Lydiamae

Tl;dr: Celebrities need to be transparent about cosmetic procedures as it sets unrealistic standards to their followers.

I think having cosmetic procedures done is fine, so long as you don't pretend that your body looks that way naturally. Celebrities or people who have a large following that are not transparent about their cosmetic procedures endorse unattainable beauty standards, most often to their young and impressionable audiences, which is wrong.

Moreover, if a celebrity uses their body to promote products such as diet pills, or say that their bodies are obtained with just exercise can quite literally feed into disordered relationships with food and exercise itself, as young audiences think that if they follow these steps, then they too can have a body that only cosmetic doctors can create.

Overall, celebrities need to be transparent about cosmetic surgery as it is psychologically damaging and dangerous to their audiences.

The act of banning bottled water seems simple enough, but there are instances where this simply is not possible. In the UK, it seems a simple enough task as the drinking water here is of an excellent standard, and you can buy water filters if you still aren't comfortable with the quality of water.

But if we ban bottled water, what does this mean for people who have limited access? For example, people who are homeless and do not have access to tap water, and rely on bottled water to get by? If we are to ban water, we need to make it accessible to everyone first, meaning we need to have more water fountains available, or perhaps places that people can travel to to access clean tap water, if they don't have access to it.

Tl;dr: It depends on the circumstance of the individual if the act is selfish or not.

I can see both sides of the argument here. I think that if you're in a committed relationship, then confessing to a one night stand is definitely the right thing to do. If you're in this situation, and you do otherwise, the only person you're really protecting is yourself, and the act of not telling your partner is the selfish action here. However, if you aren't in a relationship, and you just confess to a one night stand to gain social respect, or to boost your ego, then I think that it is selfish. By doing this, you are disrespecting the other person involved and treating them as a number, rather than a person.

Tl;dr : Beauty is indeed subjective, but there are certain standards of beauty that influence our attraction.

Beauty is relative, which is why everyone experiences attraction differently. In philosophical studies, [aesthetic relativism] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetic_relativism) is the theory that views of beauty are relative to differences in perception and consideration, and intrinsically, have no absolute truth or validity. Therefore, by this definition, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, as there is no scientific or quantitative measurement of aesthetic attractiveness.

However, although beauty can't be measured scientifically, I do believe that what we find attractive is influenced by our environment. In the 90's being extremely thin was seen as attractive, as the beauty standard was heavily influenced by supermodels who coined the term 'heroin chic'. Therefore, perhaps people who grew up during this era may find this aesthetic more attractive than beauty standards nowadays.

In today's age, which is heavily influenced by figures such as the Kardashians, who have popularised certain attributes such as a small waist, full lips, and accentuated features are glamorised. I think that this has subconsciously influenced our perceptions of beauty more than we realise.

So I do think beauty is in the eye of the beholder, to a certain extent. But that perception of beauty is influenced by the aesthetic attributes our society deems as acceptable and desirable.

TL;DR: We don't spend enough time talking about mental health.

Although mental health is being discussed more in recent years, it is still a fairly taboo subject. It is still seen as normal to take a day off from work if you have a physical illness but is not as common to take a day off work if you are having a bad mental health day.

Mental health is just as important as physical health, and is so important for our overall quality of life, which is why we need to continue to talk about it until it becomes more normalised and accepted!

TL;DR: Silence against injustice perpetuates complicity.

Silence most definitely is violence. If you're only willing to state concerns with prejudice when you are in the company of like-minded people, or when it suits you, then you aren't a true ally.

Whether it be issues of racism or sexism, staying silent on issues to avoid confrontation or to not cause an issue is harmful because it makes you a complicit participant in prejudice. As an ally, it is your responsibility to spread awareness on issues such as racism and injustice, even if this is just a comment such as 'actually, I don't think it's okay for you to say that', or asking questions such as 'and why do you think that?'. Change can't happen without having conversations with people, and challenging their point of view.

TL;DR: Sexual Infidelity breaks commitment and trust between two people.

[Natasha Mckeever] (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/papq.12316) argues that sexual infidelity 'often takes place in relationships with unequal power structures' and is 'much more problematic when the relationship is unequal, and the partner with the most power is unfaithful'. When this situation arises, it makes it harder for the person who has the least amount of power to leave the relationship, even if they are aware of the adultery that is present in the relationship. This can lead to emotional abuse, dependency, and low self-esteem.

In the US alone, 54% of Americans found that they knew someone who had an adulterous spouse. Furthermore, 50% of Americans and 42% of British people aged 16-45 had been sexually unfaithful at least once in their lifetime. This suggests that infidelity is a common issue, and happens more regularly than we would like to think. Some researchers suggest that adultery occurs because some people are not wired to be in monogamous relationships, but do not know how to approach polyamory, as it is more uncommon and frowned upon by society,

Overall, I do think adultery is wrong because it can perpetuate emotional abuse and create long-lasting issues in future relationships regarding trust.

According to the [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/) moral relativism is 'associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons.'

This theory outlines that morality is relative, and groups of people who share similar values often have the same moral viewpoint. An example that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses is moral values in Western and non-Western cultures. For example, during the colonial era in Western culture, the predominant viewpoint of Europeans was that their colonial presence was superior, and welcomed by other societies. Therefore, because a large number of people in European culture welcomed colonialism, the question of morality was not really considered, or if it was, was thought to be 'morally right', although today we know that it was not.

• Elitism is a large problem at university. Whilst I do agree that not everyone can thrive at university, as university isn't for everyone, the grade boundaries to certain universities are often unfair, and the application process tends to favour certain groups of people over others.

• Alongside this, certain universities also have a reputation for being rather elitist. As [Joshi Hermann] (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/10/britains-best-universities-are-dominated-by-private-schools-could-i-help-level-the-playing-field) writes, 'the application process is supposed to uncover talent and potential, but often seems designed to reward traits such as confidence and polish, handing a significant advantage to applicants whose parents went to university, and whose school knows the subtleties of a good application, often due to decades or even centuries of experience.'

• In 2017, Bristol university announced its [Bristol Scholars] (https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2017/jan/26/universities-must-do-more-to-tackle-the-unfair-elitist-admissions-system) scheme, where the university offers places based on potential rather than exam grades or attainment.

• This scheme is beneficial as a lot of times, an individuals potential is not reflected in exam grades as the results of an exam are subject to the conditions on the day - a person could be having a bad day and not do as well as predicted, which reflects poorly on their academic commitments.

I agree that grade boundaries are there for a reason - if you can’t complete the grades required at A Level then it’s highly unlikely that you would be able to keep up with university standard work.

But then there’s the case of people who go through clearing with lower grades than required on the course, who are just as successful in their university career. I’ve also experienced first hand coming from a small town school with serious underfunding how some students are neglected in their high school careers but really do have the potential to succeed if they were given a chance at university level, but do not have the grades to do so… but I think that’s more to do with an issue in secondary education, not the university system! I guess really it all goes hand in hand.

TL;DR: The manic pixie dream girl trope is anti-feminist.

Even if you aren't aware exactly what a manic pixie dream girl is, I can guarantee that you've come across at least one in either popular novels, TV, or movies.

The manic pixie dream girl, according to [The Take] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_gxo8l9j8s), is a woman who is 'quirky, impulsive and plays by her own set of rules'. Often written by men to meet the male gaze, the manic pixie dream girl is problematic as her uniqueness and quirky personality derives from the male ideal of meeting a 'not like other girls' girl - someone who is different to other women and dresses eccentrically, listens to 'underground' bands, and has a weird and often childlike sense of humour. The manic pixie dream girl serves a desire to fix the lives of the men who fall in love with her, and change them forever into a better person.

To name a few examples, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's Ramona Flowers, Natalie Portman's character Sam in Garden State and Kirsten Dunst in Elizabethtown are just a few of the manic pixie dream girl in popular Hollywood film productions.

As [Verve] (https://medium.com/verve-up/everything-wrong-with-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-50aea4d427e0) argue, the manic pixie dream girl solely exists 'as a channel for a man's self-expression'. Therefore, her originality and all of the things that make her unique, actually aren't unique and interesting at all, as she is merely just conforming to male fantasies.

In more recent years, producers and filmmakers are actually creating characters that are self-aware versions of the manic-pixie dream girl, which subverts the male fantasy. A great example is Cassie from [Skins] (https://www.flavorwire.com/405387/how-skins-quietly-rejected-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-archetype) who at first is presented as overly whimsical and odd to fit this stereotype, but after delving more into the series, we learn that Cassie actually has serious mental health issues that are not to be glamorized or confused with 'quirkiness' in the slightest.

TL;DR Luna Lovegood is the best Harry Potter character because she represents those who are often overshadowed in school.

