meglev24

TL;DR - I think it is shameful how little effort English-native speakers put into learning another language, and I think this has to change

We all know that British stereotype right? Goes abroad and instead of learning a few words in the local language to get by, just speak English but louder to communicate. It is not only not helpful but also very ignorant and arrogant to assume everyone will help in English. Yes, of course, English is the global language, but it doesn’t mean we should juts sit back and relax when it comes to language learning.

About [1/7 people speak English to a communicative level] (https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/how-many-people-speak-english-and-where-is-it-spoken), but only 360 million are native speakers. Language learning is not easy task, but it is done by so many to create international opportunities, whilst English speaking nations just take it for granted. Using the UK as an example, only [23% of citizens know a second language] (https://www.rosettastone.co.uk/magazine/how-do-the-british-feel-about-languages/) at least adequately. Yet so many of us believe learning a new language will improve job opportunity, mental health and communication capabilities. We treat learning a language as a dream whilst the rest of the world see it as a reality. I believe that this needs changing and even if its just 20 words when you go on holiday, this stereotype needs to change.

TL;DR - Philosophy serves as not only a fascinating subject, but a great way to improve mental health. This subject should not only be for private schools but for all schools

As someone who has experience studying in both state run schools and private, I noticed that philosophy was only taught in private and it was more R.E (Religious Education) at state school. This may not be the same for everyone, however I think the benefits of philosophy should be available to all students.
Students should be able to [engage in important questions] (https://www.plato-philosophy.org/teaching-high-school-philosophy/) with their peers as well as learn new perspectives. As out society changes, addressing ethical and philosophical questions is essential. Again philosophy teaches great listening, debating and communication skills that would be great for all students whether more STEM inclined or otherwise. It is not a subject that should only be for the elite. It has so much potential to create great discourse.
One thing I also believe is that philosophy promotes RESPECT. As students discuss all different subject matter, they learn to respect one another and talk about thoughts rather than bottling up emotion or staying silent. Philosophy should be approached, even as early as [primary school] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidebanis/2019/11/21/why-its-important-to-teach-children-philosophy/) as it has such great benefits.

TL;DR - ‘Hands, Face, Space’ seems to be an example of one rule for us and one rule for them

Keeping up with the UK Government could be the next reality TV show! Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic there have been so many twists and turns within government, it has been hard to keep up-to-date. This week has proved a troublesome week for Matt Hancock in particular who was caught via CCTV kissing his political assistant. There are sure some internet conspiracies of who got these tapes and who wants Matt Hancock gone.
This put to the side, what has angered me the most, is not even the adultery! He has cheated on his wife, which is obviously awful and what I would consider against the ministerial code. However the bit that has frustrated lots is the hypocrisy. Matt Hancock has stood at the podium on many 5pm evening broadcasts in the UK telling us not to hug family, go near friends and definitely use the rule Hands, Face, Space. All of this was being said whilst he had an affair at work.
I saw a tweet of a picture of the Queen who had to sit alone, with a mask on at her own husbands funeral. I am no royalist, but this is saddening when the man who told us all to use our common sense didn’t use his own.
His resignation was essential as most of his credibility had been eradicated by not only the words of Dominic Cummings, but now this affair which will stick with him for his political career.

TL;DR - There are benefits of having prisons for society, however the standards of most prisons often disregard any opportunity for rehabilitation

We have to keep society functioning and safe. Sometimes this means removing people form society and punishing criminals for crimes committed in prison.However, research seems to show that [long stints in prison actually do not reduce crime] (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/19/15764176/prisons-abolition-alternatives). So why keep them there?
There are two main reasons for me, if someone has committed horrific crimes, they can not be in society, nor can they be expected to re-enter society without in some way repaying for their crime. Prisons are often not there for the justice of the crime, but the justice that is sought after by the victims of these crimes.
Prisons actually seem to do nothing in deterring crime, as the problems that cause people to commit certain crimes are [institutional problems.] (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/big-idea-prison-abolition-social-problems-domestic-violence-a8275636.html). However, I do not agree with capital punishment, people should be given the chance for change. So I think prisons should not be abolished as they do what they are there to do. YET, what they should focus more on is rehabilitation as I believe this is more important for society in the long term.

