are part of what makes fashion so exciting.

• The mullet has made a ‘come back’ (or perhaps more accurately has had a boost in popularity) in 2021. Interestingly, it is being adopted by women more so than in the past, with stars like Billie Eilish, Miley Cyrus and Rihanna leading the way.

• It’s always exciting to see styles traditionally associated with men being adopted by women or vice versa, as I think it shows a more positive, open approach to gender expression with fewer binaries. Funnily enough, the iconic Ziggy Stardust cut was originally based on a women’s style according to its creator, hairdresser Suzi Ronson. This kind of evolution is part of what makes fashion so exciting.

• There is definitely something distinctly ugly about the mullet, but I think this is part of what gives it its character. Fashion should be all about pushing boundaries and creating different effects. For this reason, I can't see the mullet becoming mainstream. Having said that, it wouldn't really be a problem if mullets became the norm rather than a 'brave' choice. We survived (and enjoyed!) 2000's fashion after all...

• Most importantly, people should be free to wear their hair however they like, whether it is on-trend or not. If you want the mullet to return for you, then more power to you!

Owning resources which should be divided more equally could be interpreted as stealing from wider society.

• Firstly, this phrase needs to be contextualized. ‘Property is theft!’ is a phrase used by French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon was talking specifically here about the ownership of real estate/land property and being able to do what you please with it.

• Marx takes issue with this phrase, saying the term ‘theft’ itself suggests that ‘property’ is real and valid. However, I think Proudhon’s wording does make sense: As a society, we could be said to collectively ‘own’ the resources which we need to uphold our basic rights and freedoms. (For example, an individual owning all the arable land would violate the rights of other humans beings, as not having access to food would be cruel and deprive them of liberty and security.)

• Some might say that it is better to consider land as belonging to no one rather than everyone. However, I think as we have to use and look after the earth to keep on existing, I think it is appropriate to say it is ‘owned’ by everyone.

• In my opinion, 'property is theft' rings true, as, while there is, in theory, enough resources in the world to feed a population of about 10 billion, many people go without. In this sense, these people ‘own’ a share of land which has been stolen from them due to capitalism.

• (Even if we consider property as no bad thing, or as a necessity for a functioning society/economy, we can still consider it ‘theft’ as land that we 'rightfully' buy today may simultaneously be land that has been usurped/colonised in the past.)

There will always be cases of abuse in high-level sports involving animals, when a lot is riding on their performance and behaviour.

• The pentathlon is comprised of five different events, but it is the equestrian show jumping portion of the sport that has been widely criticised for being cruel.

• There have been multiple cases reported where horses have been treated badly. Most recently, German coach Kim Raisner was suspended for striking a horse with her fist in the 2020 Summer Olympics.

• Welfare issues are bound to happen continually when animals are involved in sports. As performance will always be a top priority for high-level athletes, this gives an incentive to push animals beyond their physical limits. As horses are randomly assigned for fairness, athletes may be more likely to be given a horse that does not comply and therefore go on to treat their horse badly.

• It has also been argued that showjumping itself is cruel, as jumping can begin to take a toll on feet, joints and ligaments, making the horses susceptible to injury and reinjury. Again, if proper medical care is administered then this is not an issue, however dependence on horses for performance provides an incentive to make animal welfare a secondary concern.

While it is not fair to suggest that all horses are treated with cruelty in the Pentathlon, using animals in sports does seem to be quite open to abuse and could be considered cruel for that reason.

9am could be the most sensible ‘one size fits all’ start time, but it certainly doesn’t make sense for many students.

• As francesca24601 has already mentioned, it is very difficult to get enough sleep as a teenager. Research suggests that the 9am start time suits the body clock of students around ten, but definitely not 16-18-year-olds.. It is also difficult for students with high workloads to get enough sleep, as many people opt to reclaim leisure time by staying up, a phenomenon known as ‘revenge bedtime procrastination.’

• On the plus side, a 9am start time works well with the 9-5 working week of parents. Parents can start work around the same time or shortly after. Students also get used to the 9-5 working week which they are likely to take on after completing their education.

• However, perhaps both school and work hours should be changed. Studies show that the working day is designed for the body clock of bosses, who are often in their fifties, which does not suit the natural sleep pattern of younger employees. A more flexible approach to working hours could hugely benefit everyone and boost productivity.

As a one size fits all approach, perhaps starting school at 9am is the best idea, as it does still suit the sleeping pattern of some children, and does fit reasonably well with the working week. That being said, perhaps the 9-5 model as a whole should be reviewed…

Some backgrounds foster different skills, however generally, all different ethnicities include lots of people who are good at all different things.

• I think it is important to recognise the word ‘ethnicity’ rather than race used here. To argue that races differ significantly in what they are good at does not mean much, as the idea of biological race categories is outdated. It could be argued that people with a shared physical characteristic outside of these categories of race, might be more likely to be good at something (e.g people with long legs being good runners.)

• Ethnicity by definition is made up of different factors. The word ethnic is defined as, ‘of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background’). Therefore, people who come from a background that encourages a particular skill for whatever reason may be more likely to be good at it. To take running as an example, East Africans are perceived as especially good runners, and this is said to be down to the practice of barefoot running, high altitude, diet, BMI, and the incentive to create a running career in a poor country.

• However, even though there may be a greater number of people excelling in certain fields from particular ethnic groups, I think usually this is only noticeable at the very highest level, like the Olympics. It is unfair to suggest that this being at this level constitutes being ‘good’ at something Even then, to use the running example, not all runners will be East African.

People are good at different things and ethnicity does not seem to have huge significance. However, ethnicity can have some relevance.

Human beings are inclined towards both peace and war. Even political and social causes of war can be regarded as ‘natural’.

• It could be argued that war is not natural on a biological level as recent research suggests that early Hunter-gatherer societies rarely engaged in it. Studies say that most violent deaths among these societies were revenge killings, individuals killing others, or family feuds, and only a tiny percentage can be attributed to war.

• However, I would argue that war is still ‘natural’ as it did still exist in these times. Furthermore, the causes of war which are based on social/political factors are still ‘natural’. Liberals attribute war to political structures whereas socialists attribute it to class structures. Autocratic governments and capitalist societies can be seen as a natural result of ‘natural’ human interests: desire for wealth and power.

• People are also ‘naturally’ inclined towards peace, which international agreements show. In times of war, most people desire peace because of the suffering that war brings. However, I think there will always be people who would prefer to put a country in a state of conflict, making it ‘natural.’

There is no reason to make the jump from observing nature to using it as the basis for moral judgments.

• Appealing to facts about nature to make conclusions about what actions are moral or immoral uses the is-ought fallacy or as G.E Moore calls it the ‘naturalistic fallacy’. Just because things in nature are a certain way does not mean that this says anything about how we should behave.

• Many moral ‘answers’ that’ nature would give us would not be widely accepted. For example, Darwin’s theory of evolution, which says that ‘survival of the fittest’ results in evolution, would suggest that we have no responsibility to look after weaker members of society, an idea which many people would object to very deeply.

