catrinw

There has consistently been an overriding narrative in society that to lose weight one must partake in a diet. The diet usually consists of someone restricting themselves from consuming certain foods, such as carbohydrates. However, the reality is that these diets simply do not work and are an ineffective way to maintain weight loss for a long-term period.

Movements to stop the popularity of fad diets highlight research which explains how people who begin a diet on January 1st typically stop around the 12th of January. Research also suggests that 83% of people who partake in a diet end up gaining back more weight than what they had lost. A diet is only a short-term solution, it does not provide a long term, sustainable solution for losing weight.

Dieting can also be harmful to our health. By restricting ourselves from certain foods / food groups we may be depriving our bodies from essential nutrients. Take for example, the keto diet (a diet which restricts the consumption of carbohydrates). This diet can contribute to medical problems such as low blood pressure, kidney stones, dizziness, decreased energy and increased risk of heart disease. Therefore, whilst diets like these may provide weight loss results there is also the very real danger that they will cause harm to the human body. It makes the purpose of a diet seem completely pointless as it does not actually assist in achieving a ‘healthy lifestyle’ despite the diet industry wanting to make you think that this is exactly what following a diet will do.

It can also be argued that the idea of a diet is only promoted as it is so profitable. The diet industry is worth around two billion pounds. The whole industry works by targeting people’s insecurities and pressuring them into fitting a societal standard of beauty (that being idolising a slim look and demonising bodies that are deemed overweight). This seems cruel, shameful and extremely backwards. The fact of the matter is that even if everyone did the exact same workouts and ate the same food, our body shapes would all still be different. Society is progressing to become more accepting of all different body types, which is seen through the rising popularity of the body positivity movement. The promotion of dieting is a backwards mentality that has no place in the modern world.

The healthier, better alternative to dieting is simple. Eat foods that will nourish and energise your body whilst performing exercises that will release those feel-good endorphins. Diets simply do not work and are a waste of time. They are a short-term fix that do not produce long- term solutions.

Works Cited

‘Don’t go on a diet this January’ (2021) https://stopfaddiets.com/

Moerbeck Maureen, ‘Why diets don’t work’ (2020), https://www.nutritionist-resource.org.uk/blog/2020/10/02/why-diets-dont-work

Helms Natalie, ‘Ketogenic diet: What are the risks?’ (20 June, 2019), https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/health-and-wellness-articles/ketogenic-diet-what-are-the-risks#:~:text=The%20keto%20diet%20could%20cause,%2C%20liver%2C%20thyroid%20or%20gallbladder.

Good point! I think the essence of it is that we do not forcefully restrict ourselves from eating certain foods. We should eat what makes us feel good and energised. If someone really wants a piece of cake and that is what's going to make them feel good, then they should eat it. This in turn will also prevent dangerous habits such as binge eating which happens when people forcefully restrict themselves from eating a certain food for a period of time. In terms of exercise, it is important that as a society we shift the focus and purpose of exercise solely from losing weight to aiding our mental health and wellbeing.

It actually has everything to do with time.
Many people who participate on a toxic diet are consumed by it, a majority of their thoughts and TIME is spent worrying, stressing and guilt shaming as they constantly think about their food choices / body image etc.
I am going to link below an article of woman who expresses her frustration and upset about how much time she has spent obsessing over food in a negative manner.
A lot of dieting and restricting foods result in triggering the homeostatic pathway in the brain which causes you to think about food, and what do all these thoughts and obsessing take up? You guessed it, time.

I think the title is appropriate as dieting literally does waste time (mainly due to the toxic obsessions it can create).

Nevertheless, thanks for the comment!

Here is the article: https://www.reneepletka.com/blog/2019/12/31/i-waste-so-much-time-thinking-about-food-and-my-body

TL;DR Letting men pay on the first date can actually be interpreted as a feminist gain.

I personally feel that a woman should always let the man know that they are happy to share the bill, and be willing to as well. This is important for equality. I also feel that if the people on the date are students, or from low income jobs, the bill should definitely be split.

I used to always think that splitting the bill on a date was important to ensure gender equality and not have to feel that we are relying on the man. However, many feminist works actually argue that letting the man pay is a feminist act itself.

Feminist writers such as Gloria Jean Watkins, discusses about the people who gain the most benefits from the current structures of society. Sadly, we do not yet live in a completely fair society, it is still typically men who are able to flourish the best financially due to some unjust problems that still exist.

On average, Canadian women earn C$0.69 for every dollar that a man makes at work. The UK also has a problem with the gender pay gap. In 2020, the mean hourly difference between pay of men and women was £1.65, whereas the median hourly difference was £4.04. This adds up to be a big difference, especially when both genders will still have the same living expenses etc. On top of this, there is a lot of societal pressure for women to highly maintain their physical appearance, as well as the expectations of women to be more calm, attentive and accommodating than men in all aspects of their lives. These pressures are very costly for women, both physically and emotionally.

Unfortunately, gender inequality still very much exists and until it is completely dismantled, I think there are instances where it is polite for men to pay for the first date. This is because the structures of society means that they are probably more likely to be better paid and more financially able.

Of course, this is a general assumption. There will be instances where women are more financially secure and so they should definitely share, if not cover the whole bill. It is a question that should not just be minimised to gender, people come from different races, social economic statuses, careers - all these factors should be considered.

The man paying for the first date should not be a general approach but rather an individual one. There are instances when it is a polite gesture and acknowledgment for the unfair gender pay gaps that still very much exists.

TL;DR The Grammy Awards (and award shows in general) are a pretentious display of celebrities showing off and snobbery.

Generally, I think award shows, like the Grammy Awards are silly and pretentious. I do not think it is actually about the music, but rather a glamorous social event for celebrities to feel that they are superior and show off their riches.

A recent survey from Huffington post also found that 68% of Americans do not care about award shows either, the poll specifically focused on the Oscars, Grammys and the Emmys. I feel these award shows are not made for the public to celebrate their favourite music, but rather is for celebrities to show off and make a spectacle.

Media professionals were also interviewed for their thoughts on the likes of the Grammy awards. Stephanie Marcus labelled award shows as 'awful' and that they are the Hollywood equivalent of running for prom King or Queen. She also called them just 'another form of advertising.'

These sentiments seem to be shared by many people. The Grammys are a way for predominantly rich white males to celebrate their successes, whilst profiting from the hundreds of advertisements that they show during the awards.

Frankly, the Grammys and many other award shows are outdated, ridiculous and pathetic. It is a snobbery act of celebrities and does not represent the actual views, likes and opinions of the populations. They are completely overrated.

TL;DR The evidence on the benefits of eliminating gluten from a diet is limited, meaning there are not many advantages from prohibiting the consumption of gluten.

According to Harvard Medical school, cutting gluten from a diet is only beneficial if you are diagnosed with celiac disease. Or, for people who have intolerance to the products, if they suffer from symptoms such as bloating, diarrhoea and crampy abdominal pain.

However, for people who do not suffer from these issues, cutting gluten out does not prove to have any benefits. It is deemed a bit of a FAD diet, people may have become attracted to the diet as it is endorsed by many celebrities. Yet, there is no substantial scientific evidence to prove that cutting gluten out is beneficial. Of course, there is the possibility that this could change over time as more research is made into the topic.

It is also important to to remember that cutting gluten out of a diet has its health risks. There is a conception that gluten-free foods are rich in vitamins and minerals, when in fact, the opposite is true. Foods that are rich in gluten, such as bread, are much more fortified with folic acid, iron and other nutrients. Gluten-free foods also tend to have less fibre and more sugar and fat. Many studies have proven that, there is a trend between those who follow a gluten-free diet, who then gain weight and enter the obesity category.

The lack of supporting scientific evidence shows that it is not that beneficial to follow a gluten-free diet. Perhaps, it was marketed as being trendy and 'healthy' to try and encourage consumers to purchase the gluten-free products.

TL;DR ‘The customer is always right’ is an outdated saying that allows customers to be disrespectful towards workers.

A particular phrase that I have come to really despise is the saying. ‘the customer is always right.’ I think it is wrong and causes many problems.

The saying provides people with a feeling of entitlement which allows them to be rude and sometimes aggressive to employees. It normalises customers disrespecting the people who are serving them, they feel that they are always in the right and therefore will never admit when they actually might just be in the wrong.

For the past year I have been working as a waitress. Whilst the majority of customers are usually kind, I have also had a few experiences of people being unnecessarily angry and intimidating. Even worse, I have experienced people say quite sexist and misogynistic comments towards me that are completely offensive. However, I have never felt like I am able to stand up for myself as there is this pressure to always accommodate the customer and ensure that they are happy.

This is a problem as it effects the morale of the employees. ‘The customer is always right’ forces workers to put up with abuse from customers, they must never make them feel that they are in the wrong. This can create a really negative and hostile work culture, which ultimately can affect employee’s mental health.

The truth is, it is impossible to satisfy everyone, and sometimes there are customers who are just not worth keeping. Especially the ones who use the excuse of ‘the customer is always right’ to justify their rude and offensive behaviour.

TL;DR Unfortunately, many people are born with privilege due to their race / gender.

It should be right that someone earns their privileges, people should have to work for them and earn it.

However, in reality, privilege is extremely unfair and discriminates against race and gender. Sadly, in many cases it is not something that is earned, but rather something that people are born naturally having.

The most obvious example of this is White privilege. This privilege is shown in many forms. These include:
-Generally having a better relationship with the Police
-The privilege of being favoured by school authorities
-The privilege of learning about the history of their own race in school curriculums
-The privilege of being ignorant to the prevalent racial issues within society and cultures, never having the trouble of having to experience racism.

Of course, some nations and cultures are better at dealing with dismantling this type of privilege. There is no denying though, that it still deeply exists in many societies and that is a huge problem.

Unfortunately, privilege can be extremely discriminatory. It benefits and disadvantages different members of communities solely based on how they look, this is a privilege some people earn from the moment that they are born.

So no, not all privilege is earned. That is a deep and troubling problem, nations, societies and communities should do all we can to resolve these issues.

TL;DR If protected by the law, surrogacy is not exploitative. However, there are some countries / situations where it can become so.

For many countries, surrogacy is not exploitative. There are laws protecting the surrogate and the child she is carrying. Contracts are made. It is a protected process and so is beneficial for helping parents who are struggling with issues such as infertility. For example, in the UK , the surrogate is protected as they are the child's legal parent at birth and a parental order or adoption is needed to transfer legal parental power. You can also not pay a surrogate in the UK, except for their reasonable expenses. This diminishes uncomfortable boundaries of people seen as selling babies.

With such measures in place, surrogacy can be great and not exploitative if both parties are treated fairly and respectfully.

However, on an international scale. there have been many cases where it has become exploitative. It is a practise that is shaped by history, culture and social values. There have been a concern about some nations, such as Kenya and Nigeria where many international surrogacy destinations remain unregulated. This has led surrogacy to become a popular form of 'health tourism.' This is highly problematic as people can travel to countries with no regulations of surrogacy and exploit their citizens.