TL;DR - White Privilege is something that must be addressed, however I think the term often creates a false narrative for some people

Where some get confused or frustrated is at the term ‘white privilege’. The frustration comes from the idea that all white people are privileged. Actually there is a huge working class of white working people who don’t feel very privileged. This I can understand, when you are working on minimum wage and living to every penny, privileged is something that wouldn’t even cross your mind. However, the term is more nuanced than this interpretation.

The term, as I understand it, alludes to the idea just being a white person, gives you many privileges. This does not mean then that the white working class are privileged in the normal sense of the word, but have privileges because of their race. This has now become a [slightly controversial term] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-57567647). UK MPs have warned that this term alienates the white working class who are often not economically privileged nor educationally. “It doesn’t mean life is not tough for you, just you still benefit from being white in many societal ways”.

White privilege is not necessarily oversold but is often not explained and can oversell a false narrative that white people face no issues, which is not the case. However I think recognising how being white gives privileges is important for a tolerant society.

TL;DR - I think that school uniform is a great way to eradicate any unnecessary pressure on students, and makes non-uniform days so much more exciting!

Echoing the points made:

1. Wearing school uniform means that you have more time in the morning as there is no choosing of what to wear. We all know students need as much sleep as they can get, school uniform helps this issue.
2. It eradicates lots of socio-economic problems. Even though school uniform can be expensive, there are schemes to help families purchase it and it means children’s clothes are not judged daily on their ‘coolness’ or how expensive they are.
3. It is also another way of representing the school on trips and other extra-curricular activities.
4. This point may be coming from a biased perspective but for me, school uniform is something that is just part of growing up. In the UK most schools require a uniform and it is constant throughout most childhoods. Laughing at each others ties or how much stuff you can fit in a blazer ends up being part of the school experience.

TL;DR - This pandemic has made most realise that celebrity lifestyle is so far out of touch that it is almost laughable when they try to be ‘relatable’

I think it's fair to say that most of us have not had the best year of our lives. A global pandemic, locked at home, no in person events, no holidays and you couldn’t meet friends or family. I think we can chalk 2020 up as a bad year for the regular person. However, celebrities have still managed to do all of those things I have just mentioned. We have seen an in person Oscars ceremony, many have been in Mexico or Bali, and have seen friends and family. Kim Kardashian even hired a private island so she could see her family. How is this fair or even in touch with our reality?

This is where I struggle to understand how celebrities feel a need to tell us how to vote or what to support or believe in, even if I agree with their opinion. Their reality is so far fetched from our own that it seems so illogical for them to have so much influence. The one rule for them, one rule for us concept rings true in this case.

TL;DR - Working from home has become the new normal however many people still want to return, at least part time, to the office. A new hybrid of home and office working will be the new normal

Most of us have experienced a shift into working from home more in the last year. With the exception of doctors, teachers and bus drivers most of us have had to adjust our normal office life to home life. Many dining room tables have been filled with paperwork and laptops whilst office spaces, normally a hub of ideas and socialising, sit empty.

It is not all bad though! Working from home has offered people more flexibility, time and comfortability when it comes to work. No more long commutes, delayed trains, awkward chit-chat, just a few zoom meetings and getting on with work privately!

YET, with all these good things about working from home, there are some downsides. Most people don’t have the luxury of a private study or office space at home, many have had to work in places with their family existing around them. Especially with little kids, some have found this hard. In addition to this, talking over zoom or teams isn’t the same as a meeting all together in an office. Many either are too relaxed at home and not fully concentrating; wifi issues occur and talking isn’t as seamless online as it is offline.

We should embrace more working from home, in my opinion, but I think it should be mixed with going into work as well. There are benefits of going to work that I think were overlooked in the excitement of working from home that are actually important.