I've always felt like Luna Lovegood is a really underappreciated character in the Harry Potter franchise. Unlike Hermione Granger, who is brainy, brave and highly ambitious, Luna Lovegood speaks to those who feel out of place, she is content with her status as a side character and doesn't try to stand out. Despite all of this, she is anything but normal and seems blissfully unaware of how unique she actually is.

Whereas Hermione prides herself on being the best at absolutely everything, which is partly due to her status as a muggle-born and therefore a desire to prove herself to wizarding society, Luna is intelligent without the need to prove herself to anyone. She is often mocked for her outlandish theories and remarks, but actually is a great asset to the order, and doesn't let others opinions stop her from being herself - she helps Harry discover the location of Ravenclaw's diadem, after all!

Overall, Luna Lovegood in my opinion is the best Harry Potter character because she represents kindness, creativity and uniqueness!

TL;DR: Being 'in love' is just a chemical reaction in the brain.

According to science, the feeling of 'love' is not scientifically measurable, as it is just a mixture of hormones.

• According to [Science In the News] (https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/), romantic love can be broken down into three categories: lust, attraction and attachment. Out of these three categories, a mixture of hormones are released to create these feelings.

• Lust is caused by testosterone and estrogen, attraction is caused by dopamine, norepinephrine and sereotonin, and attachment is caused by the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin.

• Therefore, the emotional state of being in love does exist, but it is actually scientifically explained through the chemicals in our brains!

TL;DR: There are ways to make buying fur and leather more ethical.

Whilst buying fur and leather and eating meat are both unethical practices, I do think there is room to make wearing fur slightly more ethical than eating meat.

Writer [Melissa Kwasny] (https://qz.com/quartzy/1543323/the-ethical-case-for-wearing-leather-fur-and-silk/) studies the 'economics of clothing manufacturing, the traditions of crafting, and the environmental and moral impact of the choices that consumers make' in her book Putting on the Dog: The Animal Origins of What We Wear. From her research, she concluded that sustainably sourcing clothing from plants and animals is actually more sustainable than synthetic products.

Synthetic textiles are responsible for the pollution of waterways, soils and air. The majority of synthetic textiles are not biodegradable, whereas animal textiles are, making them great in theory, but not sustainable long-term. Add this to the issue of overconsumption nowadays. As a society, we are told we need to buy the latest trends, and fast-fashion retailers capitalize on this need through selling cheap, poorly manufactured items which will usually end up in a landfill in the next 5 years.

In general, I don't tend to buy genuine leather or real fur, but when I do, it's always second hand. I think this is a great way to make fur and leather more ethical because you aren't contributing directly to the issue by providing large companies with money for the slaughter of animals, but you're stopping these garments from going to a landfill. That way, you give money to a seller who needs the sale, and you get a good quality product that you can reuse forever!

In a study published in the [Journal of Personality and Social Psychology] (https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51114), it was found that in relationships, more than 60% of men initiated sex more often than women. I feel like this is largely to do with cultural and societal perceptions of relationships. From a young age, women are culturally taught and conditioned to be pursued, whilst men are taught to pursue. Of course, this comes with another set of issues entirely. Who else from a young age was told if a boy was being mean to you, then he liked you?

In a relationship, equity is important. Therefore, maybe if women did initiate romantic relationships more, it would maybe begin to break down these rigid social expectations of men and women that have been set in stone for so long.

The dating app [Bumble] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumble_Inc.) has actually created a really smart system that sets them apart from other dating apps as in heterosexual matches, only female users make the first contact with male users. This encourages women to be more confident and assertive in their relationships, and also takes the stress away from male users for once, as they don't have to be pressured to make the first contact.

TL;DR: Whilst gene editing can eliminate diseases and birth defects, the ethics of genetic modification in babies need to be considered.

Scientist [Dr Kevin Smith] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-50460721) has claimed that the risks of gene editing 'were now low enough to justify its use with human embryos', with the attempt less than two years away.

Modern scientific studies do show that gene editing is the only way to successfully avoid multiple diseases within the embryo, and 'offer the prospect of protecting future people against common disorders' and diseases that lay dormant for multiple years.

The argument of ethics remains on the notion of playing God. Is it morally and ethically right to genetically modify humans with science, instead of letting nature take its natural course?

On one hand, genetic modification in babies would delay and avoid terminal diseases and prolong the lifespans of humans, meaning the population overall would be healthier. On the other hand, genetic modification has been criticised in humans as it creates the term coined as 'designer babies' - the thought that if you found out your child was likely to have a disease, you could edit it out to make your child more 'desireable'.

Yes - this is a good point. I think personally I wouldn’t choose to edit genes unless the baby had a genetic condition that significantly impacted their life - that’s just my personal choice. On a more general level, when people start to edit genes based on eye colour and hair colour, that’s when it becomes the issue.

TL;DR: There are scientific reasons to explain 'paranormal' activity.

I'm not saying that weird things don't happen, but I don't think that this is due to ghosts or paranormal activity. For example, [Science News For Students] (https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/science-ghosts) argue that there are a lot of scientific reasons for people's supposed ghost sightings.

Examples include things such as [sleep paralysis] (https://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/sleep-paralysis#:~:text=Sleep%20paralysis%20is%20a%20feeling,or%20a%20sense%20of%20choking.), which happens when the brain 'messes up' the process of falling asleep or waking, which causes you to have vivid hallucinations that are very realistic.

Other examples include misperceptions, such as seeing things that aren't there, such as seeing a face in the shadow. Psychologists say that this happens to everyone at some point, but some turn to ghosts for explanations.

[Professor Brian Cox] (https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1042786/brian-cox-do-ghosts-exist-lorraine-kelly-large-hadron-collider-lhc) further argued that the Standard Model of Physics does not allow for the substance that can carry information after death that would not be detected by the Large Hadron Collider. The Standard Model of Physics states that if energy is lost it requires energy to move or emit light, so by this reasoning, ghosts cannot exist.

So whilst I think that ghost stories and horror movies are very enjoyable to watch and fun to theorize about, I don't think that they are actually real.

TL;DR: Chivalry can be used to perpetuate sexist ideals, but the good-natured intentions behind chivalry are not inherently sexist.

I think it depends on your intentions behind actions that are chivalrous. For example, if a man paying for a meal or holding the door open for a woman on a date is to appear masculine and dominant as part of an ego boost, then yes, I'd say that in itself, these actions are slightly sexist. I remember one episode of the ITV show [Love Island] (https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/love-island-camilla-jonny) when two contestants got into an argument over their preferred way to pay on a first date. The female contestant argued that she would rather 'go halves', and the male contestant remarked that he liked to pay for the whole meal, stating that he would feel emasculated if his date paid half or in full. Using this as an example, chivalrous actions in themselves can sometimes perpetuate sexist ideals.

However, I think if someone pays for your meal or delivers acts of chivalry, they aren't immediately a sexist person, more often than not, they're just being nice and polite, which is what you'd expect from anyone.

By this standard, can women be chivalrous too? Or is it just a male-orientated ideal? If a woman paid on the first date, would her actions be appreciated, or stand-offish? I think the whole topic is interesting when considering modern dating. Maybe some aspects of chivalry are outdated now?

TL;DR: Compulsory attendance should reflect the individual's personal circumstances.

As sofiawells mentioned previously, making classroom attendance non-compulsory would demotivate students to attend school, in my opinion. I think that classroom attendance is part of a routine, and encourages socialization with other pupils, and creates a relationship between teachers and students. These are all skills that are useful in the world of employability and in general, encourages and develops interpersonal communication skills.

However, I think in some cases, classroom attendance should be made non-compulsory for students with special circumstances, such as chronic illnesses, where they may feel embarrassed or ashamed for their low attendance, or mental health reasons such as anxiety, where classroom conditions increase stress levels.

TL;DR: It depends on how you define 'dieting' to determine if it is a waste of time or not.

If we define a diet as something that is short term, aimed to get fast, and often unhealthy results, then yes - I believe that dieting is a complete waste of time.

However, if 'diet' is defined using the definition found in [Oxford Learners Dictionary] (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/diet_1), which is stated as 'the food and drink that you eat and drink regularly', then by this standard dieting is not a waste of time as it is essentially the nutrients that a person eats day-to-day.

Fad diets are a waste of time because they aren't sustainable, meaning that if you lose a fad diet to lose weight quickly, you will gain the weight back quickly and could possibly damage your metabolism in the long run.

I think that choosing to eat healthy, balanced meals is more of a lifestyle choice than a 'diet', so for this reason, I don't think that it is a waste of time because it is beneficial to a persons health overall.

TL;DR: Banning the Burka would be a regressive step in politics.

As [Huffington Post] (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/chris-whiting/why-we-shouldnt-ban-the-burka_b_11804154.html) argues, 'banning the burka is a political issue, like scrapping inheritance tax and restoring the death penalty, that arises every so often without making much progress towards becoming law'.