• The main conclusion, therefore is that we can intuit morals (as G.E. Moore argues in ‘Intuitionism’) or that we can find them out another way. Either way, moral properties can’t be found in nature.

Although some conspiracy theories may be correct, they are attractive because we use them to make sense of the world, not because they are ‘often true’.

• Most conspiracy theories go against rational evidence and can often be almost completely debunked., especially if they originated on the internet. One good example is the ‘pizzagate’ conspiracy , which said that a pizzeria was the headquarters of a child trafficking ring led by Hillary Clinton, (a story circulated largely through Facebook.)

• Furthermore, algorithms on YouTube and social media sites intensify beliefs in conspiracy theories by suggesting more of the same content, making theories seem like the only possible version of events.

• Perhaps some conspiracy theories are true, however, this does not mean that this is why we believe them. Studies suggest that people who believe in conspiracy theories are mostly motivated by wanting to impose structure on things that they don’t understand.

• It is tempting to believe in conspiracy theories, as many provide very captivating narratives. Studies found that people who believe themselves to be 'sceptical about claims not backed by evidence' often still subscribe to conspiracy theories, suggesting that they are very attractive. One study estimates that up to half of Americans believe in a conspiracy theory.

The popularity of conspiracy theories has more to do with their entertainment value and the 'knowledge' they provide rather than their legitimacy.

Shortened school hours would be an extra financial burden for families.

• Some might argue for shortened hours to combat stress in both children and teachers. Teaching is a particularly labour intensive and stressful job, with studies showing that primary school teachers work an average of 59.3 hours a week. Research suggests that academic pressure is having a negative effect on the mental health of primary school children, making it a stressful environment to be in.

• However, shortening the school day would put huge extra pressure on families to find affordable childcare. The UK has the second most expensive childcare system in the world, and the current school day is already shorter than a 9-5 working day, making balancing work and childcare difficult. This would be made much worse by shortening the day, putting huge financial pressure on families.

• To combat stress, more should be done to help teachers with the workload, and school exam culture should be reduced. Ironically, shortening the school day could reduce the amount of downtime that children have in the school day between lessons. Studies show that many academies that chose to reduce hours in the day chose to cut playtime, which is very important for child development.

Perhaps primary schools should be reformed in other ways for the benefit of teachers and pupils, however drastically shortening the school day is no solution.

If life has a purpose, it is surely found in something bigger than biology.

• The scientific theory of evolution, which explains how diverse life has been created, has been used to argue that the 'point' of life is to reproduce, passing on our genes. However, this seems to me to be some sort of fallacy. Evolution explains how diverse life has been created and how it continues, but it doesn't say anything more about the purpose of existence.

• The idea that we have any kind of ‘purpose’ is not a scientific idea and science can’t answer this question. Many nihilists believe in science alone, and yet find the world to be empty of meaning and purpose. Science cannot provide us with the answers to these bigger questions about existence.

• Even if our biology could explain our purpose, the instinct to reproduce would have to overpower all other drives and responsibilities to be reflective of our true purpose. Many people don’t feel a desire to reproduce or feel that their life would have more purpose without children, making way for other experiences or avenues to make a positive impact on the world. One 2020 YouGov poll said that as many as 37% of adult Britons who are not parents do not want children in the future. If reproduction was the purpose for existence, then a life that doesn’t create more life would be a wasted one.

• The idea that we exist to keep existing seems too circular to be a satisfactory answer to the question ‘what is the meaning of life?’ I think the answer lies beyond scientific and perhaps even philosophical understanding.

Human beings shouldn't be treated as science experiments.

There are two primary reasons that human reproductive cloning is unethical:

• As with creating genetically modified babies, reproductive cloning is unethical as it involves selecting characteristics of a child. Making a baby a vanity project is wrong and creates the dangerous mindset that certain characteristics are 'undesirable'.

• There is also a very high risk of hurting the baby. Studies suggest that 99% of animal clones die in the womb or have genetic abnormalities. Before human cloning could be approved as safe, animal cloning would have to be seen to be safe first, and continually using animals to experiment is also cruel.

• Thirdly, we do not know how these new intergenerational dynamics would affect the clone. Would the child’s sense of self suffer as a clone of its parent? Would they be under extra pressure, having the same ‘potential’ as the ‘parent’, or feel like they were being used as an experiment? Would there be an unhealthy dynamic if a couple chose to create a clone child, and one person in the sexual relationship was the same genetically?

• The fact that there’s no real reason for reproductive human cloning compounds all of these negatives. It is telling that we have known how to clone human beings for at least eight years (scientist Shoukhrat Mitalipov successfully made clones from human embryos in 2013), and yet no human clone has been allowed to live to full-term. No one seems to have an incentive to make one.

• (Unlike reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning, where the embryo is not implanted in a uterus, does have real, positive uses in medicine. However, the fact that human embryos are created and destroyed for this purpose could be seen as unethical or at least in a moral grey area.)

Conversion therapy is damaging, and people undergoing it will not be making an informed decision to do so.

• Conversion therapy is extremely damaging and dangerous. A study in the American journal of public health found that ‘LGBTQ youth who underwent conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to report having attempted suicide and more than 2.5 times as likely to report multiple suicide attempts in the past year’.

• In order to freely choose to undergo treatment, people need to be informed of risks. This is unlikely to be the case with conversion therapy as it is usually carried out on the false premise that being LGBTQ+ is a sickness to be cured. As conversion therapy is seen as corrective, the fact that it causes psychological damage will not be believed or acknowledged.

• This is not a simple case of making an informed choice, like choosing whether to smoke or not. Many people who undergo conversion therapy come from religious communities made up of family, and built on deeply rooted ideas about sexuality and gender roles. It can be difficult to see if an ideology is false and damaging in these circumstances.

It is one thing to choose not to live a certain lifestyle, however, people who believe they need to be 'cured' are victims. Those trying to carry out psychological abuse should not be free to do so.

Capitalism motivates unethical decision-making, including decisions that will end civilisation.

• Capitalism creates a wealth gap that can’t be justified or deserved. In 2020, Oxfam found that the world’s billionaires have more wealth than 60% of the planet's population. While it can incentivise, capitalism does not fairly ‘reward’ people for their work, as differences in income have huge implications for future generations. People can inherit wealth and opportunity from their parents, or poor living conditions and lack of opportunity.

• Capitalism rewards profit, which actively encourages and enables unethical decision-making. Companies neglect ethical responsibilities when it comes to looking after workers and the planet, chasing profit above all else. Take the unethical labour conditions and pollution caused by fast fashion as one good case study.

• Capitalism does drive innovation. But what ethical purpose is that innovation serving? As we are currently driving our planet to destruction, it seems that increased innovation alone cannot redeem it as a system.

• According to environmentalist George Monbiot, capitalism cannot rescue us from the climate crisis that it has created. This fact alone should justify the statement 'capitalism in unethical.'

Theatre suffers in more ways than one without subsidised tickets...