TL;DR - The phrase check your privilege is used a lot, especially on Twitter however it does ring true. Appreciating what you can do and what you have can not only help your mental health but perspective.

Privilege is often something that is not up to our own decisions. You cannot help being born into a wealthy family, or the country of which you were born. However we mention, as a growing society, the importance of recognising privilege.

It is always important to recognise how you benefit from certain stereotypes, cultures and opportunities. It would be ignorant to not recognise how maybe being born in a developed country helps you with job opportunities, schooling and a working democracy. Checking ones privilege can help with increased understanding and tolerance, ignoring these pedestals can develop into a divided and intolerant society.

It does not mean that you should punish yourself or feel awful for having privileges. It is often quite sad that people try to make some who are very lucky, feel bad for things out of their control. Again, it points to this idea that “I can’t feel sad if I have a roof over my head and food on the table”. This can cause awful mental health problems as people then feel depressed about being depressed. This shouldn’t have to be the case and people should not be constantly reminded of their privilege in a negative way.

We can always find ways of bringing society together and getting the extreme 1% or people who don’t have to face random police stops or discrimination to recognise their privilege is one way of increasing tolerance. However, it is not something to be used as a political power tool to make people feel bad about what they have earned or been born into, but more a tool for increasing understanding.

TL;DR - It is so important to talk about mental health, especially after 18 months of on-and-off lockdowns. However, I think sometimes it means people self-diagnose rather than facing their problems.

Lockdown, Lockdown, Lockdown. Our lives for the last year have been changed in a way that no one could have ever foreseen. Locked up indoors with little to no contact face-to-face with any one not in our household. Of course, after this year, talking about our mental health openly and freely is essential to get through these unprecedented times.

There has been a steady increase of google searches for [mental health over the past 5 years] (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=GB&q=mental%20health) but a huge increase in [COVID and mental health] (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=covid%20mental%20health&date=today%205-y&geo=GB) over the last year, for obvious reasons. We talk a lot about mental health and how it is essential to open up. [Suicide is still one of the UK’s biggest killers in young men,] (https://ben.org.uk/our-services/health-and-wellbeing/top-searches/mens-health/suicide/) so talking and opening up is something that really is essential in these testing times. Even during the Euros we hear before every advert “Britain - get talking”. More and more we are told to mention our mental health to encourage transparency and honesty with one another which is a great thing.

The only thing I feel is slightly problematic is that I do believe sometimes that ignorance is bliss. Sometimes we don’t need to label every thought we have or every feeling that happens. Just because you are nervous for an exam - doesn’t mean you have anxiety, just like if you cry at a movie - you are not depressed. I think people are now so acutely aware of any change in mood that it exacerbates our human need for control and labelling things.

As much as talking about our mental health and problems is a great thing - and it sure is - there are downsides to the excessive need for labelling. Peoples use of language now is more dramatic which I think has a knock-on effect on mental health. For example, a person who said “oh I am nervous for this exam” compared to a person who said “oh I am anxious person so I have anxiety anyway” will approach the exam in two very different mental spaces. Speech and language has an effect on our mental state and I believe that as much as we should talk about issues, we should not band terms like depressed or anxious about when they are in fact, in moderation, they are very normal emotions to experience.

TL;DR - Yes, as AI advances it will make some jobs redundant. However, it is important to be aware of how it will also create jobs too!

I think it is a hard pill to swallow, but I believe it be somewhat true, AI will take over many jobs. As more intelligence develops, the need for many human powered jobs will become redundant. However I think we need to see the positives about this.

Yes, many jobs will be taken over but at the same time many will be created. There are [jobs that will exist that] (https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-replacing-jobs-creating-jobs) we have no idea about yet. You cannot accurately predict what jobs will be created in the future. We are a long way of complete AI takeover, humans are still important in the job world. We have seen throughout lockdown that people miss working, jobs for humans are important and it will not be completely taken over by AI.