At its core, I do not think surrogacy is exploitative. I think it is a beneficial process for both sides of the party, but that is only the case when it is regulated and protected by the law. I appreciate that around the world, there are places that do not regulate it and therefore allow many of their vulnerable citizens to be exploited. Nations need to include more protection within their laws regarding surrogacy to try and prevent exploitation as much as possible.

TL;DR People are who they are - sexuality is not a choice. They are just born that way, people are born gay.

As Lady Gaga once sang, 'you were born that way'. Sexuality is not a choice, we do not at a certain age just choose who we are attracted to. It is just what makes us as a person, it something that we are born with.

Sexuality is a complex subject of study. Study of genetics has confirmed that there is no 'gay gene', but equally there is no 'straight gene'. However, science does not need to be involved to explain the obvious, people of the LGBTQ+ community are who they are. Andrea Ganna, lead author and European molecular Biology Laboratory group leader stated that same-sex behaviour is just a 'natural part of our diversity as a species.' 'Natural' highlighting how being gay is not a choice.

Being gay or lesbian is simply a natural part of life. There is no conclusive evidence to prove if nature or nurture effects someone's sexuality.

As human beings, it should be accepted that there will be differences and variations within our species. Sexuality plays a part in this. People being gay or lesbian has always existed within society (even if laws prohibited the acts). This clearly shows that sexuality is not a choice but something that people are born being. Why would someone have chosen to be gay if they knew the law would severely punish them for it?

People of the LGBTQ+ community should be celebrated and accepted within society. They are born that way. It has never been a choice, and therefore procedures such as gay conversion should be banned and condemned.

TL;DR It is important for children to hear different political viewpoints, however their teachers may not expose them to this as they come from the same political / geographical landscapes.

I like the idea that if teachers express their political opinions, children could be exposed to more political beliefs and opinions. This is obviously valuable, children must be educated more about politics outside of their household viewpoints.

However, in reality, I question if teachers expressing their opinions would actually mean that the children are exposed to different political opinions.

Political opinions are largely shaped by the culture and societies that people live in. The pupils and their teachers probably live in the same areas. This means that there is a high probability that the teachers would also have similar political views to the children's families. For example, Liverpool in the UK is a stronghold Labour city and so the majority who live there probably have left-wing views. On the flip side, Bournemouth is a very Conservative city, so the majority there will have right-wing views.

A child being raised / educated in California, where it is quite liberal, has more chance of being exposed to viewpoints that are pro-abortion. Whereas, a child being raised / educated in Alabama, which is usually conservative and has strong Christian beliefs, will probably impose pro-life views onto the child.

So, I am unsure if teachers expressing their political views would expose children to differing viewpoints, as the teachers live in the same geographical / political landscape as the children's families, which means there is a good chance that they all share the same political stances.

Perhaps, what would be more effective is more time within education for children to be taught about politics. To hear both sides of a debate, for example with the abortion topic.

I understand that European governments will want to act cautiously whilst administrating this vaccine.

However, what bothers me about the situation is that the contraceptive pill given to women has a higher chance of blood clots, yet no one is talking about banning that. According to the app Clue, blood clots arise from the pill in four to sixteen users out of 10,000 each year.

In comparison, the vaccine has vaccinated 10 million people so far, and there have only been 30 cases of clotting following the vaccine. This is a really low number. Especially, considering that the National Blood Clot Alliance estimates that 1 in 1,000 people will experience deep vain thrombosis per year. So, it could be argued that those blood clots would have happened, it was just coincidental that they occurred following the vaccine.

Many European countries have now continued administrating the vaccine, including Germany, France, Italy, Spain. So, I think the vaccine is safe. However, what I find shocking is the medical gender bias within the media. If people are so concerned about blood clots, why is the risks of the contraceptive pill not discussed widely in the media?

The concern I have with allowing swearing is that it might not teach younger people how to deal with difficult situations maturely and respectfully.

Swearing is always usually used in a moment of anger and annoyance. When someone is swearing, it gives off the impression that they are quite aggressive, and sometimes intimidating.

If we allowed people to swear, there would be a worry that we are in turn teaching people that it is okay to always respond in anger, rather than dealing with it in a gentle and mature approach. This is mainly an issue when the anger is directed at another person rather than just a situation.

This could cause problems in a professional atmosphere. It could cause quite a negative and toxic work atmosphere.

Swearing never really helps a situation and just makes everything seem more aggressive. If swearing was allowed, would it not make society a more negative place?

I think there are currently many celebrities who are actually a positive influence on younger generations.

For example, from the top of my head I think about Lizzo. She is an American singer who champions topics such as body positivity, female independence and strength. Through her songs, she encouraged people to love themselves and find their self confidence. This is a really important message for the younger generations, especially as many in their teenage years struggle from insecurities and body image issues.

So, I think that as long as younger generations are looking up to the right celebrities, then they are not damaging younger generations. It could well be that they are in fact having the opposite effect.

Great opinion - very much agree!
I think the biggest issue (as you pointed out), is that people are able to hide behind a mask online. They would probably never say those things in person.
Perhaps, social media sites should have stricter guidelines?
I think as well as giving those people a voice, it also spreads the hatred and entices other people to think like that.
Really scary!

TL;DR Political merchandise is offensive and contributes nothing to democracy. It romanticises politicians which is dangerous.

Political merchandise seems to be most popularly used in the United States. The most known example must be the ‘MAGA’ baseball hats, particularly worn during the presidency of Donald Trump.

However, researching the topic, I notice that political merchandise has gotten very creative, and also very offensive. During the Trump era, his campaign had released their own brand of plastic straws, their purpose to replace the ‘liberal’ straws, the ones which are bio-degradable, sustainable and environmentally friendly. The Trump campaign made $450,000 sales from these straws.

Perhaps, the most offensive piece of merchandise I found was a bikini which had the American flag on it with the words ‘Grab them by the pussy.’This is making light of an extremely misogynistic, problematic and terrible quote said by Trump. What he said should be condemned, not celebrated and turned into merchandise to support his political work.

The issue with political merchandise is that it compares politics to supporting the likes of a football team. It romanticises politicians and gives them celebrity like status. Politics effects people lives, health and finances. It is not a joke. It should not be treated as a fun activity, yet wearing political merchandise gives off this impression.

We are living in a time where politics is extremely divisive. Someone wearing a t-shirt proclaiming their support for one leader / political party, makes it seem that they are unwilling to debate the topics or be open minded to have their opinions changed. It is a dangerous tool and visually segregates political differences within society.

Politics is a serious matter and should be taken so. The merchandise makes politics seem like some fun and romanticises it. However, for many people, including myself, these pieces of merchandise just look weird and offensive and are damaging our democratic debates. They are very problematic forms of propaganda.

TL;DR Emily Davison intended to kill herself for the suffragette movement, however, her death was disputed as the government worried that a martyr for the cause would be too powerful.

One of the most popular historical debates is regarding the death of Emily Davison, she was heavily involved in the suffragette movement. On the 4th June 1913, she attended the famous Epsom Derby event, she walked into the track of the King’s horse and was killed. Some people believe this was a tragic accident, I think she intentionally killed herself in the name of the suffragette cause.

Eyewitnesses from the event make it clear that Emily intentionally wanted to be hit by the horse. John Ervine who was present at the event, stated that ‘I feel sure that Ms Davison meant to stop the horse…only a few of the horses had gone by when I first saw her leave the railings, and others had not passed when she was knocked down.’ Another eyewitness also claimed that ‘it was obviously her intention to stop the race.’

Channel 4 also recently investigated this case, which further evidenced the claims of people that her actions were deliberate. Their analysis of the film indicated that the position Davison was in before she stepped out on the track meant that she had a clear view of the oncoming race.

Emily Davison was a radical suffragette and was known to take dangerous risks for the cause. She had previously thrown herself over the railings twice in Holloway prison, and then stated that ‘a tragedy is wanted’ for the suffragette cause.

Emmeline Pankhurst who was leader of the Women’s social and political union, said that she believed the acts of Davison were intentional as she thought a great tragedy, as such, would put an ‘end to the intolerable torture of women.’

Despite the disputes, there is lots of evidence to strongly suggest that Davison was so invested in the suffragette movement, she was willing to end her life for the cause. The people who knew her genuinely believe that was her intention. I think that was her intention too, and that debates surrounding her death was ignited as the government worried that a martyr for the suffragette cause would make them too powerful.

This opinion seems quite misogynistic.

Harry is a 30+ year old man. He is quite capable of making his own decisions. To shift all the blame on Meghan and use the word 'destroying' him is very problematic.

Their decision to leave the Royal family was a decision made by the both of them. I really dislike how this opinion depicts the idea that Meghan is responsible for the supposed 'downfall' of Harry. It makes Meghan seem like an evil witch and Harry has been manipulated into her spells.

Why does the woman receive all the blame when the man was equally involved? For me, this opinion paints a very misogynistic image that I am totally against.

Meghan is not destroying Harry at all. They are a couple who fell in love, and the two of them made the decision to leave. It is completely unfair for the woman to receive all the blame; it perpetuates the gender inequalities regarding the differing ways that men and women are discussed about.

The #NotAllMen is extremely problematic.
Men are using it as a way to absolve themselves from any accusations of misogyny before they allow a woman to share their experiences. This is not contributing anything to the discussion and is completely missing the point.

When women and girls are sharing their experiences of this social / cultural problem, what they really need from men is just for them to simply listen. #NotAllMen makes us feeling like we are fighting a losing battle. It is a part of the problem.

Us women know that it is not every man, but it could be ANY man. We have to constantly be on alert and that is not okay.

#NotAllMen is quite frankly offensive. It mirrors the same sentiment of the #AllLivesMatter argument against Black Lives Matter. Instead of challenging women, just let them be heard and take some time to be educated on how we can improve gender equality and women's safety in society.

TL;DR I think an alcohol ban is a bad idea, history teaches us that they are not that effective (primarily focusing on the alcohol prohibition in the United States during the 1920s).

Whilst I understand the dangers of alcohol, I think history teaches us that banning the substance is not very effective in stopping people consuming the product.

From 1920 to 1933, the United States had a nationwide prohibition of alcohol as a result of the Eighteenth Amendment. The idea was that the ban would reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems and also improve the health / hygiene of Americans.

However, despite the ban, many people were still willing to drink alcohol illegally. This gave rise to bootlegging (the illegal production and sale of liquor), as well as the rise of Speakeasies (illegal drinking establishments). The alcohol ban was capitalised upon by organised crime and gangs.

The alcohol ban was also economically harmful. It wiped out an entire industry. All those who had worked at the breweries had lost their jobs. This was extremely harmful, it negatively impacted socio-economic conditions.