• Yes, theatre production is very expensive and labour intensive as Andrew Lloyd Webber was keen to point out in his defense of the West End's 'incredibly reasonable' ticket prices. However, while cast and creatives should not suffer, something has got to change in order to make theatre more accessible.

• Particularly successful shows can become huge money-making machines, charging as much as they can get away with. Dynamic pricing software on websites raise prices when activity is high, pushing people to their limits. It is surely not always the case that astronomical prices are needed to keep a show viable.

• Theatre suffers in two ways without enough subsidised tickets:

1. The business model is not sustainable. Director Robert Icke thinks theatre will be 'dead in 50 years' if prices are not more affordable for young people. Millenials and Gen Z are facing difficult economic conditions and will not be able to afford what baby boomers and older generations are currently paying.

2. Theatre is missing out without the voices and talents of a huge portion of society. Most theatergoers in the UK (and the US) are white and middle class. It seems painfully ironic that tickets to Hamilton, a show which celebrates diversity, cost a minimum of $150 one month into its broadway run. How can people from low income backgrounds be inspired to work in an industry with which they have had no contact?

• Many West End shows already offer limited £10 tickets available from the theatre on the morning of a production, however these are only accessible for knowledgable theatre fans who either live nearby or who have already budgeted for a trip to central London, rather than low-income families who need to plan and budget ahead of time.

• More tickets need to be subsidised to make theatre accessible and sustainable.

'Easy' might be unfair, but they did have it easier.

• Millenials and Gen Z have grown up in a very different environment to baby boomers with more advanced technology, more eating out, cheaper holidays abroad and other things that baby boomers did not have. However, many of these things are cultural shifts rather than necessarily being improvements that make life ultimately 'easier', the arrival of the internet being the main example.

• It is undeniable that there are certain major anxieties for millennials and Gen Z which baby boomers experienced in much smaller doses.

1. It is much more difficult for young people to get on the property ladder, with UK house prices 14 times what they were for baby boomers in the 1970's.

2. Despite the fact that millennials are better educated, in America millennials earn 20% less than baby boomers did at the same age. with similar patterns in Europe as well. University is also no longer free, keeping people in debt.

3. While there is more conversation about mental health than in the past, more Millenials and Gen Zs are suffering from mental health issues than baby boomers did at the same age, the clearest indication that things are tough. While in the 1960's the average onset age for depression was 45, it is now 14.

• I don't think any generation has had it 'easy', but there have been fewer obstacles in the way of baby boomers economically, and zero negative effects of social media and the internet on them growing up.

The current system is not a democratic one…

• As a country we are very committed to the idea of democracy, and yet the system we currently use does not truly reflect the will of the people. I think our ‘democratic’ electoral system could be said to be undemocratic for two main reasons:

1. Many people turn to tactical voting, voting for a candidate that they wouldn’t normally support to prevent another from winning a seat. This means people have to rely heavily on predictions that aren’t always accurate, and that their favourite candidates are not reflected in election results.

2. A party that the majority of people did not vote for can be elected, just because they have a majority of seats.

• The most common criticism of proportional representation is that it creates unstable governments, with critics citing Italy as an example. However 40/43 countries in Europe use some form of proportional representation to elect their MP’s.. Of these, Italy seems to be the main example used by critics of this system, suggesting there are [other factors] (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-do-elections-work-in-italy/) besides proportional representation which contribute to its instability.

The bottom line is that our voting system is not functioning in a democratic way, which should not be dismissed. Who knows how many more people would vote, (making the system even more democratic), if they felt their voices were being heard?

Extra convenience is not justifiable if it turns people into robots.

• There is definitely nothing wrong with preferring not to chat, however there are times when people who are at their most comfortable in silence can afford to be generous with their time and engage in some conversation when it is being initiated. As someone without social anxiety who would still usually not choose to have a conversation in an uber, I know this to be true. In an often isolated, social media-driven world, small talk can sometimes be good for us as well.

• Equally, customers can be tired or can suffer from social anxiety, and uber drivers should be empathetic and not force conversation or interrogate them. Neither customer nor driver owes the other a conversation. However, as the people offering the service and as human beings with social skills, the majority of uber drivers already don't force conversations. Most of the time, people can take cues from each other. While sometimes there is a disconnect, this is not reason enough to opt for turning human beings into controllable robots.

• This feature definitely has its positives, but it still basically creates a dynamic where wealthy people can buy their way out of interacting with their driver. It might be more convenient, but it is disturbing that you can pay to mute a human being like a piece of software.

People who experience severe period pain shouldn't have to fight extra battles...

• There is still a damaging taboo around menstruation that needs to be addressed in the workplace. Studies suggest that most women who suffer from period pain find that it has affected their ability work, yet only 27% have ever said this to their employer. A massive 20% of women experience severe menstrual cramps or 'dysmenorrhea'. This policy would help to destroy the taboo around periods and allow women to rest when they need to.

• The current culture where women have to push through is sexist. Women should not have to fight more battles and be ‘tougher’ than men in order to ‘make it’ in the corporate world, or in any workplace. Fighting through extra pain is a point of pride for many women, but it shouldn’t be this way.

• The common objections to this proposal, predictions that period leave could make women seem ‘weaker’ or put employers off hiring women, are not reasons to abandon this idea. The fact that we are aware of potential increased bias means that we should set up extra measures to counteract this (e.g. quotas that ensure women have equal opportunity) rather than opposing the change.

Implementing period leave would be a step towards inclusivity in the workplace and towards removing taboos around menstruation in society at large.

We shouldn't interfere with consensual relationships, but there are a couple of arguments for keeping this seemingly outdated law.

• In general, I think romantic and sexual choices made by freely consenting adults should not be anyone’s business and should therefore not be illegal. While condemnation of polygamy with roots in Christianity has been strong historically (the Republican Party called it one of the ‘twin relics of barbarism’ alongside slavery), this should not affect the law today.

• However, there are legitimate reasons to keep polygamy in general illegal. A 2012 study suggests that child welfare suffers in polygamous cultures. Other studies suggest that violence against women is more common in polygamous relationships with multiple wives As with many other practices, many would argue that bringing them into the light by legalising them makes them safer for those at risk.

• On a practical note, the issues around legislation surrounding inheritance could cause potential issues. However this alone should not dictate whether polygamy is legal, if the principle behind banning it is flawed.

In some ways, yes. However, the idea that sexual orientation is predetermined is an important counter to the argument that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that it is 'unnatural'.

• I mostly agree. Disagreement on the topic of sexual morality and homosexuality is mostly about whether the act of having sex with someone of the same sex is wrong. Therefore, whether you have chosen to be gay or not is irrelevant. Even many religious people who are against homosexual lifestyles condemn behaviour rather than sexual orientation, which they accept is something that you can’t change. For example, the catholic church currently teaches that [being gay is not itself inherently wrong, but certain behaviours, which we can choose whether to partake in or not, are wrong.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality#Church_teaching) This then is the main crux of the disagreement.