In addition to this Emotional Intelligence is something that is hard to programme. Human emotional intelligence and rationale is a great quality that AI does not have. I think there is a need not to panic on this one. AI is very quickly developing, but it is not going to completely take over the entire job market.

TL;DR - There are scientific elements to psychology but it isn’t an empirical science

Personally, I can understand how this topic causes much dispute. Many Psychology degrees are BSc (Bachelor of Science), however some psychology and humanities degrees are BAs (Bachelor of Arts). So which is it?

There are aspects of psychology that overlap with biology as well as chemistry. There are topics on hormone imbalances, the impact of antidepressants, how the brain is wired and how different parts of the brain control different parts of behaviour and emotion. There are certainly parts that are scientific and science based.

However, there is a lot of interpretation and opinion in Psychology that doesn’t quite exist in the more empirical sciences. When talking about empirical sciences I am referring to Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Yes, there can be disputes in science but it is based on the same evidence, not on different interpretations of behaviour. This is where Psychology differs and places itself in a grey area.

There are other non-sciences that use and talk about and interpret science, in my opinion. Political science as well as Philosophy also consider Biology, Chemistry and Physics just as Psychology does. So what makes Psychology different?

For me, there are many scientific topics that arise in Psychology. Psychology also helps to explain human behaviour and emotion in a more in depth way compared to just Philosophy for example. However, it is not an empirical science and I don’t believe it to hold the same empiricism as it allows for more personal interpretation.

TL;DR - There should be more police funding for police body cams - for both the police protection as well as citizens' safety

As we move into a more technologically advanced and impactful era, we must realise the need for technology alongside traditional jobs such as policing. I believe that body cameras would allow for safety for both the police and anyone involved with the police. They are not only a protection but also a deterrent.

Protection

• One of the main reasons for having the cameras is as protection. If people see police have cameras they are [less likely to assault an officer.] (https://www.bodycamera.co.uk/pages/about-body-worn-video)
• The cameras also protect any victim from any misconduct from the police, which is a sad reality in our current society.

Deterrent

• These cameras also deter people from claiming anything in their case that is evidently un-true. Having this hard evidence makes more people have to adjust their story and tell the truth in court. As a result of this, it saves a lot of police time, as well as speeds up the court process.

Complaints and Guilty Pleas

• Again the cameras also allow the police to have back-up concerning their own behaviour. There is a [33% reduction] (https://www.wcctv.com/benefits-and-opportunities-for-police-using-body-worn-cameras/) in complaints at the Met Police as a direct result of body cameras.
• In addition to this, there has been a [39% increase] (https://www.wcctv.com/benefits-and-opportunities-for-police-using-body-worn-cameras/) in early guilty pleas due to the hard evidence body cam footage can bring to a trail.

I think that it is evident that body cameras are a great investment for the police. They not only reduce paper work and save police time; a great investment. They also protect society and help the justice system as a result.

TL;DR - Remembering is only one form of intelligence. Smart Phones can make us smarter in many ways, but we are very reliant on them

To add to the great points already made, there are ways in which smart phones reduce parts of our intelligence. A huge factor is through our memory. My grandparents will remember their home phone number when they were younger, yet I can’t recall my friends numbers or my family addresses. Our phones have freed up our memory, which in someways is good, and others not so. The University of Texas reported a study that our brain power is [significantly reduced] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-athletes-way/201706/are-smartphones-making-us-stupid) even when our phone is next to us and faced down.

I think that it is slightly wishful thinking that our phones free up space for more important things to remember. I think personally more people are sat watching tiktoks rather than splitting the atom. Don’t misunderstand, our phones allow us to expand our knowledge through access to the internet and social medias, however the phone itself, as an object may be less impactful on our intelligence.

TL;DR - Birth Control is not just ‘the pill’. There are so many different types and methods of birth control and I think all should be available for free

Birth Control is something that I personally believe should be regularly available to all.