In the case of banning the burka in political roles, it has the same consequences. Not only would banning the burka create further adversities in politics by creating further difficulties for Muslim women who wear the burka and wish to enter governmental roles in an already white-dominated sector, but it would also create ideas of misinformation about the burka itself.

As [Chris Whiting] (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/chris-whiting/why-we-shouldnt-ban-the-burka_b_11804154.html) states, 'it is not down to the British public to decide what ways of dressing are or are not domineering to Muslim women'. An item of clothing, should not, and does not, stop a person from performing their job role effectively, which is why I think we should not make the burka illegal in governmental roles.

TL;DR: There are scientific reasons to explain 'paranormal' activity

I'm not saying that weird things don't happen, but I don't think that this is due to ghosts or paranormal activity. For example, [Science News For Students] (https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/science-ghosts) argue that there are a lot of scientific reasons for people's supposed ghost sightings.

Examples include things such as [sleep paralysis] (https://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/sleep-paralysis#:~:text=Sleep%20paralysis%20is%20a%20feeling,or%20a%20sense%20of%20choking.), which happens when the brain 'messes up' the process of falling asleep or waking, which causes you to have vivid hallucinations that are very realistic.

Other examples include misperceptions, such as seeing things that aren't there, such as seeing a face in the shadow. Psychologists say that this happens to everyone at some point, but some turn to ghosts for explanations.

[Professor Brian Cox] (https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1042786/brian-cox-do-ghosts-exist-lorraine-kelly-large-hadron-collider-lhc) further argued that the Standard Model of Physics does not allow for the substance that can carry information after death that would not be detected by the Large Hadron Collider. The Standard Model of Physics states that if energy is lost it requires energy to move or emit light, so by this reasoning, ghosts cannot exist.

So whilst I think that ghost stories and horror movies are very enjoyable to watch and fun to theorize about, I don't think that they are actually real.

TL;DR: Film photography is more beginner-friendly

Of course, everyone with a smartphone can easily take photographs on their cameras. However, speaking from an artistic point of view, film photography is a lot more user friendly in my opinion.

During lockdown I decided to play around with film photography. As someone who has never taken an interest in photography before, I love the look and process of film photography over digital. Gen Z in particular seem to have more of an obsession with film photography lately, and I think it's a lot to do with the nostalgia of film photography and the authenticity of it. Growing up in a digital world, it's nice to have a break from 'perfect' photography.

I think film photography encourages you to take photographs in the moment, rather than digital where you can already see the image on the screen, where the desire to take the 'perfect' image is more prominent. Also, digital cameras are generally more expensive, so if you're a beginner just wanting to try out photography, cheap film cameras are more financially accessible.

TL;DR: Classical Music isn't appreciated enough.

Although I'm not the most avid listener of classical music and only use it to study and to help me sleep, I would argue that it isn't overrated at all.

Across my age range in particular, I feel as though when you mention that you listen to classical music you get a few odd looks. As meglev argued, classical music does have many health benefits. An article from [BBC Culture] (https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20180116-can-listening-to-classical-music-improve-your-life) argues that listening to classical music is an act of self-care, which helps to aid in our mental wellbeing.

Furthermore, I would argue that having curated playlists on Spotify and Apple Music is making the genre less pretentious because it's is effectively making classical music more accessible. By having playlists that are so readily accessible to a general audience, not only is classical music being listened to by people across all demographics, but it is also giving newer classical artists opportunities too!

The idea of the caste system is that it is a [categorial hierarchy] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-48619734) of the Hindu religion, which places Brahmins (priests and teachers) on top, followed by Kshatriyas (rulers/warriors), Vaishyas (farmers, traders and merchants), and Shudras (labourers). There is also an unofficial fifth group of 'Outcastes' of people who do 'unclean' work outside of the four categories.

The Indian caste system was hereditary and people could only marry within the same caste. Thus, the caste system had many characteristics of 'race'. Some of the castes were small-scale [tribal groups] (https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human/Indias-caste-system) who incorporated into the Hindu kingdoms, and therefore there were in fact, thousands of castes in India.

The caste system was changed by British colonial authorities who were perpetuating ideas about Indian society. British authorities gave the [Brahmans] (https://victorianweb.org/history/empire/india/caste.html) certain special privileges that the other groups did not have and elevated their status. The goal of the British was to form India into a more 'Westernised' society.

However, due to European theories of race in the 19th century, Britain used the caste system as a classification of race. [Scientific analysis] (https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human/Indias-caste-system) that was taken seriously at the time indicated that 'Bengali upper castes were Aryan in origin' and the lower castes were destined to 'die out'.

Therefore, Britain reinvented the Indian caste system into a classification of race which has created long-lasting issues of colourism in India.

TL;DR: Using animals for entertainment is cruel

In an article by [Peta] (https://www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-not-use-entertainment/bullfighting/) it was found that every year, at least 7 thousand bulls are slaughtered in official bullfights in Spain.

During bullfights, the bull is pushed to exhaustion after being stabbed with a lance to frighten the animal. After being chased around the ring and driven to fatigue and blood loss, the bullfighter will pierce the bull with his sword. If this doesn't kill the animal straight away, fighters have been known to sever the bull's spinal cord.

Official bullfights are funded by [taxpayer subsidies] (https://www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-not-use-entertainment/bullfighting/) which come from local, regional, national and EU governments. This money would be better dispersed elsewhere to help the economy.

Bullfighting, although traditional, is extremely inhumane. Just because something is valued as tradition, doesn't make it morally right, which is why bullfighting should be banned.

TL;DR: Just because someone has a large platform, it doesn't make them qualified to talk about political events.

I'm all for people using their platform to spread awareness on political events. If people have large audiences, they have the power to spread information that can assist political movements and protests for good.

This was particularly evident when the Black Lives Matter protests were occurring last May, as influencers used their voice to show solidarity to the movement and shared infographics and educational resources on their platforms to spread awareness about police brutality against the black community and institutional racism in the USA and the UK.

However, often on social media, if an influencer decides to stay silent on political events, they often get shamed by their followers to speak up on political issues. This is problematic for a number of reasons. In order to share something on social media about a complex political event, I believe that you need to be educated and understand the topic enough to have a conversation about it. When influencers are bullied into speaking up about a political event, they might just share a post on their Instagram story to stop online hate, rather than actually be educated on the issue at hand. This causes issues for a number of reasons. Firstly, the post may be factually incorrect, which spreads misinformation, and takes away from the importance of the cause. Secondly, sharing an infographic on an Instagram story without researching the political cause just contributes to performative activism. An example of this recently is when influencer [Suede Brooks] (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/suede-brooks-israel-palestinian-conflict-social-media-post-apology) shared a post about the Israel- Palestinian conflict from a controversial activist without understanding the reason for the conflict due to online hate she was receiving.

Overall, although support from large influencers and celebrities on political events is helpful in spreading awareness, they should only post about political events if they feel educated enough to do so, not because they are pressured online. At the end of the day, influencers are not paid to talk about politics. If you want to have discussions about politics on social media, it is probably better to follow political activists or educate yourself via books, podcasts and documentaries rather than relying on a Tiktok or Instagram influencer.

TL;DR: Politics have always been an integral part of the Eurovision song contest.

This years Eurovision if anything, proves that Eurovision isn't just a contest. As the first competition post- Brexit, the 2021 competition was a testament to our relations with our European neighbours.

As [Caroline Frost] (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-politics-of-eurovision) argues, politics have been 'laced into the contest ever since 1956 when, in the same year six countries signed up for a 'customs union', exactly the same six nations participated in the very first trans- European singing contest'.

The contest is known for being a bit cheesy at the best of times, and although this years winners 'Måneskin' from Italy offered a very impressive performance, the contestants are often known for not being the greatest of performers.

This year, the UK managed to score a whopping zero points overall, from both the judging panel and the public, making it the second time that the UK scored nul points since 2003. Of course, there is no official way of telling whether this score was due to poor performance, or as [Helen Pidd] (https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/may/23/nul-points-how-can-uk-win-eurovision-analysis) argues, a reaction to the EU nations for Brexit, but it is a very interesting coincidence.

TL;DR: Criticism of music based on the main demographic of an artists listenership is sexist

As Thomas previously argued, female artists definitely get more criticism for explicit lyrics than male artists, where sexually explicit lyrics are normalised and accepted. However, I want to talk about the other side of music criticism. Why is it that artists that have a wider female audience are not taken as seriously as artists with a primarily male listenership?

For example, pop music is often stereotyped as 'teenage girl' music. Bands such as One Direction, 5 Seconds of Summer, and The Wanted have a primarily female listenership. Personal preferences aside, you don't have to like this music to acknowledge that there are sexist notions behind the criticisms of these bands. As [Brodie Lancaster] (https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/881-pop-music-teenage-girls-and-the-legitimacy-of-fandom/) argues, 'there is no greater cultural crime a young girl can commit than loving pop music without apology ... when fame is girdled by a swelling teenage, female fanbase immediately, that celebrity becomes false, temporary and unearned'. This comes down to the accepted cultural idea that teenage girls are incapable of critically thinking about music in the way that their male counterparts are. Therefore, this is why often, the bands that are seen as 'good' and therefore 'cool' by media and in social circles have large male listenerships and 'cringe-worthy' and therefore 'bad' music have female fanbases.