• However, as many people base their idea of morality on what is ‘natural’, homosexual predetermination arguments are still relevant in the discussion. Research suggests that 4/10 Americans think that being gay is a choice. We also know that many Americans are Christians who are against gay marriage. Presumably then, the idea that being gay is a human choice, or a product of evil influences is an important part of their belief that it is wrong. Here, predetermination would be a relevant counterargument.

• The language of Christianity often refers to the ways in which human beings are created a certain way, perfectly designed by God. The idea that God has lovingly created a person’s sexuality is a powerful one and is the reasoning behind the stance of many more liberal Christians.

• Although the catholic church emphasises immorality of behaviour rather than sexual orientation, homosexual predetermination also poses a significant challenge to this teaching which is based on ‘natural law’. . If natural human biology suggests a natural order for sex, but then what about the natural biology of individuals with different sexual orientations? Surely this suggests something about how they should behave, being made in the image of God as they are?

• I understand the argument that homosexual predetermination should not have to be used to defend gay people, making it irrelevant. However, in a world where people are still blamed for their sexual orientation or forced to undergo horrific ‘therapies’ for being gay, it is still an important part of the conversation which can promote acceptance.

This is such an excellent argument. I do wonder though if justifying homosexuality with biology always presumes that it is still a flaw that can be overlooked because it is not a choice.

I think this perhaps underestimates how powerful the idea of being born a certain way is for many people. Many Christians in particular change their minds about homosexuality when they stop believing that it is a choice, as they believe that we are all 'fearfully and wonderfully made.' It is precisely because homosexuality can't be a flaw that they embrace it.

Many people who justify homosexuality on the basis of biology still only tolerate it, and see it as secondary to heterosexuality. However, I do think many people also come to view it on the same level.

The fact that people often experience God strongly when they are not looking for him suggests that God 'intervenes' in the world.

(My comment comes from the perspective of a Christian, so will obviously not be convincing from a secular viewpoint – but here are my thoughts anyway.)

• The problem of evil (i.e. how can we have a God that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent who lets suffering exist), is the strongest argument for saying that God does not intervene. I won’t try and explain away suffering, as trying to rationalise and justify suffering in human history ourselves is insulting and leads us to stop appreciating the depth of pain that many human beings experience.

• There is some debate as to how much God ‘intervenes’ or whether God allows our free will to dictate our lives. However, many people including converts say that their experiences of God have felt sudden and did not come from them actively choosing to seek out God themselves. (St Paul’s vision is one good example of this, among endless numbers of others.) God definitely ‘intervened’ in the world through the person of Jesus.

• Again, it is impossible to make a very persuasive case about why God lets innocent people suffer if he can intervene in the world. In the end, it comes down to faith that God is both Good and beyond our understanding. (Proverbs says ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding’.) Naturally, this is not convincing for people who don’t believe in God at all, however, I think suggesting that these answers are beyond us makes sense within a Christian worldview.

Society's expectations of women define womanhood to an extent - but what about the trans women who are not experiencing society's expectations of women?

• In the context of the rest of de Beauvoir’s book, this quotation is used to talk about how gender, specifically being a woman, is constructed by society, and that it is not the biological difference of women, but their situation and role in society that makes them how they are.

• While this quotation is used as a basis for the theory that gender and biological sex are different, which validates the identities of trans people, I think it is limited. Surely this quotation also invalidates trans women, especially those who do not situate themselves as women in society and are perceived as men? If being a woman is all down to how society treats you, this excludes women who are not perceived as women by society. (Trans writer Jackson Bird articulates this issue about calling gender a social construct very well in his article, ‘If Gender’s a Social Construct, Is Being Trans Just a Construct Too?’, and his thoughts are well worth a read.)

• I don’t think there is a clear answer to this, except to suggest that perhaps womanhood is even more complex and mysterious than we think. Many trans people feel that they have always been the opposite gender to the gender which they have been perceived as since birth. Perhaps then, there is something more spiritual about gender that is not socially constructed and that we don’t fully understand, which this quote does not express.

We have a right to free speech which by nature risks offending others. In my opinion, this is not quite the same thing as 'right to offend...'

• The idea of ‘right to offend’ is used to say that we have a right to free speech, even though free speech can cause offense, which I agree with. The main objection to freedom of speech is that it can cause offense. However, a society without free speech can be just as dangerous as one which prohibits it, as people can completely shut down important dialogues, simply because they are offended. In other cases, governments can punish critics, Egypt being just one good example, an abuse of power.

• This is not to say that anything goes and that free speech should be protected at any cost. People also have a right to security and to not be subjected to 'inhuman or degrading treatment', so there is an obvious tension here if people incite violence or hatred through speech. This is complicated and tricky to police.

• Therefore, I think the phrase ‘right to offend’ is unhelpful and does not have the same undertones as ‘right to free speech’, even though it is intended to mean the same thing. I think it is less that we have a ‘right to offend’ but rather we have ‘a right to free speech, despite the risk that we might offend.’ People don't have a right to offend people for the purpose of causing hurt. The point here is about freedom to express your beliefs and opinions.

• Balancing advocating free speech while encouraging peace and values of kindness and respect is difficult but important. I basically agree with the sentiment ‘I have a right to offend you' but in my opinion, the tone of this phrase slightly misses the mark in describing the nature of our right to free speech.

Pornography is very damaging for young people, and it is extremely easy to access, even by accident. The least the government can do about it is to implement age verification across porn sites.

• Addiction to porn should be viewed as both a public health issue and a danger to children and young people. Research suggests that viewing porn has a negative effect on the developing teenage brain and is linked to depression and social anxiety. Porn often normalises degrading and violent sex, creating disturbing expectations about sex for young people. On top of this, people are likely to feel isolated when addicted, which makes it difficult to reach out for help.

• I don’t think either of the two main objections, concerns about censorship and about privacy, are reason enough to prevent a ban:

• Censorship: adults still have legitimate access to the same material, they just have to go through an extra step. As those against the ban are keen to point out, even without using the verification route, people can easily bypass these restrictions by using VPNs. Most people agree that harmful posts on social media should be censored, so the argument against internet censorship is shaky.

• Privacy: There are some valid security concerns with age verification technology that would be needed for a ban on pornography, reportedly the main reason that the UK's plans for age verification fell through. Obviously, I’m sure that this is easier said than done, but I think every measure should be taken to improve security for the sake of implementing this ban.

• In my opinion, there is no other way to adequately protect children from pornography on the internet. These measures alone, while important, are very limited with the amount of online material which exists. The suggestion from governments that other measures such as better sex education can somehow make up for the dangers of unrestricted porn access for under 18's is both unrealistic and distracting.

Biological sex is not completely irrelevant in many family situations, but saying men and women should have different roles in society is sexist.

• We all have different roles to play in society, based on our strengths and individual priorities, but it is reductive and sexist to dictate these purely on the basis of sex or gender. Different job roles (including the role of the stay-at-home parent) suit people with different skill sets, personality types, life experiences, and priorities that can belong to men or women.

• That being said, biological sex is a factors that come into play for many families, particularly heterosexual couples who are raising families. Many women who breastfeed, and/or have a strong protective maternal instinct would prefer to have their male partner be the breadwinner while they take care of a child. (although perhaps some of this is down to judgement on mothers who work.) In cultures/individual situations where work is very manual or where food is acquired by hunting, it often just makes sense for the man to be the breadwinner.