So, whilst an alcohol ban could potentially prevent health problems, I also think it would introduce a whole new set of problems into society. I believe that it would not rid the alcohol industry, but rather force it to go underground which would only benefit the criminals of society. An alcohol ban would not be that effective.

TL;DR It is important that Welsh is taught to people in Wales as it is such as an important aspect of the country’s ancestry, history and culture.

Welsh is my first language and I use it everyday (probably more than English). It is compulsory that Welsh is taught in the schools of Wales, however, some people feel that this is a waste of time and the language is unnecessary to learn, especially when the time could be used to develop other languages, such as English. Recent records show that just about 30% of the population speak Welsh, it is important to note though that this figure is increasing.

I believe it is important for everyone in Wales to learn Welsh because we need to fight back against the cultural imperialism and social snobbery that has historically existed in society. There are countless stories of people being beat up if they were heard speaking Welsh (for example, in the 1930s), this caused people to only speak Welsh in private with their friends. This is also greatly responsible for the decreasing rates of people speaking the language in the 20th century. In 1850, 90% of the nation spoke the Welsh language, that is almost triple the amount who speak it today.

The Welsh language is 4,000 years old and therefore, is one of the oldest languages in Europe. It originates from the Celtic language that was spoken by the ancient Britons. It is also sister languages with Cornish and Breton. However, the English sovereignty over Wales under Henry VIII’s Act of Union (1536) had devastating consequences for the language. Welsh was largely banned and laws were created that removed the official status of the Welsh language. This meant people were forced to learn English and was a massive contribution to the cultural imperialism that existed.

History shows us why it is so important to learn Welsh in the modern day. It has such an interesting past; it is one of the original languages of Britain. It contributes so much to the culture of the Welsh and British nation. It would be so upsetting to witness the death of a language as a result of cultural snobbery from our history.

Learning Welsh is also really useful if you live in Wales. Wales is reclaiming the language and numbers who are able to speak it are growing, this was largely instigated when the Welsh assembly was voted in during 1998. Welsh is all over the road signs and the language can be seen everywhere across the country. Many jobs in Wales now make it a requirement to be able to speak the language, or at least prove that you are learning it. £6 million has also been invested in schools teaching the language, children are also encouraged to speak Welsh during playtime. So, it is arguably more useful for people in Wales to learn Welsh over other languages as they are bound to use it so much more since they live on the language’s homeland. It is important to note though, that modern foreign languages are still taught in Welsh schools (such as French and Spanish), so learning Welsh does not take time away from learning other amazing and fascinating languages from other cultures.

I think the best way to end this argument is to quote what J.R.R. Tolkien once said, ‘Welsh is of the soil, this island, the senior language of the men in Britain; and Welsh is beautiful.’

I have to disagree, I think that the summer Olympics are so much better.

I think the summer Olympics is a bigger and more exciting event. It attracts more viewers and there just seems to be a more fun atmosphere surrounding the summer Olympics. The reason for this is to probably do with the tradition of the summer Olympics.

When the Olympics began, the winter version did not exist. The summer Olympics has all the original traditions and events. In fact, the summer Olympics of 100 years ago is still very similar to how it is today, except there have been even more great sports added to the game.

For me, the winter Olympics are a nice companion to the summer games, however there is no chance that they can compete with the legacy of the summer Olympics. This legacy and the worldwide popularity of the summer Olympics is what makes it so much better than the winter version.

TL;DR A three-day weekend would be beneficial for workers health, it would allow them more time to enjoy life outside of work.

A three-day weekend is a good idea because it would promote a healthier work / life balance. This would benefit both mental and physical health. Professor John Ashton, who is one of Britain’s leading Doctors, has stated that a three-day weekend is needed to combat stress. This is because it would allow people to spend more time with their families or exercising, the extra time to socialise and be a part of nature would do a wonder of good for many people. It would provide more time to switch their ‘work brain’ off and be able to relax.

The President of the UK faculty of Public Health has also stressed the importance of moving towards a four-day working week. He claims that, ‘when you look at the way we lead our lives, the stress that people are under, the pressure on time on sickness absence, mental health is clearly a major issue.’ It is obvious that the pressure of work is having a negative effect on mental health, a three-day weekend could be one of the solutions to combat this.

Prof John Ashton also highlights the dangerous physical threats that a stressful work / life balance can cause. These medical ailments include high blood pressure, increased risk of heart attack, insomnia, headaches, heartburn and many other complications. A three-day weekend would reduce the amount of working hours, which could be very beneficial in limiting the amount of medical risk that the workers expose themselves to.

There is no doubt that the implementation of a three-day weekend would be great for the mental and physical health of many people. It would develop a better work / life balance and allow people to spend more time on the activities they enjoy.

Totally agree! This was super interesting to read!

There is no doubt that the content you learn in History is very important. However, the academic skills you also gain from studying History is really valuable.

Some of the skills included are developing your craft as a writer, to learn how to convey a complicated topic to another through words. History strengthens critical thinking and research abilities. Students are taught how to effectively communicate through presentation. They also learn about the value of debate and how to engage in political, social and economic discussions.

History allows students to build a valuable skill-set which aids in academic progress in every subject, not just History.

Works Cited:

'Knowledge and skills gained', https://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-arts-and-sciences/history/academics/knowledge-skills-gained.php#:~:text=It%20helps%20students%20develop%20a,skills%20in%20real%2Dworld%20settings.

Initially, I would have disagreed with this opinion. I thought that social media was a great tool to spread education and information about differing political opinions / theories etc.

However, I recently read a book named '10 arguments for deleting your social media accounts' by Jaron Lanier. This book made me realise how social media can be dangerous and disadvantageous to democracy.

The aim of many social media apps is to keep us constantly engaged so that we consume as much time as possible on the platforms. To do this, the apps have created algorithms that show us what we want to see - this particularly effects the political content that we view. For example, the algorithm can quickly identify if someone is politically conservative, they will then keep showing content to this person that aligns with their political ideology. That person may then think that everyone thinks / feels the same as them regarding politics as they are hardly ever exposed to differing viewpoints.

For me, democracy is able to research all sides of a political debate before coming to a conclusion on your own viewpoints. However, social media minimises the element of debate and exposure through their algorithms. This is responsible for contributing to political polarisation.

So I do agree that social media encourages a loss of interest in democracy, but I also think that it runs deeper than this and that social media can be very dangerous for democracy too.

Jaron Lanier, 'Ten arguments for deleting your social media accounts right now' (August 2019).

TL;DR Instagram is dying because it has become too superficial, it promotes a ‘fake’ lifestyle encouraged by the influencers on the app.

I love the concept of Instagram – a place where you are able to show photos of your life to friends and family. However, in recent years, Instagram has increasingly become an app to show off and promote a falsely perfect life. This has made Instagram less fun and is making the app dying.

An influencer is defined as being ‘a person with the ability to influence potential buyers of a product or service by promoting or recommending the products on social media.’ They edit their pictures and create an illusion to their followers that they have a perfect lifestyle. Everything is presented as being so flawless.

This image of perfection can have a really negative effect on the users of the app, particularly regarding body image. The BBC found that a systemic review of 20 papers published in 2016 found that photo-based activities (primarily scrolling through images on Instagram) were a cause for people to have negative thoughts about their bodies. A survey of 227 female university students, found that they tend to compare their own appearances with their peer group and celebrities, which causes them to negatively view themselves. They also judge themselves as being worse off, wondering why their lives are not as perfect as those they see on social media.

The toxicity of Instagram on body image is one of the reasons why Instagram is a dying app. People are realising the negative consequences of the app and are choosing to delete it; this was particularly accelerated after Netflix released ‘The Social Dilemma’ in 2020.

WORKS CITED:

Oakes Kelly, ‘The complicated truth about social media and body image’ (12 March 2019), https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190311-how-social-media-affects-body-image

That is interesting! It would be great to see the demographics of the app. Maybe there is an increase of use in certain age groups but a decrease in others?

TL;DR It would be unfair to ban boxing where there are also so many other sports that are deemed to be dangerous.

There are definitely dangers involved with boxing, however, every sport has its dangers. If we banned every sport that had dangerous risks, there would not be many sports left and this would cause much upset for many people.

Aside from boxing, another sport that is seen to be a dangerous game is rugby. Rugby is a collision sport, therefore traumatic injuries can occur. Other injuries that the sport can cause is fractured bones, dislocation, muscle bruises and ligament sprains / tears.

Another sport which can cause injury is snowboarding as fatal falls can occur. Serious fractures are also common, as well as the possibility of being caught in an avalanche.

The point of this is that yes, of course boxing is dangerous, but so are many other sports. It would not be fair to ban boxing and then to keep all the others sports that are deemed to be dangerous.

I think rather than ban boxing altogether, we should find ways of making the sport a safer one. Perhaps, review the rules of the game and experiment to see if the players can wear anymore protective equipment. There are already some rules in boxing to prevent severe injury, these include a ban on punching the back of the head.

Works Cited:

'Preventing Rugby Injuries' https://www.stopsportsinjuries.org/STOP/STOP/Prevent_Injuries/Rugby_Injury_Prevention.aspx#:~:text=Because%20it%20is%20a%20collision,because%20helmets%20are%20not%20worn.

Cinemas are not dead because they can provide technology to viewers which is too expensive to have at home.

Many cinemas offer the experience of being able watch movies in 3D / 4D. I remember going to watch one of the Harry Potter films in 3D, it was fantastic and certainly not an experience I could have had at home. 3D is not really possible to have at home as it is too expensive. However, cinema can provide people with this experience which makes visiting the cinema a very attractive option.

Cinematic technology is also constantly developing which could attract even more people in the future years. Cinema operators are embracing the ideas of including side-wall projection and next-generation audio. There are many ways 'to push at the boundaries of creative cinema.'

Cinema is not dead and I do not think it will be dead in the future as the technologies used in a cinema can provide a much better experience for the viewer compared to what they can achieve at home.

WORKS CITED:

Davies David, 'Immersive Cinema: Could new technologies fuel a post-coronavirus renaissance?' (11 May 2020), https://www.ibc.org/trends/cinema-tech-saving-the-big-screen/5920.article

Eurovision is a fun singing competition that takes place once a year. Traditionally it was for European countries, however, in 2015 Australia joined the competition. It seemed that this would be a one off as a way to commemorate the 60th competition. Yet, Australia returned the following year and now Eurovision have extended their involvement in the competition until at least 2023.

Graham Norton (who is the UK presenter of the show) claimed that Australia’s participation in Eurovision is ‘stupid’. His comments received backlash; however, I agree with him. It is nothing to do with being anti-Australian, their involvement in the competition is just strange. Australia is on the other side of the world from Europe, a part of a completely different continent. Eurovision has got the term Europe in its name, not ‘worldvision’, so I do not understand why Australia are able to compete.