TL;DR: The Great Gatsby is an analysis of the unattainability of the American Dream

The Great Gatsby is indeed an analysis of the American Dream, but rather than praising and idealizing this ideology, F. Scott Fitzgerald critiques the unattainability of America's cultural ideal.

As [Roger L. Pearson] (https://www.jstor.org/stable/813939?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents) states, the American Dream is 'the belief that every man, whatever his origins, may pursue and attain his chosen goals, be they political, monetary, or social'. Upon first reading, the book does encapsulate this general ideology: Jay Gatsby is a man who has achieved wealth beyond his dreams from hard work, creating a life for himself that he was not born into, but worked hard for. He hosts glamorous parties and lives a decadent lifestyle full of excess, alcohol and cars. He is the epitome of 'rags to riches', and a poster boy for the American Dream.

However, Fitzgerald's novel emphasises the tropes of America's so-called 'golden age' to illustrate the bleakness of the novel and the shallowness of this ideal. By the end of the novel, Jay Gatsby's idealised life is shown for what it really is - we find that he has earned his living from illegal bootlegging, making him a fraud. He essentially stole his persona from rich, old-money type Dan Cody, who he was employed by when he was homeless, and ends up framed for the murder of a woman killed by his lover, and pays the price of his life for this. The novel's evidently bleak ending, void from any sort of optimism, illustrates the flaws with the American Dream ideology - that it is in fact, an illusion of success.

TL;DR: Tights are uncomfortable and inconvenient!

As someone who has worn tights throughout my academic life as part of compulsory uniform rules, I can vouch that tights are not as comfortable as jeans! In the colder months, they offer no warmth, and often you find yourself freezing and wishing you had something warmer to wear.

Alongside this, tights are inconvenient because you always have to replace them. They rip so easily and for this reason, I barely get any wear out of them. Although this doesn't affect their comfortability, the [unsustainability of tights] (https://enbrogue.com/2019/12/01/sustainable_tights/#:~:text=So%20tights%20seem%20pretty%20wasteful,the%20water%20with%20every%20wash.) is another reason to choose your jeans over your hosiery!

TL;DR: Whilst the concept of barefoot running seems beneficial, the actual scientific evidence is inconclusive

• Barefoot running, also called ['natural running'] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot_running) is the act of running without footwear. Although it is not common in most parts of the world, it is still practised in parts of Africa and Latin America.

• [Studies show] (https://breakingmuscle.com/fitness/the-pros-and-cons-of-barefoot-running-what-the-research-says) that running barefoot creates higher braking and pushing impulses, alongside the pre-activation of calf muscles.

•However, a lot of these studies vary in results, and the common conclusion is that it does not make enough of a difference that everyone should immediately be switching to barefoot running.

• It seems that the conclusion is that it is more of a personal preference than a conclusive set of evidence. Personally, I couldn't imagine running barefoot in the UK, especially the colder months where I'm positive my toes would freeze off!

TL;DR: The fashion industry exploits black and Asian culture for profit.

The fashion industry as a whole is a vast system, which is inherently racist. From the lack of diversity on the fashion runways to the lack of diversity in magazines and company Instagram feeds, and even the blatant racism in certain fashion brands, racism is a huge problem in the fashion industry.

As [Kalkidan Legesse] (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/jun/11/racism-is-at-the-heart-of-fast-fashion-its-time-for-change) writes, 'being black in the fashion industry in the UK is knowing that all the makeup artists in a room have no idea how to colour match your foundation. It is seeing a white woman monetising styles that you and your peers have constantly been ridiculed for'.

As Legesse states, since racism in the fashion industry is such a huge and interconnected issue that is so normalised, I wasn't aware of the fact until I started to educate myself more on the topic.

Lack of visibility: WOC in the fashion industry are vastly underrepresented. [The Fashion Law] (https://www.thefashionlaw.com/is-racism-stifling-creativity-in-the-fashion-industry/) reported that brands are majorly out of touch with their demographics, calling casting memos aimed to reach 'trendy, young, urbanites', but only casting white models. A report from [The Guardian] (https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2016/may/10/survey-finds-that-78-of-models-in-fashion-adverts-are-white#:~:text=In%20a%20breakdown%20of%20the,when%20the%20total%20was%2084.7%25.) found that 78.2% of models featured in fashion adverts were white, compared to 8.3% of black models, 4% Asian models, and just 3.8% Hispanic models. Furthermore, major online fashion brands such as the infamous 'it girl' brand [Oh Polly] (https://www.buzzfeed.com/adeonibada/oh-polly-apology-body-positivity-inclusion-diversity-bame) came under fire after creating a separate Instagram account to showcase their ethnic minority models, rather than just showcasing them on their main Instagram page. This blatant ostracisation of non-white models is even more concerning when their main Instagram page has been widely noted to profit off 'white women with dark tans'.

Cultural Appropriation: The fashion industry has a huge issue with stealing traditional garments from different cultures and branding them as 'tribal' or 'ethnic'. The issue here is that when worn by people of colour, the same garments that get mocked and discriminated against are now seen as trendy when worn by white models. As [Naomi Mdudu] (https://www.thefashionlaw.com/is-racism-stifling-creativity-in-the-fashion-industry/) states, 'a big brand will take a print and the colors of your culture and not credit them. So, your brand is more ready to embrace and profit off a culture than your customer is ready to see that face represented'. Instead of learning where these traditional garments come from and the importance of them, brands just exploit different cultures for profit without actually representing the people they are profiting from.

Factory Workers: As [Kalkidan Legesse] (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/jun/11/racism-is-at-the-heart-of-fast-fashion-its-time-for-change) states, 'the fashion industry has been reliant on the exploitation of garment workers since its conception'. In fact, out of the 74 million textile workers worldwide, 80% of these are women of colour. These workers are forced to work in unsafe working conditions, working below minimum wage, to the same corporations who exploit their labour to maximise profits.

I'm sure there are many more points to be added here, but if you want to read more then the links I've cited are really interesting.

TL;DR: Women have the moral right to their own bodily autonomy.

TW: Mentions of Sexual Assult and Rape

The debate on abortion is something that is highly polarising in today's society. I believe that abortion as a concept is not unethical, because it advocates for freedom of choice.

As philosopher [Judith Jarvis Thomson] (http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR20.3/thomson.html) writes, 'if abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality'.

Avocating against the right to abortion causes more issues than solutions. For example, if abortion were to be made illegal, women would be forced to carry their pregnancies to full term. This causes issues in certain circumstances:

• Financial stability - parents may not have the financial means to provide for a child. This causes a low quality of life for the baby if forced to grow up in poverty.
• If the child is a product of rape - women may feel unable to carry and give birth to a child if they were conceived during a sexual assault. The pregnancy and birth would be traumatic.
• If the pregnancy poses health risks to the mother - abortions may be required if the mortality rate of the baby and mother is at risk.
• If the child has severe disabilities that would cause it to have a very low quality of life.

Women who get abortions don't take the decision lightly. It is a huge decision to make and often done in the best interest of the fetus, therefore, I argue abortion is the more ethical option than if abortion was not available at all.

TL:DR: The Grinch is the best Christmas film.

Whilst I agree that Love Actually is definitely up there in terms of the best Christmas films, I just love the Grinch too much to not rank it the best Christmas film. Whilst I do enjoy Love Actually, I feel as though it's not a film I can watch over and over again.

Looking at stats alone, Ron Howard's How the Grinch Stole Christmas grossed $363 million worldwide and was the sixth-highest grossing film overall in the year 2000. Surely its economic success alone is a testament to how great it is?

The film for me screams childhood nostalgia and memories of Christmas in my early childhood. Plus, the film stars household name actor Jim Carrey, who makes the film so enjoyable. He really brings the Grinch to life and puts his own take on the character.

The Grinch is the best film because it is lighthearted, hilarious, and is an embodiment of sarcastic witty humour.

TL;DR: We can't achieve equality without addressing men's issues as well as women's.

By definition, feminism is the advocation for the equality of the sexes. Whilst our society is an inherently patriarchal one, patriarchal oppression also affects men.

Research from [WHO] (https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/addressing-harmful-masculinities/en/) found that while 'harmful masculinities are an issue of global concern, only 8% of interventions that involve men and boys actually challenge male norms or unequal power'.

The endorsement of harmful masculinities by our society has long term consequences as a whole. To name a few, the idea that men should not publically show emotional weakness is one of the contributing reasons why in the UK, [ONS] (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/01/male-suicide-rate-england-wales-covid-19) reported that in 2019, men accounted for 'three-quarters of suicide deaths'. This alone, says that something needs to change.