• The history of dividing roles by biological sex did not come from nowhere, but it has definitely evolved into a sexist expectation that overstates the relevance of sex/gender. Studies suggest that mothers are judged for going to work, especially with pre-school aged children, and that men feel pressure to be the breadwinner.

• Even biological differences between men and women don’t apply to everyone. Women can feel more suited to very physical or 'masculine' jobs and men can have a strong desire to be stay-at-home parents. Human beings are extremely varied and saying that men and women should have different roles in society just conforms to outdated stereotypes.

There is a problem with allowing offensive content online when it reaches children or allows hate groups to flourish.

• Some people argue that censorship just draws hate groups into darker corners of the internet. However, I think removing them from more public spaces does make it less likely for children to stumble across harmful content or for hate speech to be framed as legitimate and acceptable.

• Banning people from certain platforms can be effective. Milo Yiannopoulos who was banned from Twitter in 2016 definitely has less buzz around him than in his Twitter days. Some research even suggests that Donald Trump is affected by the Twitter Ban. Before the ban, Trump’s posts had 22.1 million likes and shares, while after they had 1.3 million across Twitter and Facebook.

• The main issue with censorship is that it is difficult to actually implement without bias. Activist Caroline Wysinger makes an excellent point about how moderation is limited due to AI flagging violent images about racism and transphobia, without being able to distinguish the purpose behind the image. From April to June 2020, 95 percent of comments flagged as hate speech on Facebook and 99.2 percent of comments taken down for violating community standards were flagged by AI.

There are many issues with censoring offensive content and no clear way to do it successfully. However as everyone, including children, resides on the internet these days, some level of censorship is important to keep people safe and establish some code of conduct online.

Some opinions within feminism and religion won't be tolerated by either side, making compatibility tricky to navigate

• Most religions have strong ideas about fighting against oppression, which is what feminism seeks to do in trying to create equal rights for men and women. Take this list of bible verses which discuss freedom from oppression. . Here, I think religion and feminism are completely compatible.

• I think it is more significant though to read 'incompatible' in a different way, which is less about theory and definition and more about whether religious people have space to exist within feminism and whether feminists have space to exist within religion.

• Feminism accommodates religion well in that it emphasises freedom of choice, which is especially significant when it comes to clothing choice. Freedom to cover as well as reveal your body is championed by many feminists, which is of great significance to Muslim women particularly.

• However, the main contentious point which makes secular and certain non-religious people clash is the pro-life/pro-choice debate. Both sides believe that their stance is the most fundamentally feminist one. As this is a disagreement over what constitutes 'freedom' or a human right, which both sides champion, there is little room to find common ground.

• Feminism is sometimes not welcomed in religious spaces. Calls to radically change patriarchal structures within religious institutions have been met with a lack of engagement from people with power. Take the Vatican's 'voices of faith' conference, where proposals for a meeting to discuss gender inequality were refused.

Personally, I think feminism and my personal faith exist in complete harmony, however both feminism and religion include a variety of people that will clash ideologically.

Love of money has a powerful effect on most people and perpetuates the biggest problems worldwide.

I think this is basically true. Love of money sustains the biggest evil which is that people live in, and die due to, appalling poverty.

• Oxfam recently found that the world's billionaires have more wealth than 60% of the planet's population. The unfulfilled potential that billionaires have to address so many evils in the world is itself a terrible evil.

• It’s not just Jeff Bezos who is affected by a love of money, but people with considerably less. Some studies suggest that people with wealth have less empathy than people from lower socio-economic backgrounds. I think many would agree that it is easy to get wrapped up in constantly striving for extra 'stuff', which distracts us from what we really value in our lives.

• The idea of entitlement around money is very strong. The widespread perceptions that billionaires have somehow done enough to ‘deserve’ how much they own, or that it is your fundamental personal qualities that determine your level of wealth (an attitude much more prevalent among rich people according to some studies), give us a completely warped and toxic perspective on inequality.

The fact that billionaires can ignore global poverty and the literal end of the world in the shape of the climate crisis just to preserve wealth, goes to show that money can cause people to do just about anything.

Meaning and morality comes from something bigger than ourselves. Deep down, I think we can sense this...

There are many interesting arguments for the existence of God, the ontological argument and Aristotle's prime mover argument among them. It is obviously impossible to argue this case perfectly and succinctly here, as this is an age-old debate. However, I think the most convincing case for there being a higher power is that human beings are already attuned to this truth.

• A higher power gives the universe meaning and a 'why' that really doesn't exist without it. While many people describe themselves as nihilists and can confidently say that there is no meaning to the world, do they really live according to this belief? Do we really continue to live our lives sincerely believing that there is no point, nothing beyond what we see, and no meaning or reason for anything? I personally don't think that many people who have any sense of hope or satisfaction in their lives go about wholeheartedly believing this, even if they advocate for it intellectually.

• Many argue that we create meaning, morality, and purposes for ourselves and that we don't need a higher power for this. Again though, I don't think people can sincerely believe in principles that they also believe they have just created for themselves.

• Personally, I think it is very hard to make a convincing case that morals exist without a higher power, as there is nothing in science that can ascribe moral status to anything or give rights of any kind to anyone.

I think meaning comes from something beyond us, and that that something can be sensed by human beings.

It depends what you mean by 'natural'...

• On one level, this statement is true. Evolutionary professor Dr David Barash says that we are biologically 'made' for polygamy, the size difference between men and women being one indicator of this. The lived experience of many who struggle to either commit, or feel satisfied in a monogamous relationship would also suggest that monogamy is not 'natural.' Recent research suggests that 42% of marriages in England and Wales end in divorce., and there are plenty more people living in unhappy monogamous relationships.

• It seems that monogamy is more of a social norm. But does this really make monogamy 'unnatural'? There is a reason that so many people crave long term, committed relationship with one person. Besides commitment, people want the financial and family stability that mongamous relationships provide for many in our society. Even if a preference for monogamy is down to pressure from society, following social norms is also 'natural.'

• Many people strongly desire to be in committed monogamous relationships, and would prefer them over the less restricting but more jealousy-inducing open relationships, or no relationship at all.

Just because we also experience other conflicting impulses doesn't make monogamy unnatural.

Most political leaders are men. It is up to them to fix toxic masculinity and other problems.

• Across the world, men are the perpetrators of most violent crime and 96 percent of homicides are committed by men, a staggering difference that must be largely down to toxic masculinity among men.

• Men are victims of this as well. Men are more likely than women to be victims of violent crime committed by a stranger and are more likely to commit suicide than women. However, the toxic masculinity at the root of this needs to be destroyed by men, as it is a code of behaviour fostered among men.

• As for other problems in society? Men are the ones in power. There is a clear difference between the numbers of men and the numbers of women in leadership positions worldwide. If being in a position of leadership doesn’t give you the responsibility to fix society’s problems, then what does?