Benefits of Birth Control Being Free
**Reduction in Teen Pregnancies **- Birth Control being free has the ability to reduce any stigma or embarrassment if young adults require any form of contraception. Something that can be so simple as Birth Control could protect teens from unwanted pregnancies and allow them to become more comfortable using birth control, which in the future would allow for a more healthy relationship with safe sex.
Socio-Economics - Poor and Low Income women have a higher [unintended pregnancy rate] (https://www.thecut.com/2016/11/why-birth-control-should-be-free.html). Making Birth Control free would then mean fewer women have to go through any trauma of abortions or go through with pregnancies that they feel they can’t afford. Putting emotion aside, the money healthcare could save from investing in Birth Control rather than mental health service for people going through pregnancy struggles and birthing costs would be a great investment.
Other Health Benefits - Many forms of birth control also offer health benefits for people with other illnesses or extreme symptoms, for example people who suffer with [endometriosis] (https://www.thecut.com/2016/11/why-birth-control-should-be-free.html).

I think the pros of it being free outweigh the cost factor on healthcare systems. Birth Control being free would have many positive societal changes and improvements.

TL;DR - AI may replace some jobs, or change human existence but it will not replace humans

AI is often presented in the media as this big scary thing from the future, but actually we are living in that future. We as a society have embraced AI now more than ever for example with home assistants like Alexa or Google Home, or assisted parking in your car. There are many ways AI is used by us on a regular basis.
I think more and more the notion of AI replacing humans is fading as we are witnessing how it can help our lives in many ways. AI will [augment human existence rather than eradicate it] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/robtoews/2021/02/15/artificial-intelligence-and-the-end-of-work/?sh=441d088056e3).

I think there is a truth behind how AI can mitigate the need for certain jobs. However this will also create jobs working alongside the AI. AI isn’t this scary thing in the way it is often portrayed. Nevertheless, it is also something as humans we should not rely on entirely and is something to be controlled. The impact of AI on our society is huge and used wrongly it can be something to worry about.
As former IBM CEO Gina Rometti explained nicely [“AI—better understood as ‘augmented intelligence’—complements, rather than replaces, human cognition”] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/robtoews/2021/02/15/artificial-intelligence-and-the-end-of-work/?sh=441d088056e3).

TL;DR - Humans are quite predictable creatures; creatures of habit. As we control many parts of history, it is evident that things will repeat

There are only a finite amount of possibilities when it comes to human decision making. As much as we follow a general pattern of decisions, it is quite clear that as much as we preach “something won’t happen again” we are creatures of habit. As much as we try to remember, as generations pass, people forget history. Sometimes it doesn’t even need to be through generations, in December when a re-cap of the year in on TV, it is surprising that events that were at some point impactful were [just forgotten.] (https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/05/03/opinion/thuillier-history-is-repeating-itself-right-before-our-eyes/).

There is something to the quote [“History doesn’t repeats itself, but it does rhyme] (https://medium.com/applied-history/does-history-repeat-itself-2a59f2aabb42). We may not see a carbon copy of a historical event, however if we look close enough, human decisions are similar throughout history. As rational beings, we can make the same mistakes but our rationale makes exceptions and reasons as to why it's okay this time. History does not repeat exactly but our decisions are similar.

TL;DR - To define rich is something that is quite subjective. However, large cooperations are not taxed enough

In the news recently we have seen the G7 countries unite in taxing global corporations in the wake of the financial crisis exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a huge step in the right direction as the rich, in this case the Bezos and Gates of this world, should be taxed more. Now, it shouldn’t be mistaken that they’d deserve much of their fortune, and they deserve to be living a great lifestyle that the worked for. Nevertheless, you have to play your part by paying the correct amount of tax.

The hypocrisy of the rich, for example Amazon, making many middle and working class pay for Prime accounts and spend their money on items they don’t need, whilst they also pay tax from their 9-5. At the same time, Amazon refuse to pay much to any tax as they continue to benefit. This cannot be fair, and this is why the [G7 decision] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-57368247) is something to be embraced, in my opinion.