TL;DR: The reliability of headlines often depends on your news source.

Like meglev24 previously mentioned, the whole purpose of headlines is to offer a brief, concise summary of the article, and to generate as many clicks as possible. This is the whole nature of a headline. If newspapers were to write a long summary of what an article was actually about, then it wouldn't get as many hits.

However, I think there needs to be a discussion on the credibility of the source. Newspapers like the Guardian are more reliable and factually accurate than newspapers like The Sun and The Daily Mail, who are known for being more controversial and outlandish to get more clicks. For example, this week I saw one Daily Mail article headline that said 'Gigi and Bella attack Israel' - which is very misleading, as when you clicked on the article, the post was about the Hadid sisters showing solidarity to Palestine.

By nature, tabloid magazines do anything to get clicks, and this promotes fake news - someone reading headlines and taking them at face value is likely to then spread misinformation. Broadsheet magazines, whilst I don't deny are exempt from this, are less likely to contribute to the spread of misinformation as their purpose is to report on major news events, so by default have to be more concise and factually accurate.

TL;DR : Evidence to show psychics do exist is extremely vague and impossible to prove.

• Many self-acclaimed psychics have been proven as fraudsters. Cases such as [Lajos Pap] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lajos_Pap), a Hungarian spiritualist medium, was found to be a fraud by the International Insitute for Psychical Research when it was found that he was faking animal appearances at seances.

• A lot of the readings that psychics perform are deliberately vague. It has been proven that psychics use two main methods for their readings. The first is [cold calling] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/hot-thought/201904/should-you-believe-in-psychics) whereby the psychic will ask big questions which are designed to elicit information in large audiences. The second is [hot calling] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/hot-thought/201904/should-you-believe-in-psychics), whereby psychics will collect information about their audiences beforehand, through searching personal information on the internet.

• A lot of people succumb to psychic readings due to [motivated reasoning] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning). This is a phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology and works using emotionally biased reasoning to 'produce justifications or make decisions that are most desired rather than those that actually reflect the evidence'.

TL;DR: No gender is innately more intelligent.

Questions about how intelligence differs in males and females is a topic of heated debate in contemporary psychology. [Studies show] (https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Women_and_Gender_Two_Vol/guzbKF8vTVcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA964&printsec=frontcover) that most of the major tests used to measure intelligence are constructed to not show bias towards males and females, and often show no overall score differences. This is due to carefully written testing that eliminates questions that favour either sex, or matched with questions that favour the other sex to balance the testing out.

[Diane F. Halpern and Jonathan Wai] (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-intelligence/sex-differences-in-intelligence/C2918C9E4FC97CE772D74388A242DEA2) found that females, on average, 'score higher some tests of verbal abilities, especially those that require rapid access to phonological and semantic information in long-term memory'. On the other hand, males were found to 'score higher on some tasks that require transformations in visual-spatial working memory', and 'abstract mathematical and scientific domains'. However, these tests were based on a sample group, and therefore cannot be seen as completely accurate, and representative of society as a whole.

The view that women are more inclined to participate in art and humanities subjects, and men prefer scientific or mathematical subjects, is more to do with social constructs rather than innate intelligence. Basically, [socio-cultural perspectives] (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-intelligence/sex-differences-in-intelligence/C2918C9E4FC97CE772D74388A242DEA2) influence the way in which males and females learn from a young age, alongside the influence of sex-role stereotypes, which interact with hereditary factors of intelligence and help to determine the career paths which we choose and influence our educational interests.

Overall, I don't think that any gender is innately more intelligent than the other - intelligence is a multidimensional construct that is so hard to define!

Globalisation has, without a doubt, changed the way that our society functions as a whole. [The Washington Post] (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/reconsidering-the-value-of-globalization/2015/04/24/7b5425c2-e82e-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html) state that two decades ago, globalization was pitched as 'the strategic imperative du jour' that was supposed to 'act like a rising tide, lifting all boats in poor and rich countries alike'. However, there is much debate in the economic and environmental spheres whether globalisation is entirely positive - therefore it is important to weigh the pros and cons.

The Pros of Globalisation

• Free trade reduces tariffs, subsidies, and trade barriers between nations,
making trading easier in theory. However [The Washington Post] (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/reconsidering-the-value-of-globalization/2015/04/24/7b5425c2-e82e-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html) reported that many G-20 countries have added more than 1200 trading barriers since 2008, despite a 'standstill agreement'.

• Globalisation provides poor countries with a chance to develop economically through providing jobs due to increased consumer demand overseas.

• Globalisation creates a [worldwide market] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/05/06/the-pros-and-cons-of-globalization/?sh=38e39a15ccce) for companies and consumers alike.

The Cons of Globalisation

• Whilst it is true that globalisation has created jobs in a lot of countries overseas, it has also led to the exploitation of workers and child labour. [Erica G. Polakoff] (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0169796X0602300215) reports that the free trade policies of globalisation have 'created unprecedented levels of poverty worldwide', which in effect, 'has made children more vulnerable to exploitation'.

• Globalisation has led to de-industrialisation across much of the UK and America. [Forbes] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/05/06/the-pros-and-cons-of-globalization/?sh=38e39a15ccce) reported that workers in developed countries 'face pay-cut demands from employers who threaten to export jobs'.

Globalisation has effectively changed the way in which we trade forever. Considering this, is it a feasible idea to try and stop it? Perhaps instead, we should be looking to enforce regulations that make it a more equal transaction - ensuring that workers face protection from exploitation and are paid fairly.

TL;DR : Teaching children about their bodies and appropriate touch from an early age will keep them safer

• A Study funded by the NHS's National Institute for Health Research found that SRE 'gives young people the information and the skills they need to have safe, fulfilling relationships and to take responsibility for their sexual health'.

• The study also found that young people reported that SRE was delivered 'too late' and that 'starting it earlier might make it easier to discuss sex'.

• Furthermore, delivering sex education at a younger age gives students a basic conception of sex and appropriate touch. By teaching sex education, children are able to understand consent and have the vocabulary to report sexual abuse if it occurs.

TL;DR: Although a great tool for marketing, the casual use of Instagram is declining.

Looking at statistics alone, Instagram is not a dying app. [Statistics show] (https://www.socialfilms.co.uk/blog/instagram-uk-statistics#:~:text=brands%20they%20follow-,How%20many%20people%20use%20Instagram%20in%20the%20UK%3F,with%20other%20social%20media%20sites.) that in June 2020, Instagram had 30.6 million active users in the UK alone, compared to 24 million users in 2019.

However, I feel as though the reason people may say Instagram is 'dying' is due to the way that it is used. As someone who has had Instagram since the very beginning, I've definitely noticed a big change in the type of posts shared. It used to be used as an extension of our camera rolls, used to share pictures with our friends, our food pictures and pets. Now, Instagram seems to be very focused on polished images, as a result of growing influencer culture in recent years. A lot of my friends agree that posting on Instagram is 'daunting', they feel as though it is an app that is all about social status and for this reason they barely use it anymore and find themselves gravitating towards Twitter and Tiktok.

I think Instagram is still a great tool for branding and the influence that it has on our shopping habits is tremendous. However, I don't know how much longer it will last as a causal app for posting pictures and keeping in touch with friends.

Tl;Dr: Studies have proven that sexuality is a broad spectrum

• As Pricilla argued previously, Bisexuality does not have to be an evenly split attraction to both genders. In fact, you can label yourself bisexual even if you've only had relationships with one gender. It all depends on personal preference.

• The Kinsey Insitute produced a measure of sexuality called [The Kinsey Scale] (https://kinseyinstitute.org/research/publications/kinsey-scale.php) which accounted for research findings that people often do not fit into exclusively homosexual or heterosexual categories. The scale itself suggests that there are degrees of sexuality, and that sexuality itself is varied.

Tl;dr: Sometimes political correctness can be taken too far

• Political correctness, in theory, is a force for good. It counteracts ideas of hate speech and promotes freedom and equality.

• [Sam Ramsden] (https://metro.co.uk/2018/03/05/heres-why-political-correctness-is-actually-a-good-thing-7318575/) argues that political correctness is often mistaken for outrage culture, where they use the term to validate their extreme views of what is acceptable and what is not in society. He argues that political correctness is infact just being mindful of other people and their different backgrounds.

• Political correctness when used in an extreme manner often perpetuates cancel culture. We often see this on social media, most commonly Twitter and Tiktok. [George Simms] (https://www.palatinate.org.uk/debate-has-political-correctness-gone-too-far/) argues that 'cancel culture has become social media's courtroom, except everyone gets the death penalty'. Most often, if someone is politically incorrect online their name gets spread around the internet, they receive numerous death threats, and if they try to apologise, the online hate increases.