• I resent having to use the phrase ‘not all men', but obviously not all men actively contribute to toxic masculinity, and obviously not all men are in leadership positions. Women with leadership positions and without also add to society’s problems, including the issue of toxic masculinity.

The accusation that ‘men are to blame’ is obviously a bit reductive, but it should be heard as a much-needed wake-up call…

As a Christian, I don't think making the country hostile to people who believe differently is what Jesus wants.

As a Christian, I think it is so important that we don’t mix church and state. (I'm focusing on the US in this argument, but this of course should apply anywhere.)

• America is an extremely diverse place. Christians only make up 65% of the population of the United States, and a democratically elected leader should represent the interests of everyone.

• Mixing church and state only aggravates an existing culture of xenophobia and racism. One report found that Trump’s rhetoric and policies have contributed to a rise in Islamophobic hate crime. Christians should be hyper-aware of this, and care about making the country a more peaceful place that is not hostile to already vulnerable minority groups.

• Mixing Church and State is also a threat to the LGBTQ+ community and women’s rights. Trump’s intentions to weaken the separation of Church and State were very damaging, making it easier for employers to discriminate against LGBT workers on religious grounds and making birth control more difficult to access for those who need it, among other policies. (Full timeline of all of the Trump-Pence administration's attacks on church-state separation here.)

• A lot of these policies are based on supporting the religious freedom of Christians. But there can’t be one rule for Christians and one rule for everyone else. Perhaps some Christians would feel more ‘liberated’, but merging church and state impinges upon the freedom of others, either through discriminatory laws or by adding to a culture of racism/xenophobia.

Religion has always been flawed, but it also puts us in touch with the sacred.

• I’m not sure that religion has ‘lost touch’ with the sacred. Rather that it has always been flawed and made up of imperfect human beings. Religion and God are not, and never have been the same thing.

• Organised religion has been responsible for many terrible things across history. Aside from religiously motivated conflict, child sexual abuse is a huge problem in religious communities especially, because of the authority structures which exist within them.

• Religion also makes some people more self-assured and less accepting of other's lifestyles. Many people see a religious identity as red flag, particularly LGBTQ+ people who have been treated badly. One study even suggests that children from religious backgrounds are more judgemental.

• However, I think it is impossible to get in touch with the sacred without using religion, or something very like it, as a vehicle. Many non-religious people agree that structure, discipline, use of intellect, meditation, and community (basically, the components of religion) are all needed to stay in touch with what is good and sacred.

• From a catholic perspective, it is clear that we need organised religion to stay in touch with the sacred. Jesus directly told Peter to establish the church We also receive grace through sacraments in the church. Luke chapter 4 also says that Jesus himself made religious practice a priority as he would go to the temple on the sabbath, 'as was his custom'.

• I suspect that many other religions share a similar perspective. Religion has always been very flawed, but it is also part of how we stay in touch with the sacred.

Women shouldn't need protection in the first place, but men should use their privilege and offer help anyway.

• Unfortunately, we live in a world where women do not feel safe. As of March this year the world health organization has found that violence against women is a 'major public health problem' and that [1 in 3 women worldwide have ‘been subjected to either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime’] (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women) Action Aid found that huge numbers of women face street harassment and violence worldwide, including 75 percent of women in London.

• These are appalling findings. Violence against women has deeper roots that need to be addressed, but men should be aware that there are more immediate things they can and should do to protect women.

• Men can protect women from harassment. Not staying silent while a male friend harasses a woman is a way to protect women. Offering to help a woman (a friend, not a stranger) get home is also a way for men to use male privilege to protect women.

• However, men protecting women shouldn’t be accepted as the natural order. Just because women are typically less physically strong does not mean they should need protection. We should not romanticize the fact that women need protection by men, from men, but men should use their privilege to help when they can.

It depends on age and motivation

• A large age gap is a problem if it creates an imbalance of power. If the younger partner is especially young (e.g. teenage or potentially slightly older if the person is less mature), the relationship can be judged as creepy. A teenager's brain is not fully developed and their lack of life experience automatically sets up a dynamic that is wide open to abuse and manipulation.

• However, the older the younger partner is, the more mature they are likely to be and the less a large age gap suggests that the relationship is manipulative or controlling.

• Age gap relationships can work well. Some studies even suggest that age gap couples are more satisfied in their relationships. From an evolutionary standpoint (in the case of heterosexual couples), it has been suggested that women look for resources in older men and men look for vitality in younger women. Other people may just be attracted to maturity that comes with age, or just have a similar outlook on life despite the age gap.

• A big age gap can be judged as creepy when the older partner is someone who is only ever open to dating younger people. I suspect many men date younger women (the most common dynamic for age gap relationships) because of a sexist belief that middle-aged plus women can’t be attractive. Other studies suggest it is the admiration of younger women that men want. Other people may always need to be more dominant in the relationship, which they may get from choosing a much younger partner.

• However, if the relationship is instead based on mutual love and respect, shared goals, and healthy communication, then who are we to judge?

You don’t have to resist every patriarchal beauty standard to be a feminist.

• A feminist, is ‘a person who believes in feminism, and tries to achieve change that helps women to get equal opportunities and treatment:’ (Cambridge English Dictionary) Being a feminist is therefore defined by a person’s beliefs, and their identity as a feminist can’t just be completely undermined by a personal clothing choice.

• If the patriarchy is as overbearing as feminists say it is, (and it is!) it is unfair to demand that ‘real’ feminists must resist every single patriarchal standard in their day-to-day lives. It is deeply ingrained in society that heels are both a professional necessity and a beauty standard for women. Take the Cannes Film Festival’s barring of women without heels in 2015, or the case of Nicola Thorp who was fired for refusing to wear heels as a receptionist.

• Heels don't have to just be a symbol of female oppression anyway. After all, heels were originally worn by men and are being embraced by many men today, Kanye West, Harry Styles and Justin Bieber among them. They give anyone who wears them extra height and a strut which can make a statement.

• Asking all women to reject typically ‘feminine’ things just demonises women who enjoy heels, telling them that typically 'masculine' gender roles are the gold standard for everyone. Feminity is belittled enough in men and should be celebrated in fashion, just like masculinity.

• Feminists have to admit that the expectation for women to wear heels is deeply sexist, but the pressure is also very strong and women shouldn’t be judged for wearing them. Perhaps heels can also be reclaimed by women (and embraced by men!) in a healthier way!

TL;DR: University is very worthwhile, however like all paths, it is not right for everyone.

• Going to university provides an opportunity to continue in academia and become more educated, which is valuable in itself for many people, including those taking courses that are not geared towards a particular career.

• While 'the school of life' is valuable in other ways, formal academic education with access to library resources, and teaching from experts in different fields should not be looked down on and seen as a waste of time.

• There is also fantastic access to a variety of clubs and an opportunity to meet lots of different people at university.

(This is not to say that the fees are fair or justified, however, it comes down to what is 'worth it' for you personally.)

• For this same reason, university life is not for everyone, as it is just not worth it for every type of person. Starting out in work or learning in other ways is simply more enriching and a better fit for many people, and stress of academic work or culture of university is not always worth the money or time for many.