What feels most unfair is not that the extremely rich have so much money that they don’t know how to spend, but that most have had a ‘good pandemic’. Those words seem oxymoronic however it is true. Using the same example, Amazon have had their already large profits increase by [220%] (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/technology/amazons-profits-triple.html) during the pandemic. This is just to prove that taxing the extremely rich to help the average person during an unprecedented disaster seems the morally, economically and financially right thing to do.

TL;DR - We can’t tarnish a whole nation with one brush, but we must recognise how this stereotype comes from somewhere

I think sometimes we expect too much of tourists in our country when we forget we are the same when we go abroad. Hear me out here:

Expecting Too Much
When you live in a city or town for a long time you start to know the hidden societal rules. For example which side of the escalator to stand, what restaurants are the best, what landmarks are a rip off and where is up-and-coming. Why do we expect tourists then to know all of these things when they are visiting for the first time? There is some sort of disregard that maybe some tourists WANT to see those sights that you have become accustom to. Brits in general, but especially in London, just want to get on with what they are off doing and often disregard tourists, however this can’t be said for the whole of Britain. Tourists are naturally a slight cliche in many ways but I don't think we can lump 'All Brits' in the same category.
Self Awareness
British tourists are often loud, obnoxious and (for sure) expect the world to speak our language. I think this is one of the reasons why we are labelled as one of the worst tourists. Many don’t learn even a few words in a native language before going abroad - we just expect English to be spoken. As well as this, I think one of the reasons they get this label is due to sporting fans. Sporting fans are like another breed of tourist where the emotion of the game maybe adds to the sometimes appalling or less than good behaviour.
Respect
One thing is that Brits are quick to be self-deprecating. An example is that over [60% of Brits believe They are the worst tourists] (https://www.traveller.com.au/most-disliked-tourists-by-country-revealed-in-new-research-h1i4qq). I think as a nation, we are quick to focus on how bad we must be, when possibly we are generalising ourselves. I don’t think there are any overall General Worst Tourist, it is dependant not only on the tourist visiting, but what country they are visiting too.

TL;DR - Sure, Eurovision can be political but it is much more than just politics. We have to recognise the history and reason for Eurovision before we complain about ‘nul points’

The enigma that is Eurovision. A long show, once a year, that proves no matter how hard we try to sing or create exciting content, politics prevails. OR SO I THOUGHT

Yes, politics plays a part in this show. Cyprus will most likely vote for Greece, the Scandinavians often vote for each other. However, it is not as political as we assume. I think it is easy to claim politics as a result of maybe receiving ‘nul points’ - I am of course referencing the UK and the uproar on Twitter every year. For sure, Brexit and the problems with vaccine rollout maybe didn’t help the UK this year (or for a few previous years!) - but it has not always been like that. Actually the UK is one of the [most successful countries with 5 wins!] (https://eurovision.tv/about/facts-and-figures).

Politics plays a part in Eurovision however it is not the only reason for success or failure. The song contest is relies on personality, performance and song more than just mere politics. Especially now with the introduction fo the jury votes, politics is, at least a little, more irrelevant in the Eurovision Song Contest.

TL;DR - Our technology now second guesses what we want to buy, say or do - that is too invasive

That awful feeling, we all know it. Speaking about a new product we want to buy or place we want to visit and suddenly our social media feed is full of adverts for that exact thing! It is no new news to anyone that our data is a hot commodity. However, the fact we have no to little choice what data we give away and how invasive it really is - well, its intrusive and unnecessary.

Now, there are also obvious positives to some more invasive technologies. In the last year sales of the [Ring Doorbell went up 180%] (https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/1/21/21070402/amazon-ring-sales-jumpshot-data)! There are benefits to technology such as the Ring Doorbell as they provide a feeling of safety, knowledge and protection. Some point to the hacking of a few to point to a lack of privacy - BUT - the fact they got hacked due to data leaks and password corruption is the invasive part, not necessarily the doorbell itself.