• In order to progress as a society, we need to be able to listen to others viewpoints and challenge them to incite change. If someone makes a mistake we should give them a chance to educate themselves before cancelling them.

TL;DR : Severus Snape was selfish

•Whilst Snape did help Harry and the side of the light, he only did so for his own selfish reasons.

• Snape only sought out Dumbledore when he was personally affected by Voldemort's agenda. Although he died for the cause, it does not excuse his actions prior to his death.

• He was a bully. He was bullied relentlessly in his school years and once he had a position of authority for himself, he used his power to bully Harry and his friends.

• He is biased towards Slytherin House and endorses polarizing house rivalry.

• He is Neville's boggart: a creature that takes the form of one's greatest fear.

• He knowingly tries to expose Professor Lupin's lycanthropy to a class of students.

• He makes fun of Hermione's appearance when Malfoy's hex causes her front teeth to grow at an alarming rate, saying that he sees no difference from her usual appearance.

• He is prejudice. He endorses blood supremacy when he calls himself the Half-Blood Prince as a way to connect with his Wizarding heritage. He even calls his life-long friend Lily Evans the slur "Mudblood", in a flashback to his school days.

I think it's not just that he was an unpleasant person, he only seemed to do things if it was in his best interest ... a true Slytherin I suppose!

TL;DR: Essential oils can be beneficial if used correctly

In recent years, essential oils and aromatherapy have become more mainstream in the media, amidst the growing popularity of a more natural and holistic lifestyle.

I grew up in a relatively holistic household. When I was younger and had problems sleeping, my mum would always rub lavender oil on my wrists to help me sleep. Although many people doubt their benefits, I have found that essential oils are beneficial if used correctly. Unlike conventional medicine, holistic medicine is not a miraculous cure for ailments and health problems. Instead, they are used to ease symptoms in a natural way.

In my experience, I have found aromatherapy to be very beneficial with anxiety. A study from [John Hopkins Medicine] (https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/aromatherapy-do-essential-oils-really-work) found that essential oils can help alleviate the symptoms if anxiety, depression, nausea and insomnia. Alongside this, I have found that a more holistic approach to skincare has helped with my acne more than over the counter products.

Of course, I don’t think that essential oils are the cure-all solution to severe medical problems and should only be used to help alleviate symptoms alongside treatment prescribed from a medical professional. However, I don’t think trying a holistic approach to healthcare is an entire waste of time!

TL;DR: Private schools create a two-tiered education system

In the UK, it is no secret that the education system is flawed. The nationalisation of private schools would create equal opportunities for everyone, not just those who can afford ‘better quality’ education. The whole argument for the importance of private schools is that the education is inherently better than state education. This is simply due to funding.

State schools have the potential to be just as good as private schools if they received the funding that they needed. The abolition of private schools would create a level playing field - giving everyone the best chance of performing to their academic potential and giving poorer students the fundamental right to a better-quality education.

In an article from [The Oxford Student] (https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2019/10/15/private-schools-should-be-abolished/), it was found that around 40% of students at Oxford come from private schools, in comparison to the general population where just 7% of people are educated privately. I’d recommended giving this article a read, they make some fantastic points.

Private education creates an elitist system that extends beyond schooling years, into work life. A study from [The Sutton Trust] (https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/) Trust found that two-fifths of the UK’s most elite were privately educated, and most of this demographic graduated from Oxford or Cambridge University. Looking at careers in politics alone, 52% of senior judges went through private school to the Oxbridge pipeline, in comparison to the shadow cabinet, where only 9% attended private school.

The private school system creates a system of inequality that is almost impossible to overcome for members of the public who did not receive the same level of education. Instead of continuing to endorse this system, we should instead focus on giving the same level of education to everyone to create equal opportunities.

Tl;dr: Jogging as a novice is unpleasant but can be fun once you get into a routine

When I initially started jogging, I hated it. The stitches you get when running for too long, the sore runner's feet, and not to mention shin splints if you're particularly unlucky.

However, what I love about jogging is how accessible it is. You don't need any pricey gym membership, so it is a great way to stay active for as cheap as possible. All you need is a pair of decent running shoes and you're good to go! Jogging is also a great activity to do with friends, and unlike the gym, which I've found to be a fairly hostile environment, jogging is really social! Running events such as [Parkrun] (https://www.parkrun.org.uk/), are free events that encourage community fitness for people of all fitness levels!

TL;DR: Legalizing drugs downplays the seriousness of substance use

As [The Pharmacy Times] (https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/why-not-legalize-all-drugs) states, we are in the midst of one of the most serious drug abuse eras. Whilst drug legislation is evidently not sufficient, with drug use rising each year, I don't think the solution is to legalize all drugs.

Whilst some drugs are believed to be less dangerous than others, it only takes one use for people to become addicted to the feeling that it gives them, therefore leading to a more serious, and often fatal, addiction.

If we were to legalize all drugs, this means that opioids, benzodiazepines, stimulant drugs and countless other substances would become readily available and accessible to everyone over the age of 18. Having a drug so readily available, able to purchase whenever desired, would have destructive impacts on the population. Legalizing drugs would give them the appearance of being less dangerous - the downsides to drug use would be seen as less severe and therefore increases the chances of abuse and addiction.

Our rehabilitation centres would be overrun and would add extra strain to the already exerted NHS system. Whilst I agree that the drug legislation that we have in place is not perfect, and needs to be improved, it is there to protect people from the potentially catastrophic effects of these substances.

TL; DR : Smartphones are not only making us less attentive, they're also dangerously addictive

Alongside most people nowadays, I am addicted to my phone. It is constantly with me, and when I don’t have it, I often feel lost as to what to do, and feel a surge of worry when I think I have misplaced it. I use my phone for everything: to keep in contact with my friends and family, for work, and it holds all of my important memories.

However, being this dependant on our mobiles is not healthy. Not only is it making us less attentive, which is one of the many reasons why phones are [banned in school classrooms] (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/research-shows-that-cell-phones-distract-students--so-france-banned-them-in-school--.html), they are also dangerously addictive – we can’t seem to function without them. 

In a co-study by [Jeremy Marty-Dugas] (https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2017-40489-001.pdf?auth_token=57846cc4087971d73be0d031de135a4f761431a5&returnUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fpsycnet.apa.org%2Frecord%2F2017-40489-001), it was found that 27% of all auto-accidents were caused by smartphone use whilst driving in the United States.

Smartphones have become a secondary task that we use whilst operating our primary tasks, making our attention divided. If we apply this theory to our working lives, how is it possible to perform to our full capacity whilst using smartphones? Just think of our potential achievements if we didn’t have this secondary distraction.

Whilst I think it is hard to phase smartphone use out of our lives completely, I think we should be making important steps to making ourselves less dependant on them.

TL;DR : Jack the Ripper as a woman could actually be plausible.

One of the greatest mysteries in the true crime world is the identity of Jack the Ripper, London’s infamous serial killer, who stalked the streets of the city, killing prostitutes. However, some people believe that the Ripper managed to go undetected by the police because he was actually a she.

In a recent effort to solve the mystery, an [Australian Scientist] (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/was-jack-ripper-woman-478597.html) used swabs from the stamps and seals of the letters that the Ripper sent to the police force. As expected, the findings were inconclusive, apart from the evidence that the DNA could have belonged to a woman.

The theory of the Ripper being a woman was investigated by Inspector Abberline at the time of the killings. The main suspect in his theory was [Mary Kelly] (https://www.casebook.org/suspects/jill.html), the Ripper's final victim. Abberline’s suspicion arose when Kelly was noted to be spotted twice several hours after doctors believed she died. A witness saw Kelly in a dark shirt, velvet bodice, and a maroon-coloured shawl. From this interview, Inspector Abberline started to investigate the case of Jill the Ripper.

In 1939, William Stewart released a new book, titled Jack the Ripper: A New Theory, where he started to outline the possibilities of the female ripper. A female ripper could actually be plausible because of her undetectability. She would be able to roam around the streets late at night as a non-threatening figure, even less so because she would be classified as a potential victim because of her gender. The points of his arguments are further explained in [this post] (https://www.casebook.org/suspects/jill.html), it's a pretty interesting read!

Whilst I don’t ever believe that we will solve the cold case of Jack (or Jill) the Ripper, this theory is undeniably interesting if anything else!

James Cameron’s Titanic sparked a debate that has raged on since its release in 1997 – was it really necessary for Jack to die to save Rose?

Watching the film for the first time, I remember having a conversation with my family - “Why can’t she just move over?!”, “That plank of wood is big enough for two!” [Luke Holland] (https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/aug/17/solved-did-jack-really-have-to-die-to-save-rose-at-the-end-of-titanic) makes a pretty solid argument as to why both lovers should have survived, arguing that the measurements of both Jack and Rose could fit onto the oak door frame.