Eurovision is also full of ‘ancient rivalries, barely contained blood feuds and uneasy alliances between countries.’ Australia is not involved in any of these political feuds and friendships that make the competition what it is. Australia is like Europe’s kind cousin that everyone likes, however they do not really fit into Eurovision.

Australia’s involvement in Eurovision just seems bizarre and illogical. What’s next – France competing in the Asian games? Denmark sending a team to compete in the American football games?

WORKS CITED:

Tan Monica, ‘Graham Norton is right, Australia’s participation in Eurovision is stupid’ (11 May 2016), https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/may/11/graham-norton-is-right-australias-participation-in-eurovision-is-stupid

Learning another language is really important as it develops cultural appreciation.

I think there can be some sort of arrogance with only knowing one language (particularly for English speakers), as they think that is the only language they will ever need to know.

However, learning another language is great way to be educated about other cultures and histories of the world. This in turn can encourage people to be more tolerant towards other people around the world, they will have gained greater understanding.

Some studies have actually proven that learning another language has a direct correlation between being bilingual and having a more positive outlook.

'6 Surprising benefits of learning another language', https://www.rosettastone.co.uk/magazine/6-surprising-benefits-of-learning-a-language/

TL;DR Making all elderly people retake their driving test would not be worth it due to the financial aspects.

I think that if elderly people are deemed medically fit, there should be no reason why they must retake their driving test.

Also if this policy was implemented, who would pay for the driving test? A theory test costs £23, the actual driving test costs £62. It seems unfair to make the elderly people pay for the test, especially if they are already living on a pension. Also, if the government were paying for the tests, this would be really expensive. I think the money would be better spent elsewhere. It would also mean that there would be less driving test slots available for young people who need to take their test.

Making all elderly people retake their driving test seems really unnecessary. This should only happy if they have been medically instructed to do so.

'Driving test costs', https://www.gov.uk/driving-test-cost#:~:text=A%20theory%20test%20costs%20%C2%A3,driving%20test%20through%20GOV.UK.

TL;DR Classical music is definitely beneficial, however I would argue that ambient music / nature sounds are the best types of music to listen to whilst studying.

Classical musical can be great for studying. However, there are quite a few classical pieces which are quite intense and loud, these ones are probably not the best for studying.

I have always found ambient music to be the best study music. Ambient music is that of a very calming nature, it lacks a true beat, does not have lyrics and 'ends up blending into pre-existing background noise'. It is definitely a lot more relaxing than classical music. Studies regarding this type of music have found that it can help people with ADHD to ignore background noises and can aid people to complete tasks with more efficiency.

Nature sounds are also proven to be really beneficial for studying. It has been shown to boost mood and promote deep focus. Researchers have found that nature sounds can 'mask intrusive sounds and help workers stay on task.'

So whilst classical music can help studying, I would not label it the 'best' type of music to listen to while working,

WORKS CITED:

Capritto Amanda, 'The best music to listen to whilst you work or study' (3 February 2020), https://www.cnet.com/health/the-best-music-to-listen-to-while-you-work-or-study/

TL;DR Immortality does not necessarily mean you lose people in the past life, what if you lived to the point where science can bring dead people back alive?

One of the biggest fears about immortality is that you will constantly have to lose the people you love.

However, as science continues to progress, it could open up all sorts of possibilities which would solve these concerns. Perhaps, one day science will be able to revive those who have already passed meaning there would be a chance to be reunited with them in the future. Or, life expectancy in the future will continue to grow as science finds ways to preserve humans for longer; it could even get to the point where they find a way to be immortal so others could join you.

In fact, many scientists also currently believe that immortality and reviving dead people is very much possible (although it will probably take up to 100 to 600 years to develop that technology). One of the theories for achieving this includes preserving brain tissue through processes like chemical fixation.

Being immortal would allow you to witness the world develop and see all the amazing scientific discoveries that they are going to discover in the future. It would also not necessarily mean that you would have to part from your loved ones forever.

WORKS CITED:

Johnson Stephen, 'Is resurrection possible? Researchers catalogue the ways that science might achieve it.' (22 September 2020), https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/resurrection-science?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

TL;DR Summer is the best season because we are able to spend more time outdoors, which is beneficial to both our physical and mental health.

Summer is the best season because the days are so much longer and so much warmer. We are able to spend so much of our time outdoors compared to other seasons where we have a very limited amount of sunlight.

The season of summer is beneficial for our physical health as the extra time outdoors means more time that our bodies are moving and enjoying the sunshine, such as walking amongst nature. The warmer weather also means that it is possible to spend time in the lakes / seas partaking in activities such as surfing, paddle boarding or swimming which are so beneficial for our physical health.

Summer is also great for our mental health. The sun provides us with more Vitamin D which is proven to increase energy levels and aids us in helping diseases. It also makes us feel happier. The longer days also mean that we have more time to spend with our friends and families. Evidence has shown that good relationships with these people are vital for our mental wellbeing and socialising with the ones we love can improve happiness levels. More time outdoors during summer can also help with out concentration, a study found that children with ADHD seem to focus better after being outdoors.

Summer is the best season because it is the time of the year when we are at our healthiest and happiest.

WORKS CITED:

Howell – Relojo Dennis, ‘Mental Health benefits of summer’ (5 June 2016), https://www.psychreg.org/mental-health-benefits-summer/

TL;DR Mamma Mia 2 is better than the first as it is more fun and has a better storyline.

Mamma Mia 2 provides more context than the first film, there are many flashbacks of Donna when she was young (played by Lily James) showing her adventures travelling Europe and settling down in Greece. The second film expands on the love story of Donna and Sam, it also provides context as to why their relationship failed when they were younger. This provides so much more clarity and excitement regarding their love story which is definitely better than what we see in the first film.

The second movie, in general, just feels slightly more fun and energetic. More cast are added to the film which includes Lily James and Cher. The audience get to see Cher singing some of ABBA’s best songs which is brilliant. The costumes are also better than the first. Lily James wears such fun clothes, such as the famous denim flared jeans. We also get to see more of the beautiful Greek landscape, as well as other locations across Europe which makes the film more visually intriguing.

Many of the main songs from the first film such as ‘Dancing Queen’ and ‘Mamma Mia’ are also included in the second film. Yet, we are also introduced to other great ABBA songs such as ‘Knowing me, Knowing you’ and ‘Andante, Andante’. There is more variation of songs in the second one whilst also keeping the most popular ones.

The second Mamma Mia is better as it is a more sparkling, spectacular and funny viewing.

WORKS CITED:

Oswald Anjelica, ‘The ‘Mamma Mia!’ sequel is better than the original – despite Meryl Streep’s absence’ (17 July 2018), https://www.insider.com/mamma-mia-here-we-go-again-movie-review-2018-7

This was really interesting to read! I learnt so much - thanks for sharing this great opinion!

Reading is a great form of relaxation - however, this does not include all books.
Some books act as a great form of escapism and are amazing for mental health by relieving stress and depressive symptoms. An example of these type of books could include the Harry Potter series.
On the other hand, I do not think all books can aid relaxation. When I was studying for my History degree, I had to read many intense, and often quite dark pieces of literature. Examples included books detailing events of the Holocaust or other horrific events throughout history. They certainly did not relax me and if anything, they made me feel more tense / overwhelmed.
So, I think reading is only relaxing depending on the type of book that you are reading.

TL;DR A tax on sugary drinks is beneficial, however, I do not think it will inspire people to change their whole diet to a healthier one.

I think this is a great idea, however I am unsure how effective this is at actually promoting a healthy diet. It might not inspire people to uptake a healthier diet but rather turn attention to other sugary treats which are not taxed.

In the UK, a sugar tax on soft drinks was introduced in April 2018. The tax has proven to be very successful as it has led to a 28.8% fall in the amount of sugar contained in such beverages. This is great as people are consuming less sugar through their drinks which will benefit their health.

However, evidence has also shown that the English are actually consuming more sugar since the tax introduction; it seems that the tax has not had much influence inspiring people to make healthier changes to their diet. PHE found that there had been a 0.5% increase in the amount of sugar that people are consuming in the UK.

Other industries aside from sugary beverages have added more sugar to their products. In sweets and confectionary there was a 0.6% rise in the sugar content and 0.5% increase in puddings.

Therefore, taxing sugary drinks definitely has benefits, however it does not necessarily inspire people to adapt their diet to a healthier one. They are still able to get their 'sugar hit' from other food products. Perhaps, what is more important than tax is education about nutrition.

WORKS CITED:

Campbell Denis, 'English consuming more sugar despite tax and anti-obesity drive' (20 September 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/20/britons-consuming-more-sugar-despite-tax-and-anti-obesity-drive#:~:text=It%20shows%20that%20the%20sugar,sugar%20contained%20in%20such%20beverages.&text=The%20amount%20of%20sugar%20people%20consumed%20from%20such%20products%20rose,by%203.1%25%2C%20PHE%20said.

TL;DR Healthcare should be a basic human right. Everyone deserves access to a reliable healthcare system.

It is completely immoral to ever allow someone to become severely sick or die just because they are too poor to be able to afford healthcare services. It is a right that every person should have access to such services, to claim that it should be a privilege is cruel and horrific.

The right to health is actually recognised internationally as being a fundamental human right. In 1946, WHO stated in their constitution that 'the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being.' Regardless of class, race, religion or economic / social condition everyone should be able to access healthcare services without having to worry about the financial consequences.

As human beings, we should have the empathy and emotional capacity to want to look out for others and protect peoples health. To deprive anyone of healthcare because it should be a 'privilege' is a terrifying belief. It would cause astonishing amounts of grief and pain for millions of people across the world.

Healthcare should be a right because it is the main way that we can look after ourselves, our families and our communities.

WORKS CITED:

Dr. Ghebreyesus Adhanom Tedros, 'Health is a fundamental human right' (10 December 2017), https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/health-is-a-fundamental-human-right

Jukes Katie, 'There is a human right to health, and this is how it works' (7 April 2016), https://eachother.org.uk/is-there-a-right-to-health/#:~:text=It%20entitles%20people%20to%20a,accessible%2C%20equally%2C%20to%20all.

TL;DR The skincare craze is not a scam because it is actually really important to look after our skin and so the awareness is a good thing.

Skincare products provide many benefits for maintaining healthy skin. I think skincare has perhaps become more popular during the pandemic as people are wearing less make-up and so are wanting to better their natural look. However, skincare is super important and more awareness / education about the products is great.

Every year, in the UK there are 16,200 cases of skin cancer. One of the main causes of skin cancer is damage from the sun. The best way to prevent this is to wear SPF. SPF is increasingly being added into skincare products and education about it means that many more people are making the effort to add this product to their skincare regime. This is fantastic as it so important for our skin health and will hopefully help prevent skin cancer cases.