TL;DR: There is lots of room for individual bias within British institutions. A wealth gap inherited from the past, while also a problem, is definitely not the only reason for the link between wealth/opportunity and race.

It is often argued that systemic racism is not real as policies and laws that target different races by name no longer exist. However, this does not mean that systemic racism does not exist, as there is always lots of room for subjectivity and individual bias in institutional practice.

It is argued that the numbers of non-white people in higher education, in prison, etc. can be explained solely by economic background. It is argued that while this is bad, and a remaining legacy of racist policy in the past, it can't be defined as 'systemic racism' I would question this narrow definition, however even accepting it as true, there is still evidence for systemic racism:

Rates of incarceration and unemployment are not only defined by income. For example, home office data suggests that a black person is eight times more likely to be stopped and searched for drugs than a white person, but less likely to be found with drugs. Another study suggests that job applicants with ‘white’ names get called back 50% more of the time than applicants with ‘black’ names, even with resumes that are identical.

This is an uncomfortable pill to swallow. We could argue endlessly that individual biases do not govern our institutions, however, saying so is willfully ignorant. Passive racism and unconscious bias are very much real and there is definitely space for it to exist within and govern British institutions.

TL;DR: Mostly against, but the kind of 'openness' about sex that is present in entertainment and advertising can be damaging.

It is absolutely vital that we can talk about sex in modern society. Every person has a body and a relationship with it, and keeping this aspect of human experience hush hush can instil shame around sexuality from a young age. Most importantly, conversations allow us to talk about consent and boundaries.

However these days our culture is often 'open' about sex in the wrong way. While in the past sexualized images were concentrated in particular places, their prevalence in entertainment and advertising is now inescapable, making them difficult to contextualize for children and young people in healthy, constructive conversations about sex. Instead, an oversexualised culture feeds into insecurities and a mindset that sex appeal is the most important personal attribute.

The hugely important message that your sexuality belongs to you and you alone is not supported by a culture that commodifies and obsesses over sex to the extent that it does.

TL;DR: Authority is important, but abuse of power is also common and individuals must assess the values of an authority figure against their own conscience

1. Abuse of power is a real danger when people are in positions of authority over others for two main reasons:

• Research suggests that giving someone power reveals their true nature, giving them the freedom to behave in a way that aligns with their values. Furthermore, some people have a particularly high ‘need for power’, which in many cases could be rooted in a desire to control others, or to further a wider cause which is immoral.

• Human beings have a tendency to trust and obey authority. The disturbing findings of the Milgram experiment, which found that people were willing to harm others if ordered, made this very clear.

2. Although following authority is important for a functioning, harmonious society, we are always responsible for our choices as individuals, so the values of authority figures must be constantly under scrutiny. Authority figures may not have our interests or the interests of others in mind, and blindly accepting an authority figure is dangerous.

TL;DR: Hurting a defenceless human being is worse, however hurting a defenceless animal is wrong on many of the same levels...

Only hurting a defenceless, innocent human being could be considered worse, (another interesting debate topic for another time!), although hurting defenceless animals is immoral for many of the same reasons, as animals are sentient and violence without good reason is wrong. (Interestingly, there is evidence to suggest that people who are cruel to animals are likely to go on to hurt humans as well.)

• Causing hurt (for no greater good), is part of what constitutes an immoral act across many of our belief systems. Causing pain without very good reason is simply cruel.

• There are very few reasons for hurting a defenceless animal for the greater good. Animals can’t ‘wrong’ you, and defenceless animals are presumably not an immediate threat.

Unlike with human beings, there are some instances when hurting a defenceless animal is morally justifiable. Namely, killing an animal for meat when it is necessary for survival. (Even if done painlessly, this still causes hurt as killing itself is a form of hurt.)

However these instances are few and far between, and the meat industry as a whole can't be seen as morally justifiable.

TL;DR: Perfectly simple, yet still deliver on the flavour front.

• The three most humble yet classic and beloved crisp flavours are ready salted, cheese and onion, and salt and vinegar, and of these three, salt and vinegar reigns supreme. While we have a variety of exciting flavours on the market these days, the simplicity of these three flavour combinations makes them timeless and versatile, perfect to pair with any sandwich at lunchtime, pint at the pub, or dip at a party.

• An intense flavour is a must for any crisp, putting ready salted out of the running for the top spot, as many brands make them too bland. Cheese and onion provide an intense flavour, however the smell makes them the antisocial choice. This leaves salt and vinegar, which one-ups ready salted on flavour, and can also be enjoyed around other people.

• And finally…what do you put on your chips at the fish and chip shop? Enough said. Salt, vinegar, and the potato crisp are the strongest flavour combination in the snack aisle.

TL;DR: While genetic modification might have its benefits for individual cases, ultimately a society where it is legal has its priorities wrong.

Genetic modification in babies is ethically extremely problematic and legalising it would be a very bad reflection on our society.

• Most obviously, genetic modification on a superficial basis (i.e eye colour, hair colour, IQ etc.) is very problematic, as it is fueled by vanity. Being able to choose what traits make a person ‘desirable’ is very dangerous as by implication those traits rejected are deemed ‘undesirable.’ What right have we to judge a lower IQ, sex, skin colour, hair colour or anything else as ‘undesirable'? Genetic modification in this case clearly makes children products which are useful for status and does not respect their humanity.

• While genetic modification for health reasons seems like a different ballpark, ultimately similar issues apply as we are judging a person with disability or health issue as ‘undesirable’ by choosing to alter the genes of embryos or eradicate embryos with these issues. While at first it may seem like the kindest thing to make the population healthier, where is the line which says that someone’s natural traits make their life 'bad' or 'unhealthy', or worth any less than someone without any health problems? This issue would only get worse as those with ‘undesirable’ traits become a smaller part of the population, making their differences seem like more of a problem. (The film 'Gattaca' is a great watch for anyone interested in these issues!) Obviously, there are some cases where a disability or health issue clearly makes a person’s quality of life worse, however, there are still question marks about whether genetic modicfication violates the embryo's bodily autonomy, or whether it is ok to destroy ‘spare’ embryos if we instead select those with the ‘best’ genes. Ultimately though, there is no way to establish this line clearly.

• Ultimately, even in very tricky cases where health issues and disability are involved, a society that legalises genetic modification is a dehumanising one. While genetic modification may seem positive and kind in some cases, a society that allows genetic modification of embryos with health issues to be commonplace also says that these lives are worth less than those without, and does not prioritise caring for and supporting people who are most vulnerable, in favour of eliminating them from society.

TL;DR: 'Survivor' can be a helpful term for some people who have experienced rape, however, we should work hard to protect the term 'victim' as well.