However, [ScreenRant] (https://screenrant.com/titanic-movie-jack-rose-die-save-door-reason/#:~:text=Based%20on%20how%20Titanic's%20screenplay,the%20sake%20of%20narrative%20harmony.&text=Cameron%20first%20shows%20his%20hand,friend%20to%20board%20the%20Titanic) argue that whilst Jack probably could have fit onto the frame alongside Rose, he had to die for the sake of narrative harmony. Throughout the film, Jack shows Rose that there is more to life than belonging to a loveless marriage for the sake of money and social appeasement. When Jack dies, the cycle of Rose’s new life begins, where she takes control of her future.

Considering this, would Jack surviving change the outcome of the story altogether? Would it take away from the sad but bittersweet ending of Jack giving Rose the courage to live her life?

TL;DR: Group work always leads to an unfair distribution of effort

Speaking from experience alone, my encounters with group work at university have been unpleasant. Whilst I agree that in some courses, group work is a key part of learning, for others it is unnecessary.

I think that group work is fine if it does not contribute to an individual grade - I love working in group discussions and sharing ideas. However, I believe that where grades are concerned, the mark should be reflected on the individual, not the group as a whole. If you end up getting stuck with a group of people who are not particularly interested in contributing, you often get left in charge of the project and doing people's work for them, whilst they reap the benefits of your hard work.

This is the flaw with group projects, whilst they can be beneficial and largely educational, they can also be the opposite - stressful and anxiety-inducing!

TL;DR: Consumption of meat and fish can be ethical if you shop sustainably

Whilst I'm aware that a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle is not feasible for some people who have different dietary, health or financial circumstances, you can't deny that looking from just an environmental perspective, the meat industry is very damaging.

Looking at the commercial fishing industry alone, [90 per cent of large fish populations] (https://www.peta.org/living/food/eat-fish/?v2=1) have been exterminated in the last 50 years. This harms our ocean ecosystems because the natural food chain is disrupted at a much faster rate than it would be naturally. This also does not consider the pollution caused by commercial fishing, which accounts for the death of other sea animals who consume or get trapped in the fishing nets left behind by large vessels.

However, the perspective that people who consume meat are ignorant of environmental concerns, or morally bad people is a little polarising. [Buying locally sourced meat is just one way to become a little more sustainable] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/meat_environment) and many larger supermarkets supply locally sourced meat.

Overall, if we make more conscious choices in regards to our meat consumption, we can make the industry more ethically sustainable.

TL;DR : Protests incite change

People who are wary over the effectiveness of protests often don’t consider that change happens over a long period of time, not overnight. As Zeynep Tufekci argues, ['protests sometimes look like failures in the short term, but much of the power of protests is in their long-term effects, on both the protesters themselves and the rest of society'.] (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/06/why-protests-work/613420/)

Protests incite change because they put pressure on governmental authorities and indicate that a large group of people all feel unhappy with policies or events that have happened and that they want those who are voted into power to use their authority to change things for the better.

We only need to look at recent events to illustrate how protests can create change. The tragic death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer last spring was a catalyst for the Black Lives Matter protests, which generated mass media coverage, and opened a topic of conversation that we need to address police brutality. This week, Derek Chauvin, the police officer who forcefully restrained Floyd, has been convicted of murder. The case has been credited as a [turning point in American history for the accountability of law enforcement.] (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/20/derek-chauvin-verdict-guilty-murder-george-floyd)

For this reason, I think that protests do work.

TL;DR It depends on your environment

We've all been in a situation when someone is blaring their music loudly through their headphones, or playing loud audios on their mobile phone whilst on public transport - it's awkward to say the least, and inconsiderate to those around them.

I think it's awkward in general to play music on public transport, even if it is quietly through headphones. I always have the fear that people can hear my music!

However, I don't really think playing music in public is an issue if you are in a large enough space. For example, public parks or beaches are fine. Sometimes if I'm just sat alone it is nice to hear other people's music in the background. I personally love the feeling of walking through a busy street, or through a train station and hearing people performing, it always puts a smile on my face!

TL;DR: Money is not the root of all evil, but the love of money is

As the well-known phrase goes, 'money makes the world go round'. Because of this, money causes a lot of conflicts because it is needed to survive in our society.

However, I don't think money itself actually is the problem, but our love of money is. Money can be considered evil because it is a [motive that feeds into capitalism] (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137475329_3). Money makes us greedy, and the desire to have more money than we need, and the inequality of the capitalist system could be considered an evil act in itself. Similarly, what you choose to spend your money on may be considered 'good' or 'evil', it just depends on individual perspective.

Money is neither good nor evil, it is simply just a medium of exchange.

TL;DR : You can't predict human behaviour just based on the date and time a person was born

Although I'll admit to browsing on astrology pages now and again, I don't think that it should be taken literally, it's just a bit of fun.

Scientifically, the reason why so many people believe in astrological readings is due to [hidden persuaders] (http://www.astrology-and-science.com/D-hidd2.htm), which include the desire to be a part of a group or community, and using cues that are generalised enough for everyone to associate and identify with.

So whilst some astrological traits may seem very specific to a certain group of people, it is the intention for them to be that way! Human behaviour is not determined by the stars, and to say that all people born in a certain month share the same behavioural traits takes away individuality. We are all unique!

TL;DR : Catcalling feeds into rape culture

TW:Mentions of sexual harassment

Catcalling, formally known as street harassment, is the act of shouting and harassing someone often in a sexual or derisive manner. It can happen to anyone of any gender but is more typically aimed at women.

[An international study of women found of 16,000 women found 84% were harassed before they were even adults. In the UK, 90% of women are harassed before age 17] (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/31/catcalling-power-women-rape-culture#:~:text=An%20international%20study%20of%2016%2C000,when%20someone%20defiles%20their%20space.)

Catcalling is about power, making someone feel as though they are helpless to defend themselves. It can include flashing, leering, whistling, and sexual comments and demands about someone.

Catcalling is harassment because it is unwanted and uninvited, and causes people to use tactics to get out of the situation and feel safe, such as crossing the road, pretending to be on the phone, or telling the perpetrator that you have a boyfriend/ significant other to stop their harassment and constant persistence.

Catcalling is not a compliment because compliments do not create anxiety or fear over your own safety. The acceptance of catcalling in our society needs to be challenged because it perpetuates rape culture, that these things are okay to do, and that 'no means yes', when no definitely means no.

TL;DR : Free birth control should be essential

In the UK, most contraception is free under the NHS, if prescribed by a doctor. Alongside this, a lot of schools and colleges encourage young people to sign up for the C-Card scheme, which allows young people to get free access to condoms and sexual health testing services if they are between the ages of 13-24.

In the USA, contraception is free for a majority of women with insurance, under The Affordable Care Act. However, if someone does not have access to medical insurance, then they are forced to pay for the cost of contraception. If people can not afford medical insurance or the cost of doctor fees, then this makes contraception inaccessible.

Birth control is important [because it allows women to have control over their bodies, and have control over their fertility, thus reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions] (https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.70.7.736). A study from the Washington University School of Medicine estimated that access to free birth control [would prevent as many as 41-71% of abortions performed annually in the United States] (https://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e6763).

Alongside fertility and pregnancy contraceptive purposes, the pill is also used to treat and manage health conditions such as endometriosis and PCOS. There have not yet been scientific breakthroughs for these diseases, so often the birth control pill is the most effective way of managing symptoms. Furthermore, for women who experience heavy uterine bleeding, birth control is often the only viable solution.

For something that is essential to so many people, birth control should be free. Birth control does not just regulate pregnancies, it improves people's quality of life.

TL;DR Zoos are important for wildlife conservation

I understand the argument that some zoos endorse keeping animals in captivity just for our viewing pleasure, and this is very unethical. Animals do not deserve to be kept away from their natural environment just because we are curious about them.

However, if we closed all zoos, then that would also mean the enclosure of the ones which contribute to the conservation and the prevention of extinction of some of the most endangered species.

Chester Zoo, one of the country’s leading animal conservation programs, [hope to preserve 150 species and reverse the endangerment of 200 populations of species by 2031] (https://www.chesterzoo.org/what-we-do/our-strategy/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw6-SDBhCMARIsAGbI7UhUogQP6oX7XsP2es-QUR4gJR4PbTgQdIQ4Jj5yd7IimxMywc7AFfoaAi69EALw_wcB).

Furthermore, through their conservation scheme, Chester Zoo has [worked alongside a number of other zoos and the Kenyan Wildlife Service to reverse the decline of the black rhino] (https://www.chesterzoo.org/what-we-do/our-projects/a-one-plan-approach-to-securing-a-future-for-the-black-rhino/), which was previously an endangered species before intervention.

If we close all zoos, then the progress and hard work of these organizations will not be able to continue, and extinction rates will rise.