Other popular steps of a skincare regime include cleansing, toning, serums and moisturiser. Cleansing is beneficial as it removes dirt, oil, pollutants and other unwanted debris from the face. Serums and moisturiser are also important as they provide the skin with essential ingredients to maintain its health and glow whilst also hydrating the skin.

I do not think the skincare craze is a scam. I think it is a sign of the times and people are becoming increasingly interested in learning about the important process of looking after ones skin.

Works Cited:

'Melanoma skin cancer statistics' https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/melanoma-skin-cancer#heading-Zero

Lankerani Lela, 'Skin cleaning 101: Why washing your face is important' (19 September 2014), https://www.westlakedermatology.com/blog/skin-cleansing-101-why-washing-your-face-is-important/#:~:text=A%20common%20benefit%20of%20facial,the%20skin%20a%20fresh%20look.

TL;DR I believe that karma exists and that practising this belief has psychological benefits.

Karma is the belief that our actions / behaviours in the present moment will determine our fate in future circumstances. If we have been involved in cruel behaviour (such as stealing), then karma will make us pay for these actions in the future.

I believe that karma does exist. Whilst it lacks scientific evidence there have been many incidences to prove that it is true, even if it is a very minor event. Many people have shared their experiences of karma. One story includes a driver blocking an ambulance that had a patient inside, the driver was too distracted to notice the ambulance as they were on a call. A few seconds later, the driver slammed into another car that belonged to the police.

Another story discusses how a homeless man found a very expensive diamond ring, he tracked the owner down and returned the ring to them. His actions were then publicised across the media and people from around the world began donating to this man, the total donation fund was $100,000. This shows how karma can award as well as it can punish.

There has been some psychological understanding to show how karma can exist and also improve our lives. John Edwards who is the director of CLA’s school of psychology explains that ‘in the Buddhist point of view karma is a psychological phenomenon. It happens because of the way the mind works, it’s not some general force in the universe.’ He also states that ‘the basic idea is that your own behaviours and actions lead you to experience the world in a certain way.’ Karma could benefit us by making us more aware of our actions and how we look upon the world. It may encourage us to be kinder to others.

Organizational psychologist and professor Adam Grant explains how practising karma is a secret to success and also helps others to succeed. He champions the idea that being kind and supportive to others maximise chances of reaping long-term career awards. This acts as further evidence of karma; it encourages people to be caring and then they are rewarded for their actions in the future.
The countless stories of people experiencing karma first-hand and how it has benefitted people acts as great examples of why karma exists.

WORKS CITED:

Thagard Paul, ‘Karma - What goes around comes around?’ (11 July 2013), https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/hot-thought/201307/karma-what-goes-around-comes-around

Pareek Shabdita, ‘These real life examples of karma prove that what goes around really does come around’ (12 November 2016), https://www.scoopwhoop.com/Real-Life-Examples-Of-Karma/

‘The Science of Karma’ (23 August 2017), https://edge.oregonstate.edu/2017/08/23/the-science-of-karma/

Miller Anna, ‘The science of Karma’ (October 2013), https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/10/karma

TL;DR National patriotism is more dangerous as it quite often becomes more similar to nationalism, where people think their country / culture / language is superior to others.

Very limited patriotism can be fun and celebrated, for example cheering on your own country during the Olympic games. However, very often patriotism becomes extreme and blurs the line with nationalism. This results in dangerous political repercussions (recent examples include Brexit and the presidency of Donald Trump).

In a fourth of July speech delivered by Trump, he stated that the American Republic was the ‘greatest, most exceptional, and most virtuous nation in the history of the world.’ This was a self-righteous claim which encouraged the notion that one nation is greater to another. It is arrogant and unsafe.

I also believe that Brexit was so popular as it was bred from the ideologies of English nationalism. The slogan of Brexit was ‘Take Control’ which illustrated the false idea that Britain was enslaved to the powers of the EU. This nationalism was based upon the thought that Britain should stand on its own, almost as if we are too good to have to work with and depend on other countries. This nationalistic concept can also be traced throughout British history; the English fighting against the Spanish Armada and then later on Adolf Hitler, these events enhanced the mythology that we are able to ‘stand alone.’

These nationalist beliefs are dangerous because they act as a threat against international co-operation. It isolates nations and promotes egotistical attitudes that act as a danger to political and economic progressions.

WORKS CITED:

Adams Ella, ‘Opinion: Nationalism is dangerous’ (16 October 2020), https://theappalachianonline.com/opinion-nationalism-is-dangerous/

O’Toole Fintan, ‘Brexit is driven in English nationalism. And it will end in self-rule’ (19 June 2016), https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/18/england-eu-referendum-brexit

I disagree, I think it would be the opposite way round.
If there was a guarantee of an afterlife and some reassure that there was more than just this one life, then I think people would become complacent with their life on this earth. They may think there is no bother in living life to the fullest as there is more to come. They could take this current life for granted, perhaps think that the best is yet to come.

However, I think if you knew that there was no afterlife then it would push you to make the most of your time on earth and live the most meaningful life that you can. You would make the most of everyday and try to enrich yourself in as many experiences as you can do.

Therefore, a life without afterlife would actually make this life so much more meaningful.

TL;DR Soulmates do exist but there are many of them, not just one person.

I think that the term soulmates has been popularised to be associated with a romantic partner. However, I think soulmates is much more complex than this. We can find soulmates who are our friends, family and even our pets. It is about the people who we have a strong connection with, who we feel close to and can trust. They are the people who stand out in a crowd for us. The type of people you feel so comfortable and at ease around.

I believe that in our lifetimes we meet so many soulmates. It is those people we feel that we have chemistry with and that they just 'get us'. I believe that some of these soulmates are with us for our whole lives, whilst some of them are only there for a temporary period. They all teach us valuable lessons about life and provide us with great experience / memories.

For example, throughout your life you will have a variety of platonic soulmates that are all so important but for different reasons. These can include the first friend you ever make (your childhood friend), the friend you meet who might change your view on the world and intrigues your intellect, a friend who might encourage you to be adventurous and travel with them.

Soulmates are simply a person who we have a much deeper connection with. Everyone will meet many soulmates throughout their lifetime.

WORKS CITED:

Sanci Elissa, 'Multiple Soulmates: What if we really do have more than one soulmate?' (16 November 2020), https://thoughtcatalog.com/elissa-sanci/2014/06/what-if-we-really-do-have-more-than-one-soul-mate/#:~:text=A%20person%20has%20multiple%20soulmates,be%20both%20romantic%20and%20platonic.&text=Romantic%20soul%20mates%20are%20trickier,you%20know%20you%20have%20to.

TL;DR I disagree because whilst I think animals can provide stress relief, I think meditation is the best form of stress relief.

I love animals, they are great. They can definitely act as a good form of stress relief. However, animals also require a lot of care and attention. You have to ensure that you have enough finances to cover their food / medicinal needs. Dogs require lots of walks. They deserve a lot of attention. Owning an animal is a lot of commitment and therefore is probably not the best form of stress relief.

I would argue that the best form of stress relief is activities such as meditation / deep breathing techniques. Meditation is proven to reduce stress as it reduces the inflammation response caused by stress. It also aids in dealing with anxiety, enhances self awareness, improves sleep and can decrease blood pressure. Meditation requires a lot less commitment and responsibility that comes with owning an animal. Anyone can practise meditation any time, anywhere; therefore I think it is the best form of stress relief.

WORKS CITED:

Thorpe Matthew, '12 Science Based Benefits of meditation' (27 October 2020) https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/12-benefits-of-meditation#9.-Improves-sleep

I have to disagree with this opinion.
I think that corn eaten straight from the cob tastes so much better. It somehow tastes fresher and and has more flavour.
I always associate corn on the cob to happy summer times, such as having a BBQ. When I think of corn already removed from the cob, I think of the processed stuff that comes in the tins.
Perhaps, I prefer eating corn straight from the cob as I associate happier memories / weather with it?

TL;DR Surfing is the best water sport because it is the most fun, exhilarating and rewarding one.

Surfing provides more of a sense of achievement than other water sports as it takes longer to learn and perfect. The likes of paddle boarding and kayaking can be learnt very fast, whereas surfing takes many hours practise to become accustomed to the techniques and methods involved. Therefore, when you master surfing it feels like so much more of an accomplishment as it has taken a lot longer to learn the skills required.

Additionally, surfing provides more of an adrenaline rush and is more exhilarating than other water sports. You have to learn about the waves and how you react to them. Then when you catch and ride a wave it is an exhilarating feeling and is so fun. You learn so much about the seas and tides, it is a great educational experience.

Surfing also entails you to spend a lot of time swimming in the sea. It is so action packed, you have to keep focused on the waves and what is coming towards you. It takes focus of all your concentration which is great for mental health. With the right wetsuit, surfing can be an activity for all year round.

Surfing is the best water sport as it is the most fun, exhilarating and exciting one.

TL;DR Bullfighting should be banned as it is abhorrently cruel towards the animals involved.

Animals are innocent, living creatures; it is immoral that we use them for our entertainment. In Spain, 7,000 bulls are killed every year in the bullfighting events. The way they are also killed is horrific, they are ‘pushed to extreme mental and physical exhaustion’ and then stabbed to death. The animals are doomed to death, it is not a fair fight, it is almost always inevitable that the affair will end up in the death of a bull.

The word Matador (the person who kills the bull) literally means ‘killer’. They inflict so much unnecessary pain on the bull, such as using their weapon to sever the bull’s spinal cord. The Matador may also perform the gruesome act of cutting off the bull’s ears and/or tail to act as a trophy if they are particularly proud of that certain fight. These are atrocious acts.

Bullfighting is also not just unique to Spain, it also takes place in Portugal, France, Mexico, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru and even parts of the United States. This is a global issue. There are a few certain bullfighting events that are particularly horrific. One includes the ‘Running of the Bulls’ event in San Fermin festival in Pamplona, Spain. A ‘terrifying mob’ of crowds chase after frightened bulls through the city. Ultimately, many of those bulls will later be killed in the bullring in the evening. Horses are even subject to this cruelty as the industry forces them to be a part of the spectacle.

Bullfighting should be banned because animals are not here to entertain us; they are innocent beings and we should treat them with kindness and respect.

WORKS CITED:

‘Bullfighting: A bloody execution’ https://www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-not-use-entertainment/bullfighting/#:~:text=Bullfighting%3A%20A%20Bloody%20Execution&text=Every%20year%2C%20at%20least%207%2C000,slaughter%20of%20a%20helpless%20animal.

TL;DR I think that there are no more health risks in a vegetarian diet than there is in a meat eaters diet.

I believe that it is completely manageable to have a healthy and fulfilled diet without consuming meat.