Nowadays it seems the word ‘victim’ is used as an insult, often tied to phrases like ‘professional victim’, and ‘victim culture’, both extremely damaging in a culture where rape is too often blamed on the victim or dismissed. The word ‘survivor’ steers clear of this stigma, attaching something positive to people who have experienced rape. The term acknowledges the resilience and bravery of rape victims, and when used to refer to themselves, can help some people heal and see a future after devastating abuse. Mentioned above by jh2211, Aly Raisman’s speech at the hearing of Larry Nassar, USA Gymnastics doctor sexually abused many young athletes, comes to mind, as she told him that she was ’no longer a victim’ but a ‘survivor’, that the gymnasts abused were now a ‘force’ against him, and that he couldn’t take the love of gymnastics away from them.

However, we should continue to use the word ‘victim’ to acknowledge the harm that is done to rape victims and the predatory nature of rape, and should not let the term be hijacked by those who victim blame or dismiss rape and sexual assault. The issue with the term ‘survivor’ is that it often consigns the damage of rape to the past when in reality, victims often deal with the effects for the rest of their lives. The term ‘survivor’ has its place, but perhaps should only come from victims themselves rather than imposed from the outside, and never because ‘victim’ has a negative stigma attached.

TL;DR: We should not legitimise prostitution by making it legal as it is a business built upon unequal power dynamics. Legalising it will not necessarily make it a safer industry either.

• To start with, prostitution always involves the exchange of sex for money meaning there is an inherent imbalance of power, making it incompatible with a society that promotes free consent. While in other cases we can not always see if coercion, manipulation, or imbalance of power is involved in a sexual relationship from the outside, in the case of prostitution, it is inherent in the definition itself (’the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.’), as workers must engage in sexual activity to support themselves financially. Surely the bar for what constitutes consensual sex is far too low if we are to see prostitution as a morally neutral industry protected by law? While some workers feel that they are under no pressure to remain in the industry and give their consent freely, the fact still remains that the setup of the sex industry is not one designed to support consent and autonomy.

• The main argument that prostitution should be legalised is that it makes a trade that will always exist safer. But who is to say that appropriate regulations will really be implemented anyway and that they will work in the interests of workers? As soon as we legalise this business, governments may have reason to look out for the interests of pimps as business owners rather than workers as vulnerable people. To truly hold pimps accountable, we must make sure that procuring (not being a sex worker), remains illegal. Instead of making this industry legal, the government should keep a closer watch on abuse within, and help provide workers with routes out of it.

Further fascinating insights about the ways in which legalising prostitution does not make the industry safer: https://catwinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Ten-Reasons-for-NOT-Legalizing-Prostitution.pdf

Disagree - I think this idea comes from many people's first attempt at running. Trying to go on a jog can be very gruelling and disheartening when you first begin if you push too hard or don't follow any kind of training plan. However, if you follow a realistic, long term programme like couch to 5k, you can definitely build enough fitness to be able to get into the groove of a run and really enjoy the run itself, not just the way you feel afterwards. Running is also fun because it's so simple and because you can enjoy doing it outdoors. Contrary to popular belief you can definitely build fitness by going at a mostly 'easy' pace, (whatever that might be for you) and only pushing yourself hard occasionally, which can also be fun and satisfying in its own way.

David Roche, author of "The Happy Runner" puts it best: “That is the central premise of running training — easy, chill running now begets fast, fun running later.”

TL;DR: Yes, vaccinations are invasive and bodily autonomy should be protected in law. However, individuals still have a moral responsibility to protect others by choosing to be vaccinated.

As we are all free to choose whether to get the Covid-19 vaccine, doing so should be seen as a moral responsibility. Although it is natural to be wary of something of which we cannot know the full long-term effects, getting vaccinated is still clearly the most rational option based on the knowledge that we have about the dangers of coronavirus, the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing it, and the unlikeliness of long term effects, (based on research by WHO, CDC and similar organisations). Therefore, fear of the unknown shouldn't be used as an excuse, especially when lives are at stake. While this research suggests that getting the vaccine is the best option for protecting your own health, the most significant benefit of vaccinations is their effectiveness in decreasing rates of infection and transmission in the population as a whole, as well as preventing new mutations. Covid-19 is a shared problem, and by not getting vaccinated one is directly responsible for adding to the suffering of others, contributing to the loss of life and increasing strain on our healthcare system, and society/the economy at large.

Getting a vaccination is certainly an intimate, personal choice to do with bodily autonomy, and for this reason, perhaps enforcing vaccinations by law is problematic. However, the fact that there is a potential personal sacrifice involved for those who are less willing does not negate the fact that they have a moral duty to do it anyway, based on the severity of the situation and the evidence that we have for the effectiveness of the vaccine.

TL;DR: The standard that teachers do not give their political opinions in the classroom ultimately makes for a more comfortable and open learning environment, which is an important atmosphere to create for students beginning to encounter and discuss different political opinions for the first time.

This is a tricky one, however ultimately, I don’t think it’s necessary for teachers to explicitly reveal their own political opinions to their students to discuss politics properly, and I think the policy of not doing so is necessary to create an ethos of equality and respect for the varied opinions expressed by students in the class (barring hate speech). While teachers are obviously more than capable of expressing their own opinions and also fairly presenting alternative opinions that they disagree with, choosing not to do so creates space for students to think and express their thoughts with less concern about how their opinion compares to their teacher’s.

By freely sharing their own opinions, teachers could also risk creating an unnecessarily inflammatory, potentially hostile environment for pupils. Nuanced and complicated political discussions (e.g., the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to take just one example) may have particularly personal resonance for some pupils and a teacher sharing their opinion, whatever the intention, could easily be interpreted as an attempt to persuade the class one way or another, perhaps even contributing to the marginalization of or discrimination against particular groups. These issues really could be avoided so that sensitive, complicated topics, which should be included in the curriculum, can be ‘taught’ as well as they can be.

This is not to say that this standard would actually make the classroom a perfectly neutral place. Curriculums are definitely not unbiased, and teachers are likely to translate some of their own biases anyway, even when they do not divulge their personal views. Some might even say that by sharing their opinions (as long as they are presented as opinions), teachers help students see that they are taught through particular lenses. Admittedly this is a potential danger of making the classroom seem ‘neutral’. Ideally, pupils would also be taught that their curriculum is a limited one which is by no means objective or free of bias, although I don’t think that this kind of teaching exists before undergraduate level education at the moment. Ultimately, it’s a toss-up between creating a more comfortable space or the most honest, authentic learning environment possible. This is a difficult conundrum, but I think overall creating a comfortable space is more important in a pre-university environment as students are just beginning to think critically and come into contact with different political opinions for the first time.

Saying that teachers should refrain from explicitly giving political opinions is not to say that teachers should be frightened of talking in-depth about politics for fear of revealing their views. The DfE’s issuing of a warning against teachers expressing political opinions in 2018 was clearly an attempt to stop them from talking about school funding cuts. The government asking teachers to stop talking about current events is both tragic and sinister and teachers certainly shouldn’t be paralysed by fear of potentially revealing their leanings or translating biases, as we all have them. In my opinion, students are often able to discern pieces of their teachers' political leanings anyway. However, because of the reality of bias in education, some kind of official attempt to remain as neutral as possible by teachers in the classroom is definitely worth something and contributes to a positive ethos in the classroom.