Tl;Dr: Whilst Shakespeare is a literary icon, the politics of his works are outdated

TW: Mentions of Suicide

Although Shakespeare’s works have paved the way for many adaptations both on the stage and in movie theatres, his work is not diverse and excludes large audiences.

Shakespeare was no doubt, a brilliant writer. He is considered England’s national poet for a reason. However, I think it’s time for new writers to be acknowledged to the same level that he is. When reading his work, his white, male privilege often shines through. The women in his plays often have little agency and are reduced to passive figures who don’t question the male authority that surrounds them.

Furthermore, Shakespeare’s racial inclusivity is also lacking. In Othello, Shakespeare’s only play with a black male lead, ends with him murdering his wife and through his own guilt, himself. Adaptational productions of Othello [run the risk of attributing what the play calls Othello's "monstrous behavior to his blackness, and therefore reinforcing the racist assumptions that permeate the play's verbal texture.] (https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26349169.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A8df1bdbf329c5c7ef375f2c88fef06e3)

Although people argue that these factors are because his plays are a product of his time, he has been hailed the national poet for too long, and we should take the time to celebrate new, more diverse writers to the same level.

Someone that comes to mind is Toni Morrison. I just love her work and think she was a fantastic writer. She did a great adaptation of Othello called [‘Desdemona’] (https://medium.com/the-sundial-acmrs/toni-morrisons-blackgirlmagic-29576056eefb ) which highlighted a lot of issues with the original text.
Overall though, I think the whole league table concept is very elitist, and in doing this we end up excluding lot of writers and talent!

Tl;Dr Celebrity culture can be damaging but celebrities do not have a responsibility to be a role model if they don't want to be

I think the type of influence a celebrity has on younger generations depends on who younger people idolize.

It all depends on your perception. For example, Kim Kardashian may not be the best role model for younger people to idolize because she endorses cosmetic surgery and an unrealistic image of herself through photoshop and video filters. When you’re younger and don’t realize how normalized photo editing is on social media, this may lead to body confidence issues.

However, using Kim Kardashian as an example again, she also is pursuing a law degree later in life, as she has always aspired to be a lawyer. This sends a positive message to followers of hers that they should always strive to achieve their goals and be ambitious in life.

It is not down to these celebrities to be role models, even if they are seen as one. It is up to younger people to acknowledge if following a certain celebrity is having a negative impact on their mental health, and unfollow them if this is the case.

Tl;Dr No over-the-counter treatments can beat prescribed skincare

Five years ago, If I were asked if drugstore skincare worked, I probably would have said yes. During my teenage years, I was blessed with perfect skin. This continued up until my first year of University when I noticed my skin started to get worse.

At first, I tried over-the-counter skincare, and spent obscene amounts of money trialing and testing different products, none of which seemed to even make a small amount of difference in my skin. The only difference I noticed was the declining balance in my bank account!

After a few years, I finally decided to book a dermatologist appointment. She asked me what I was using and said the chemicals in the products were making my condition worse if anything. She prescribed me adapalene and told me to wash my face with CeraVe and I’m virtually acne-free today.

The reason why skincare products often have little effect is [that most over-the-counter products only contain microscopic amounts of active ingredients] (https://www.seewhatsbeyond.com/2019/09/skincare-products-medical-grade-vs-over-the-counter/#:~:text=Skincare%20Product%20Quality%20Over%20Quantity&text=Well%2C%20the%20reason%20is%20because,top%20layer%20of%20the%20skin.&text=are%20developed%20to%20penetrate%20deeper,as%20help%20with%20cell%20turnover.), which isn’t enough to combat active acne. Furthermore, a lot of the ‘hype’ around skincare comes from how popular it is on social media. The truth is, everyone's skin reacts differently to products, so a lot of the time if the product you’re buying does not target your skin type or problem, it is a waste of your time and money.

For this reason, I think that the skincare craze is a scam.

TL;DR : School Uniforms make everybody equal.

School uniform promotes fairness amongst pupils. Wearing school uniforms creates a level playing field amongst pupils, and promotes a sense of identity and belonging. As a result, school uniforms enrich the learning experience and encourage fair opportunities.

Perhaps the most valuable reason for school uniforms to become mandatory is that it reduces [bullying based on socioeconomic status.] (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/19404476.2020.1759298?needAccess=true) Without uniforms, students from lower socio-economic backgrounds may feel embarrassed or ashamed that they are not able to afford ‘trendy’ clothing like some of their peers.

In schools where students come from different financial backgounds, it is important to ensure that all pupils share the same benefits from the education system, and school uniform is one of the best ways to promote equality.

Furthermore, dressing in a professional manner for school prepares pupils for clothing conduct in the workplace, and [encourages participation in an organisation.] (https://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2013/oct/03/why-wear-school-uniform) When you put on your school uniform, you represent your school, which creates a sense of identity amongst students.

TL;DR : Whilst the play itself is a legitimate canonical work in the Harry Potter franchise, people may not accept Harry Potter and The Cursed Child as a work of canon due to the irregularity in the plot, and the actions of certain characters that do not match their characterization in the novels.

Harry Potter and The Cursed Child , set during Albus Potter’s years in Hogwarts, is a play that explores the consequences of the past, family, and friendship. The play itself gained mixed reviews at the time of its publication, and still remains a topic of controversy and debate in the Harry Potter fanbase today.

As a play co-written by J.K Rowling, the author of the original franchise, the play is no doubt canon. Although the playscript was co-written by John Tiffany and Jack Thorne alongside Rowling, she still had a part to play in the events and characters that were included.

The main difference, and why many people may have been disappointed with the play was due to its medium. A play does not read the same as a novel, and is intended to be acted out on stage: it is a different feeling entirely. The characters that appear in the playscript are often left for the actor to interpret and ‘bring to life’, so upon a first reading the characters appear to have little development and not be fully ‘fleshed out’.

[Some 'Harry Potter' fans are so disappointed with the new story that they're refusing to call it canon.] (https://www.businessinsider.com/harry-potter-cursed-child-reactions-2016-7?r=US&IR=T)

The main reason why some fans are so reluctant to regard The Cursed Child as a canonical work in the Harry Potter world is due to the plot irregularities that do not coincide with the other novels and films.

In the final chapter of Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Albus asks Harry what will happen if he gets sorted into Slytherin, to which Harry replies ‘then Slytherin will have gained an excellent student’ [1], explaining that it does not matter to him whatsoever. However, there is tension between Albus and Harry throughout the play because in fact, it does appear to matter to Harry when Albus gets sorted into Slytherin.

Alongside this, there are some plot points that seem inconceivable, such as Delphi being the child of Bellatrix Lestrange and Lord Voldemort and using a time-turner to save Cedric Diggory, who already died in the fourth book.

I think the main reason people may choose to not accept The Cursed Child as canon is due to the fact that it ruins their perception of the rest of the novels.

Other References:
[1] J.K Rowling, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows , (London: Bloomsbury, 2014) p.619.

TL;DR People need to consider the different financial circumstances of consumers that may lead them to shop unethically. However, the endorsement of the overconsumption of fast fashion needs to be addressed, such as the influence of social media on the quantity of product that is consumed.

Although the fast-fashion industry no doubt has damaging impacts socially and environmentally and is one of the largest causes of ocean pollution, it is important to recognize that these companies are branded ‘fast fashion’ for a reason: their clothes are accessible, affordable, and on-trend.

[The fashion industry emits more carbon than international flights and maritime shipping combined] (https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-environmental-impact-pollution-emissions-waste-water-2019-10?r=US&IR=T)

A lot of the time, people who shame others for not shopping ethically and investing in their wardrobe can come across as insensitive to people’s financial situations. Ethical clothing, whilst good for the environment, is often very expensive. This is due to the cost of sourcing: the products need to be made with sustainable materials, which are more costly, and sourced more locally to reduce pollution. Unless you’re shopping second-hand in charity shops or through online reselling companies such as Depop or Vinted, shopping sustainably is pretty tough when you don’t have the money to set aside.

[How Instagram influencers fuel our destructive addiction to fast fashion] (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fast-fashion-influencers-instagram-fashion-nova-waste-climate-change_n_5c5ae8ffe4b0871047598750?ri18n=true)

However, it is important to recognize the negative role that social media has in fuelling overconsumption. As with the nature of fast-fashion brands like PrettyLittleThing, SHEIN, and BOOHOO, the amount of product created is based on consumer demand. In the fast fashion industry, arguably the most effective marketing tool in our current climate is social media: with the emergence of ‘smart-ads’, which personalize adverts based on individual online shopping habits, and social media influencers, who are paid to promote and sell product to their audiences.

The endorsement of fast fashion to this extent generates unethical consumption. People buying clothes in vast quantities, and buying into ‘trends’ (which will no doubt be out of fashion in a year) leads to waste.

We should instead focus on endorsing slow fashion companies, therefore creating the demand for more sustainable fashion, which will make these companies more accessible to everyone, rather than just those who can afford it.