Firstly, with a bit of learning and research I think it is very possible to get all the nutrients required. For example, there are many vegetarian iron rich foods, there is 6.6 mg of iron in one cup of lentils, 2.4 mg in a cup of pasta and 3.4 mg in a cup of oats (there are also countless other sources that provide substantial iron content). Education on the topic would provide awareness about the countless other food sources that contain the nutrients meat provides. Also, many of my friends are meat eaters and consume it in nearly all their meals, yet a lot of them still suffer from iron deficiency. Just because someone consumes meat, there is still no guarantee that they will not suffer from these ailments.

Additionally, the argument that vegetarians are more likely to suffer from mental health issues such as depression may not be a direct result of their diet. Research shows that many vegetarians tend to be more intelligent, a study found that those who stick to a vegetarian diet have IQs around five points higher than those who regularly eat meat. It has also been proven that intelligent people are more likely to suffer from depression, those of the highest IQ are shown to be much more likely to suffer from anxiety / mood disorders. Therefore, the link between vegetarianism and mental health issues may not be a direct one but rather influenced from biological / environmental factors.

Also, whilst there are health concerns about a vegetarian diet, there are also health risks associated to eating meat. Recent research shows that long-term consumption of meat increases the chances cardiovascular disease, colorectal cancer and type 2 diabetes. Vegetarian or meat eater, the two diets both have health risks.

WORKS CITED:

‘Vegans, meat-eaters and Iron’ (7 April 2020), https://plantbasednews.org/your-health/faqs-and-mythbusting/vegans-meat-eaters-iron-ultimate-guide/

Hambrick David, ‘Bad news for the highly intelligent’ (5 December 2017), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-news-for-the-highly-intelligent/

‘Vegetarians are more intelligent, says study’ (13 April 2012), https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/vegetarians-are-more-intelligent-says-study-7082629.html

‘Health Risks associated with meat consumption: A review of Epidemiological studies’ (2015) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26780279/#:~:text=Recent%20evidence%20from%20large%20prospective,of%20total%20mortality%2C%20cardiovascular%20disease%2C

I disagree that grammar schools are a good idea. They are divisive and further highlight inequality within society.

A study by Durham University has shown that ‘increasing selection in the school system harms the majority of students who do not attend a grammar school, while their success is only down to pupils background and higher prior attainment.’ It seems that grammar schools contribute to making the education system unfairer for many students. Grammar schools have negative social and economic consequences.

The research also shows that grammar schools have a lot less children with special educational needs as well as those whose English is an additional language. Professor Stephen Gorard who teaches at Durham University states that ‘dividing children into the most able and the rest from an early age does not appear to lead to better results for either group.’

Grammar schools are divisive and their negatives outweigh the benefits.

Works Cited:

Vaughan Richard, ‘Grammar schools a ‘danger to equality and should be abolished’, say researchers’ (27 March 2018), https://inews.co.uk/news/education/grammar-schools-a-danger-to-equality-and-should-be-abolished-138750

Mulan has always been my favourite.
She is strong, independent and smart. Also, Mulan has a great storyline too. The movie also has a really good soundtrack.
Mulan is the best Disney protagonist as well as the best Disney film.

TL;DR Plastic bags should be banned because they are highly damaging to the environment, they pollute our oceans and are also a risk to human health.

Firstly, plastic bags are destroying the beauty of our environments. Plastic bags can travel for long distances due to the wind. They are also commonly found in lakes, rivers and the oceans. They are an eye sore and are ruining the appearance of the fantastic scenery and waters that surround us.

The plastic bags are also very dangerous to the environment and contribute to climate change. They are made from non-renewable materials and therefore are forced to stay on our planet for a long time (as they do not degrade). Through the production of plastic bags, greenhouse gases are created and emitted into our environment which has negative consequences in regards to climate change.

Research has also suggested that plastic bags have damaging consequences for the human body. A report from the Environmental Health Perspectives found that plastic bags ‘released hormones that mimicked oestrogen.’ This could have an effect on our health by disrupting how hormones behave in our bodies, which could cause problems such as fatigue, anxiety, weight issues and poor sleep.

Plastic bags are also equally, if not more, dangerous to the wildlife and marine animals. Many animals mistake the bags for food, consume them and then it causes congestion in the digestive system or suffocation. The consequences are devastating, 35% of turtle deaths are caused by them consuming plastic. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation also reported that if we don’t slow down our plastic bag production, by 2050 there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. These are grim figures; plastic bags are destroying our wonderful wildlife.

Plastic bags are also not necessary, there are so many other sustainable and effective alternatives. There are so many great re-usable shopping bags made which can be used time and time again. They drastically reduce the environmental problems that plastic bags create. There are also bags made from biodegradable material so they do not stay on our planet forever. With so many alternatives to plastic bags, there is no reason why they should still be used.

Plastic bags are damaging our earth, our health and our animals. It is time that we ban them for good.

WORKS CITED:

‘25+ powerful reasons why plastic bags should be banned immediately’, https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/reasons-why-plastic-bags-should-be-banned.php#:~:text=19.-,Bans%20should%20be%20adopted%20because%20they%20are%20greatly%20effective%20at,there%20would%20be%20fewer%20landfills.

Landa, Jen, ‘The Dangers of BPA’ (7 May 2014), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/healthy-living-news_b_4919960?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHWGTL16un_UooflOaEKjSQdD8ZH53xwhTRAPR-GDoDB0y9izAbyx_G6FRtHlyQAF4Afs5XiGppj1JvDfQHbBy3NwjH17e1Z86Be0PqcqJo81nSBKqYJ-zudgNWEY8A-sAaXcMW57rqc9wlD5uibUVr_rtcWEPTfNkPWqVm-h5QQ#:~:text=Because%20BPA%20is%20a%20synthetic,causing%20suffering%20needlessly%20and%20unknowingly.

Pena Amanda and Nims Brittany, ’12 Sustainable alternatives to plastic bags that are just as easy to use’ (1 March 2020), https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sustainable-alternatives-to-plastic-bags_n_5a732a7de4b0bf6e6e225ee0

TL;DR Sunbeds should be banned because they significantly contribute to the increasing numbers of skin cancer cases, in February 2020 it was discovered that 10 million cases of skin cancer could have been prevented if there was a ban on sunbeds.

There are no benefits to using a sunbed, they radiate dangerous levels of UV rays which causes many health problems. The UVA and UVB rays emitted from a sunbed penetrate the skin and damage the DNA in skin cells. Over time, the damaged DNA builds up, the cells grow out of control and end up causing cancer. Some countries have already banned the use of sunbeds, such as Brazil in 2009 and then Australia in January 2015. The health threat that sunbeds impose should inspire other countries (such as the UK) to also ban use of the machines.

A survey in 2019 from the British Skin Foundation found that 77% of dermatologists agreed that sunbeds should be banned completely in the UK, whilst 91% agreed that sunbeds significantly contribute to the increasing rate of skin cancer cases and agreed that sunbed age restrictions should be lifted from 18 to 21. Consistent use of sunbeds also contributes to wrinkles and early skin aging. When high numbers of experts in the field are urging for sunbeds to be illegal, this should symbolise the dangerous effects of sunbeds on our skin and that they should be banned.

There is also no need to risk the dangers of sunbeds when there is a safe alternative. The fake tan industry is constantly growing, in 2018 it is estimated to be worth $1.4 billion and is projected to grow much more as a result of fears about the dangers of UV rays. The fake tan market is improving a lot by developing various shades, textures and methods of application. There are even fake tans which include SPF protection, so provides a tan whilst also protecting your skin. Dermatologist Dr. Anjali Mahto says that ‘using a fake tan is considerably safer than lying in the sun or tanning booth.’ Therefore, risking the health dangers of sunbeds seem pointless when there is a safer (but just as effective) other tanning tool on the market.

Sunbeds are contributing to pressures on the health system, the cases of skin cancer are rising to dangerous levels. Sunbeds should be banned to prevent these health risks, especially since there are much safer alternatives.

WORKS CITED:
‘77% of Dermatologists agree that sunbeds should be banned in the UK’ (July 2019), https://www.britishskinfoundation.org.uk/news/77-of-dermatologists-agree-sunbeds-should-be-banned-in-the-uk

‘A UK Sunbed ban – the best step towards protecting our skin’ (1 May 2020), https://www.tancream.co.uk/a-uk-sunbed-ban-the-best-step-towards-protecting-our-skin

‘Self-tanning products market size’ (July 2019), https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/self-tanning-products-market

Goddard Sophie, ‘Is fake tanning safe? We ask a dermatologist’ (14 November 2019), https://www.netdoctor.co.uk/beauty/skincare/a28445/can-fake-tan-damage-your-skin/

I disagree with this opinion because I think it is only a capitalist holiday if someone chooses to make it into a capitalist holiday.
It is all about intention and purpose. If someone feels pressured to buy countless products and elaborate gifts because they feel pressured by advertisements, then this would be making it into a capitalist holiday.
However, for many people this is not the case. Valentines day is a genuine holiday to celebrate love. Someone may want to buy someone else a gift just because they want to make them feel appreciated and loved. Their intentions are completely pure and not motivated by pressures of capitalism.
Additionally, many people celebrate Valentines day by making homemade gifts such as cards, or picking their own flowers from a field. This allows people to celebrate the holiday without contributing to the capitalism of the holiday.
For many cases, many people want to celebrate the holiday for genuine reasons which are deeper than the materialistic pressures.

I disagree, I think wristwatches are more than just a fashion necessity but people are also wanting their watches to be more than just a time telling tool.
Apple watches are currently the best selling watch in the world. In 2018, 45 millions smartwatches were sold. The Apple Watch has many functions such as tracking heartrate, tracking information on various forms of exercise, monitoring how many steps are walked (as well as many other functions).
It is hard to believe that this many people would pay £200+ for a watch that would just act as a fashion necessity.
In the modern day, wrist watches are still functional but their technology has progressed for them to be much more than just a time telling function. They are also used for many health and fitness purposes which inevitably develops their attractiveness to purchase one.

Works Cited:
Kolodny Lora, 'The Apple Watch is the number one watch in the world' (12 September 2017), https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/12/apple-watch-is-now-the-number-one-watch-in-the-world.html

Lynkova Darina, 'Apple Watch statistics' (10 October 2019), https://leftronic.com/apple-watch-statistics/

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is the best of the franchise because it is the first that feels more ‘grown up’ and complex whilst also having a fantastic storyline.

The film is the first time that the audience meets Voldermort in his full form. The previous three films had all been leading up to this moment. Voldermort and Harry have their first epic duel, foreshadowing more of what we should expect in the following films. The introduction of Voldermort in all his glory makes the film feel darker and more ‘grown-up’, maturing from the previous three which is clear through the ratings as it was the first film to be rated a 12 rather than PG.

Goblet of Fire also focuses on the Triwizard tournament. The tournament makes for a brilliant storyline as it is thrilling, enchanting and allows the viewers to meet other wizards and wizarding schools from across the globe (providing interesting insight into the wizarding world).
The tournaments keep the viewers on edge as they witness the beloved characters fighting dragons and mystical mermaids. The tournament provides a narrative that is better than those seen in other films.