Yes, there are obvious problems with how invasive our tech has become, but our natural idea of privacy is no longer the same concept as what it once was. These ‘invasive technologies’ can now improve health care, spot diseases and even help ones with disabilities communicate in new ways. Our choice in the extent of the invasiveness in our daily lives is more of a problem than what they can do. We live in a free world, and some conspiracies online don’t necessarily mean we live in Big Brother. Technology should not be so invasive that it influences our every move, but some of its invasive nature can be useful.

Students should be allowed to influence their education, sure. It is important that syllabuses change with the times and student voices should be heard. However, as mentioned allowing students to create the syllabus in each school and year is a logistical nightmare. How would schools maintain standards?
How would they compare data?
How would they ensure a good amount of knowledge is taught to help them in the working world?
You cannot teach everything, and whilst I agree that students should have a voice in their education, a national curriculum that changes with the times and data is the best way for schools to run.

TL;DR - Healthcare should be readily available to all, but nothing is totally free

Healthcare is vital. It is one of the most important things we need and it should be available to all. Throughout all of our lives, healthcare plays a part, whether it be tests, vaccines, treatment or mental health services, healthcare is essential. So with this, I argue that for all intense and purposes it should be “free”.

However I take issue with the term free. Healthcare, at least where I grew up in the U.K is considered ‘free’. One never has to worry about the costs of getting ill or attaining an injury. YET, the NHS or global/international equivalent still needs funding. It is not totally free, we pay higher tax to cover costs. When politicians for example want more and more to be ‘free’ it just means it has to be paid for as a collective rather than by the individual.

My point being, yes healthcare should be available and free to use, but it cannot just be free, things have to be paid for somehow.

TL;DR - The human impact on the environment is something that should not be underestimated! However I think it is also coupled with other factors and climate change isn’t EXCLUSIVELY man-made

Impact Of The Human Race
I think it is evident that the human race has a large impact on our environment. The introduction of the motor car, planes and excessive plastic has definitely impacted our climate. An example of this is how much plastic we see in our oceans and now also consumed by marine life. There is a man-made impact. Greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuels increase the temperature of our world and the impact of this is huge. The man-made elements of climate change are evident but are not exclusively the problem.
Earth Changes
With that in mind, I think that man-made activity coupled with the nature shifts in climate have resulted in the events and excessive amount of natural disasters we see today. Our Earth does go through events and climate changes. A example of this would be the [ice age] (https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-6/) or glacier times. The way our Earth tilts does shift and develop whilst in orbit effects our climate. Even without the existence of humans, there have been natural disasters, climate changes and extinctions.
Human Insignificance
Another factor of human impact that makes climate change so much of a hot topic (pun intended!) is that our human capabilities are limited in what we can do. We cannot control our climate changes and natural disasters. Our capabilities make us vulnerable to the elements which I think makes us feel man-made problems concerning climate change are important as it is the only thing we can actually change.

TL;DR - This is the wrong way to look at tax, it is an investment not a chore

‘The only things certain in life is birth, death and tax’. I hear this quote and read it a lot on twitter from many politicians who disagree with high taxation. I personally think this is the wrong way to look at taxation. Don’t get me wrong, what you earn should be yours, and extremely high taxation is something I don’t agree with. However, tax is something that the individual can invest into society.

I can understand why some believe tax is theft, its money you have earned that you are forced to ‘give away’ sometimes without you even being aware of it. However, I see it more as an investment in society than theft. We all use a healthcare system, roads, trains and education that is made available by taxation. [It is not theft] (https://www.taxjustice.net/2014/10/08/money-taxation-isnt-theft/), you are just sometimes unaware of where your money goes - that is more of a problem. We all benefit off of what tax creates for society and I see it as ‘doing your bit’.

TL;DR - A great and interesting idea, but it is a bleak way to look at the world

We all know the film The Matrix, right? A great film series that explores the idea that we live in a simulation that is very different from our perceived reality. It plays on the idea that we cannot truly trust our own perceptions and sensations. I feel like some believe this philosophical idea is something quite new, however this is not the case.