The film also includes the famous Yule Ball which emphasises the beauty and enchantment that the wizarding world can create. It shows a happier and sociable side of the school which is not seen in some of the other films that purely focus on the darkness of magic.

It is also the first film where the audience are given some indication that the characters are developing deeper emotional growth. At the Yule Ball, Hermione expresses frustration at Ron for not asking her to be his date, whereas Harry experiences his first crush on character Cho Chang. There is a sense that the characters are developing from innocent children into young adults who are ready to explore more complex emotions. This contributes to more interesting storylines than the previous films as more mature themes are addressed.

Lastly, one of the main characters of the film is Cedric Diggory, who is quite arguably one of the most handsome and charming characters that we meet from the wizarding world. He is also the first serious death of the franchise, clearly marking the film as one which is a transition from childhood innocence to the darker and terror of the wizarding world. It is the film that provides most intrigue for the viewers.

Factory farming should be banned as it is abhorrently cruel to the animals and causes environmental damage.

Animals in factory farms are confined to small cages and areas of confinement. They are fed the bare minimum. This provides the animals with no quality of life and harms their physical and mental wellbeing. Animals are living creatures who we share our planet with, they deserve more than to be inhumanely caged and killed for the sole purpose of making a profit.

There is also stark warning from scientists that the next pandemic is very likely to stem from factory farming. Three out of four emerging diseases come from animals. It is said that the current COVID-19 pandemic originated from live animal markets, where the animals were cruelly treated, trapped in cages. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused devastation to families, mental wellbeing, the economy and countless other areas. Why would we risk such a situation again? By making unethical farming and related behaviours illegal, it would decrease the risk of more pandemics.

There are also shocking statistics and figures to prove the horrific effects that factory farming has on the environment, some of which include:
• Factory farms contribute to air pollution by releasing hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and methane into the atmosphere.
• Factory farming is responsible for 37% of methane emissions, which is more than 20 times the global warming potential of CO2.
• It is estimated that factory farming is responsible for more than 450 million tonnes of manure annually, which is 3 times more raw waste generated by Americans.

Factory farming should be illegal as it is cruel, unjust and dangerous.

WORKS CITED:

‘Factory Farming Cruelty: Should Factory Farms be banned?’ (9 July 2020), https://www.milliondollarvegan.com/factory-farming/

‘Where did the new Coronavirus come from?’ (14 April 2020), https://coronavirusexplained.ukri.org/en/article/cad0006/

’11 Facts about Factory Farms and the Environment’, https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-factory-farms-and-environment

The BBC made a great video on their website providing five reasons that debunk claims that the moon landing was fake. The first argument being that the technology that was needed to reach the moon in 1969 existed, meaning that it was possible for the venture to take place.

People also claim that the landing was faked as no stars can be seen in any of the photography / videography. However, photography expert Mark Schubin explained that the reason for this was due to high contrast. He compared it to standing outside a house on a sunny day, you open the door to look into the house but are unable to see any detail inside as it would be too bright to see anything from where you are standing.

The next is concrete evidence that the moon landing was not faked. From the videos of the event, a ‘low gravity vacuum’ can be seen. This can certainly not be created or recreated in a TV studio – it would be impossible.

Additionally, other countries tracked the 1969 moon landing. Senior lecturer, Antoine Bousquet explains how the Soviets had adapted ‘advanced tracking capabilities.’ Therefore, had the moon landing not taken place, the soviets would have been able to detect that this had been fabricated and was a conspiracy. If it had been fake, the Soviets would have had a lot of benefits from exposing it which would have gained support to their regime and propaganda machine.

Furthermore, we have the rocks from the moon that came back with the astronauts. Those rocks are constantly being studied. They have also been studied internationally. Surely, it would have been exposed by current scientists if they were fake?

Lastly, the astronauts left reflectors on the moon. Lasers can be sent to them, from the earth to the moon which in turn allow scientists to understand the behaviour / patterns / orbits of the moon.
There is an overwhelming amount of concrete evidence to prove that the moon landing of 1969 was not faked.

WORKS CITED:

‘Moon hoax? Five reasons why the landings were real.’ (18 July 2019), https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-48845757

School uniforms are a good idea as they prevent cruel judgement and inequality. Let’s face it – teenagers can be very mean. There will always be someone in the school environment who will happily judge another student for the clothes they wear / their style. A student may be ridiculed for not having the latest fashionable items, wearing something different than the norm or perhaps wearing the same outfit very often. Allowing school pupils to wear what they want will highlight financial inequalities between the students which may prompt feeling of insecurity and shame. School uniforms diminishes these inequalities by placing the students on an equal and fair playing field.

In America (where schools generally do not enforce school uniforms), around 160,000 students miss school every day due to the fear of intimidation from their fellow peers. Whilst all of these cases may not be directly linked to clothing choices, a school uniform would at the very least lessen some of the judgements and humiliation that these kids receive.

School uniforms also encourages the sense of community and pride in the school that the students attend. It creates an identity for the school, whoever wears the uniform knows that they belong in that organisation, it is something to be proud of. A school uniform also acts as good practise for the workplace. In many workplaces, it is required that people dress professionally and dress codes are usually implemented. Therefore, a school uniform will have already taught students the importance of professional clothing, which will have them well prepared for their working careers.

Additionally, it has been argued that wearing a school uniform actually improves academic grades and performance. This is because wearing a uniform lessens the distractions from their schoolwork and makes the classroom seem like a much more serious environment. School uniforms contribute to an atmosphere of strictness and order which emphasises how their education should be taken seriously.

The enforcement of school uniforms allows children to receive a fairer, kinder and more orderly education.

SOURCES:
Spencer, Chloe ‘What’s the point of school uniform?’ (3 October 2013), https://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2013/oct/03/why-wear-school-uniform

Barbie is a good role model for young children as the doll encourages use of their creativity and imagination, whilst also promoting the message that children should chase their dreams and have any career that they desire.

The Barbie motto is that ‘you can be anything’ – which is boldly placed on the front of any Barbie box that is purchased. The Barbie website also emphasises how they celebrate all role models, they claim that ‘Barbie is committed to shining a light on empowering role models past and present in an effort to inspire more girls.’ This commitment is certainly demonstrated in their range of dolls in various careers, for example there is Doctor Barbie / marine biologist Barbie / astronaut Barbie. Their most recent release features inspirational women in sport, such as diving champion, Wu Minxia. Therefore, Barbie provides a range of good role models for young children whilst encouraging them to be smart, powerful and kind.

In the modern day, Barbie dolls are made in differing races and sizes, this proving that everyone is equally beautiful. It also teaches young children the importance of diversity and exposure to people who look dissimilar from themselves. The recent release of role models in sport also includes paralysed athletes, there is a doll of Manasi Joshi (para-badminton world champion) whose Barbie doll has a prosthetic leg; there is also a doll of Madison De Rozario who is in a wheelchair. Barbie teaches young children to embrace our differences and the importance of a diverse society.

Barbie dolls also helps young children (specifically ages 4 – 8) to develop their empathetic capacity. It has been proven that doll play ‘triggers brain activation that develops empathy’. Empathy is an essential trait as it helps nurture conflict resolution skills and have a greater understanding for other people’s opinions / viewpoints. Barbie quite simply helps children develop necessary life skills (which in turn clearly makes her a valuable role model).

Barbie should be viewed as a feminist icon and a good role model. She teaches children that they can be beautiful whilst also being clever, strong and resilient.

https://barbie.mattel.com/en-us/about.html?icid=all_header_top-nav_our-purpose_p4

I strongly agree with this opinion. The vaccine has clearly been proven to be safe. I think the real problem is the 'fake news' which is spread amongst social media. Claims are made about the supposed dangers of the vaccine which are not backed by any scientific support. Unfortunately, many people assume that what they read / consume on social media must be true and therefore believe in the claims without questioning its validity.

Anna makes a strong case for the existence of ghosts. It is interesting that there are ghost stories throughout generations of history. It is difficult to imagine that these stories are just made up.
However, I personally can't help to be slightly sceptical. Could ghosts just be a vivid and greatly desired creation of the human imagination? It is a traumatic and terribly upsetting situation for anyone to lose a loved one. Ghosts perhaps offer some comfort to people that they have not completely lost their loved ones. That could explain why ghosts are so widely believed as the idea of their existence provides so many people with hope.
I also think that ghost stories are invented / exaggerated for the simple purpose of entertainment. Their stories easily capture an audiences interest, therefore they provide a easy form of making a profit e.g. through ghost tours / selling of ghost story books.
The denial of ghosts is not a denial of the afterlife. I believe in Einstein's theory about the transmission of energy. But, for me I just do not believe that the energy transforms into a 'ghost' that haunts our lands.

I liked your point about social awareness. Perhaps, it would make us a kinder / more accepting society. However, to blend SEN schools with mainstream schools would be really difficult. The mainstream schools would be required to be equipped with all the necessary equipment. Many mainstream schools also have many staircases etc, so lots of money would have to be spent on installing lifts. There would also have to be many more classes for a range of students with different abilities. Therefore, would it actually really make it that integrated if the kids were in separate lessons / classrooms? Teachers in mainstream schools would also need to take extra courses on how education in special needs schools work and their requirements. How would this all be funded?

I understand and sympathise that children are missing out a lot by being unable to attend school during the pandemic. However, in the current situation, health and safety must be number one and I believe that schools are not yet safe enough to open. Whilst the virus does not usually pose as a large health threat, children are still able to carry the virus. This meaning, that they could take the virus home with them and pass it to a vulnerable member of their family. The teachers are also vulnerable in the workplace, the virus could be a severe threat to their health. Also, if teachers were unable to attend school (due to having to self-isolate or shield), the problem arises that they might not be enough supply teachers to cover their positions - usually meaning that the school would have to close anyway. Many children, usually those in the youngest age groups, will probably have difficulty to understand the importance of wearing a mask / socially distancing. Therefore, this risks easier transmission of the virus.

In a world where mental health issues and stress levels are on the rise, homework only contributes to this increasing pressure placed upon young people. A recent survey found that 70% of students are ‘often or always stressed about schoolwork’, and 56% said that homework was the ‘primary stressor’. The survey also found that on average, the pupils were spending three hours a night on homework. Homework places unnecessary stress upon students who are forced to spend their time on it, when instead they could productively utilise this time for extra-curricular activities such as learning how to play a musical instrument or practising sports. Evenings spent on these types of activities helps develop and progress a young person much more than homework ever could.

Some nations have already adapted this no-homework approach, the most popular being Finland. It has clearly been a successful triumph for Finland as they are renowned for having one of the best education systems, 93% of Finnish pupils graduate high school, compared to only 75% in the USA. Their no-homework approach allows more time for ‘kids to be kids’, it encourages a healthy work-life balance. At home they are allowed to play, whilst school is the environment where they are educated. Having a healthy work-life balance is so important in the modern day as it helps mental health wellbeing and promotes a healthier, happier lifestyle.

Homework is also a fundamental class issue. When pupils are at school, they are all on an equal playing field as they have access to the same teachers / resources / supplies. Yet, at home, some students may have more advantages to better their homework than others. For example, middle-class children will have a higher chance of being able to access computers and academic books. Whereas, another child who does not have access to such resources may fail to academically thrive and face punishment for being unable to successfully complete a piece of homework.

In addition, it has also been proven that homework has very little contribution to educational worth. Studies analysing international comparisons have proven that there ‘is no positive relationship between the amount of homework set and average test scores’. In fact, countries who tasked pupils with more homework actually produced worse results. This makes the purpose of homework seem pointless if it does not actually improve educational worth.

WORKS CITED:

O’Shaughnessy Maureen, ‘There is no homework in Finland’ (16 August 2017), https://lead-prep.org/2017/08/there-is-no-homework-in-finland/

Levy Sandra, ‘Is too much homework bad for kid’s health?’ (22 August 2019), https://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-more-homework-means-more-stress-031114

‘Homework should be banned’, https://debatewise.org/2959-homework-ban/

I agree that there must be some misrepresentation in the series, there is no definite way to truly know / understand the personal lives and thoughts of the royal family (as it is all kept so private).
However, the series acts as entertainment to also portray accurate historical events that will educate the audience about recent history. For example, the recent series explored the history of the IRA and apartheid in South Africa.
Though the show may misrepresent the royal family, should this 'poetic license' not be allowed / accepted if the show acts as a useful form of popular history which educates its audiences about key historical events?

Also, yes the show must get some things wrong and misrepresent certain aspects of the family.
On the other hand, they must also get some of it right. For example, the divorce of Charles and Diana most likely was a result of a series of messy and complicated events, which were portrayed and imagined on the show. There must have been some truth in the anger / frustration that the characters expressed.
Just because some scenes lack the evidence of it being completely accurate, it also lacks the evidence to prove that it is completely false / misrepresented.

The most prominent sign that Thatcher was homophobic is evident through the introduction of ‘Section 28’, which was included in the Local Government Act (1988).

Section 28 stated that schools or a local authority ‘shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality’. Thatcher wanted children to be influenced into thinking that the most ideal family unit was one which consisted of a wife and a husband.

During the 1980s, an anti-gay sentiment had been gaining increasing popularity throughout society as a reaction to the HIV/AIDS crisis. The LGBTQ+ society faced unfair prejudice during this period and were blamed for the spreading of the disease. There was also the belief that the disease was ‘God’s punishment’ for people’s sins as a result of performing homosexual acts.

Thatcher should have used her power to heal and condemn the growing hatred towards the LGBTQ+ population. She could have used her authority to support the community and made people aware that AIDS was a disease that equally affected straight people. Instead, she worsened the situation by her introduction of Section 28, which fed into the false narrative that the LGBTQ + community were to blame for many health problems within society.

The banning of the promotion of homosexual relations also indicates that she thought these relations were something to disapprove of and avoid. It seems that she was trying to reverse the progress that the last twenty years had made since the legalisation of homosexual relations.

Therefore, the introduction of Section 28 acts as clear evidence that Margaret Thatcher had homophobic tendencies which influenced her policy making.

WORKS CITED:

Wakefield Lily and Kelleher Patrick, ‘The terrible history of Margaret Thatcher’s homophobic Section 28, 17 years since it was repealed in England and Wales’ (18 November 2020), https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/11/18/section-28-margaret-thatcher-anniversary-homophobia-repeal-england-wales/

Sommerlad Joe, ‘Section 28: What was Margaret Thatcher’s controversial law and how did it affect the lives of LGBTQ+ people’ (25 May 2018), https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/section-28-explained-lgbt-education-schools-homosexuality-gay-queer-margaret-thatcher-a8366741.html

I agree with this opinion. I think that the pronoun a person wishes to use is such a personal decision for someone, so to try and adopt a blanket rule of calling everyone they/them just does not feel like a good enough solution. As you mentioned, they/them does not also fit the identity of many people, so it would be wrong to label them as this. The pronouns a person wishes to use should be their decision and no one else's.

I strongly agree with this opinion. I think many regional / local authorities feel ignored by the national government, there is frustration that they only focus on the areas they deem the most important i.e. London. If there was more use of regional government then I am sure that the population in those areas would feel that their voices and needs are being heard louder. Policies would be able to adapt to the specific needs of each region, rather than a 'one size shoe fits all' approach.

I completely understand your opinion and agree with some of the comments. However, my issue is how do you assess if one is completely mentally stable to make such a decision as ending their own life? What if they made their decision based purely on temporary emotion, which they may have later changed their mind? What if they go against the odds and actually live longer than what they were supposed to?
Also, the issue of the emotional turmoil that this would leave for the family / friends of the person. A family member having to watch someone die from their own will instead of natural causes seems like a much more traumatic experience, one which could potentially stay with them forever.

Similar to you, I also recently watched the franchise after having not viewed it for many years. I was also shocked by how problematic the films are. These relationships were idolised, which is so dangerous as they clearly entail so many harmful ideals. I feel that the influence of these movies are particularly dangerous for young girls who have perhaps not quite learnt what a safe and healthy romantic relationship should be.

For the majority, I completely agree with this opinion. Every person is different and that is what makes us interesting as human beings, We all have differing opinions, to learn to debate with one another without it turning personal and fierce is so important. However, there are certain opinions that will naturally (and rightly so) cause division. If someone's opinion contains offensive thought, such as it being racist / misogynistic / homophobic, then I think it is natural and correct that someone would lose respect for one promoting these opinions. Sometimes, a persons opinion is a reflection of their life morals, which in turn may cause major divisions between different groups of people,

Such an interesting opinion. I agree that social media has several negative effects. There are still positive elements to the sites, one being allowing people to connect with others who may live far away (i.e. this has been particularly useful during the pandemic). However, in many cases the negatives have outweighed what is good about social media. Perhaps, moving forwards the solution is not to just simply delete the sites but rather develop them so that they solve these negative attributes. One idea is to stop people being able to view how many likes a photo / post has been given (which Instagram has started to roll out in some selected countries).

A society where private schools exist is a society where inequality exists. The private school system is the epitome of societal dysfunction, someone can have a ‘head start’ in life due to their wealth, rather than their intelligence, talents and abilities. It seems cruelly unjust that one child is given a supposed better standard of education than another purely because they were born into a family that are able to afford it. In the UK, some of the top private schools such as Eton and Harrow demand a fee of over £30,000 per year, per child. This is extremely divisive for society as it creates more separation and tension between the differing classes. It is a fundamentally unfair system that advantages the rich whilst leaving the ones who cannot afford the system trailing behind.

It should also be reminded that a free, state funded education does not equate to a bad education. Many of the teachers at state schools are well educated and make excellent leaders to teach the next generation of workers (I myself attended a state school and a few of my teachers had been Oxbridge educated). Attending a state school also allows one to meet people from all different walks of life and background. This can help improve social skills and cultural understanding by meeting a variety of people. Whereas, in private schools typically the same group of pupils from the same background attend these establishments. Thus, possibly resulting in them being ‘less in touch’ with the real world as they only interact with people who are similar to them.

Private schools also encourage the outdated ‘old school ties’ system. It is a lot more accessible for someone to make crucial networks into an industry than it is for someone who attends a state school. It has been proven that privately educated pupils earn more than those who have identical grades / marks but were state school educated. Pupils who attend the top private schools are also 1000 times more likely to be accepted into the Oxbridge universities. Laura Rivera explains in 'Pedigree: How elite students get elite jobs' that the contact and networks people make determine which graduates get jobs in the most prestigious firms and therefore ‘firms define talent in a manner that excludes high-performing students from less privileged backgrounds.’ Just imagine all the students that would have grown up to be amazing politicians, doctors, lawyers, scientists, yet they were unable to as they were not provided with the networks and opportunity that are given at private school. Success in a career should be solely based on intelligence and talent, not your wealth or who you know. Every child deserves to have the same education and start in life. It is the only way to make society and the jobs market fairer. For one child to have easier access to better universities and jobs just because their family can afford private school is fundamentally wrong and unjust. This is why private schools need to be abolished.

WORKS CITED
Ashford James, ‘Should private schools be banned? The pros and cons’ (30 September 2019), https://www.theweek.co.uk/103536/should-private-schools-be-banned-the-pros-and-cons

Roberts Saffron, ‘Private schools should be abolished’ (2019), https://thebroadonline.com/private-schools-should-be-abolished/

Wigmore Tim, ‘The power of the old school tie lives on’ (6 August 2015), https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/power-old-school-tie-lives

That is a really interesting point! Thank you! Yes, I think a good start to the process would be to offer many more scholarships to these schools so that they become more accessible. Also, more interaction between state and private schools would be beneficial progress. For example, with sport matches, state schools and private schools should play against each other (which for the majority is not currently the case) so that the two worlds are able to interconnect and understand each other more. It perhaps could be a step in healing the division.

This is an interesting argument. I had never really considered how video games could be beneficial before, it seems that there are a few advantages to participating in them. However, there are still cases where 'the bad outweighs the good'. Video games are also proven to contribute to addiction, social disconnection, negative effect on mental health and a difficulty to engage in relationships in the real world. Whilst playing the games clearly have advantages there needs to be a way to ensure that it does not progress into something harmful e.g. addiction to playing the games. Perhaps there should be more recommendations on how long you should play video games per day. Therefore, people benefit from the advantages of playing them without it developing into something much more negative and dangerous.

Source : Lal Kabir, '10 negative effects of video games' (21 July 2020), https://www.healthygamer.gg/10-negative-effects-of-video-games/

This makes a strong argument, one that I agree with. Something that seems particularly problematic about these children pageants is that the majority of them are aimed at girls, this feeds into the outdated narrative that a girl's worth in society is based upon her physical appearance rather than her abilities, talents, intelligence etc. However, there are good aspects of these pageants. Perhaps it provides the child with a sense of community, a fun hobby and a way to make friends. Maybe another alternative solution would be to introduce an age restriction into these pageants. For example, only children aged 8 and above can participate as by that point they are able to consent if this is an activity that they want to be involved in.

I strongly agree with this opinion piece. I think that it is right for films with controversial topics to have a content warning at the beginning. However, to just ban the viewing of these films seems like we are trying to delete history which is a very dangerous territory. The whole point of learning from history for me is that as a society we can learn from it. By banning these films how would we ever be able to reflect on the past and appreciate how we have socially and culturally progressed?

This is a great opinion piece and I agree that peaceful protests are the most effective. The fact a protest is peaceful will encourage more people to join which in turn will make the protest more powerful. The more people involved will attract more people to listen to the reasons and importance of the protest.