Dating back to Ancient Greece, Plato wrote this theory and example of ‘The Cave’. This example, in a nutshell, was the story of a man who was locked in a cave only witnessing shadows on the wall. These shadows of other people were his reality, he could not see the full people, nor was he aware he was in a cave, just in his reality. When exploring, he then witnessed the true nature outside the cave. This meaning he was living in a ‘simulation’. He would only have his own perceptions and senses to build an understating, and this understanding would not be the truth. An amazing philosophical idea that our perceptions may not be the full truth!

I think there is a logic to this as we do not know what we don’t understand or know. However I don't think it is quite a black and white as The Matrix portrays it to be, nor Plato for the same reason. I like the idea that maybe what we experience isn’t exactly real, but it is our reality! I don’t think it should mean take such a bleak view of the world and disregard our reality, however true it may be as what our reality gives us is worth exploring.

TL;DR - In a more globalised world, using nationalism as an excuse or as part of a manifesto is a way to get ‘easy votes’ in an election but is based on false ideas and hope
Natural Inclination
What politicians often do is play on our [natural devotion] (https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-problem-nationalism) to our own home or country. During election time we see nationalism used a lot, take “Make America Great Again” for example. It plays on the way we are inclined to support our own country, even though it often glazes over problems and history.
That aside, we can live in a globalised world where we enjoy other countries and what they do and offer, rather than just focusing on our own. This is an outdated idea that we put our own nation on a higher level and actually, in reality, this idea is fading.
Exceptionalism
I wrote my dissertation on the impact of, specifically American Exceptionalism, however I think it can apply to a lot of countries. This is the idea that one assumes their own country is almost special in a lot of ways. I think this idea plays into nationalism and it is problematic, especially in a more globalised world as it breeds resentment and ignorance.
Politics and Generations
What I think nationalism does is blindsides some into ignoring the problems of a nation. An example of this is the British Empire. At school, you learn the size of it, how it worked, how it developed YET it overlooks the slaughter and slavery that was a result of the empire. This is where nationalism plays a problematic role and when it used as a political tool, it oversells a false narrative. You can be proud of where you come from, that is never an issue, and you can want the best for the society you live in, but don’t be fooled into believing such a narrative as exceptionalism or nationalism as gospel. I think more and more generations are exploring history with more globalised goggles and are seeing the issues that extreme nationalism poses.

TL;DR - We have all heard the phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. It may be a cliché but it rings true

I think most people can understand why the subject of terrorism is a very subjective matter. This does not mean that acts of terror are justified however, just from different, often extreme perspectives, some may view terror as a necessity for change.

There are many international and domestic laws on terrorism and “where the line is drawn” however these laws are often bent to adjust to different circumstances. An example would be the guerrilla warfare in Vietnam during the 1960s. Some argue that U.S. involvement was terrorism as it was not only not necessary, but a deliberate attack on civilians. The use of napalm and other search and destroy tactics were used on civilians! This is where for me terrorism is not justified. There are many extreme groups who argue that some acts of terror are necessary to change society however, it often unifies the country attacked and solidifies values rather than having the opposite effect. There is no way the amount of civilian destruction as a result of terrorism can be justified.

Another quite frustrating thing about the subjectivity of this is that some use the term terrorist trivially or as a term for protesters or rioters. If protestors are referred to as terrorists or participating in terrorism then in this case they could be justified! Making a statement though a protest or riot that promotes change is, of course, justified. This only creates more problems in how the subject is too subjective for objective statements (like it is sometimes justified) to be made about it!

Humans are a naturally curious species, however maybe our aim should be to fix problems on Earth before we invest more into space exploration

Pros of Space Exploration:

• Exploration - Humans are inquisitive and want to explore, a very ‘grass could be greener’ approach. Investing in Space Travel and Exploration then seems the next logical step as we have explored most land on Earth.
• The Unknown - Again, as much as some believe ignorance is bliss, finding out what it out there is something that is very exciting. A lot of children toys and books are made with space themes as we know it is something that causes awe and wonder, so why would we then not explore?
• Could find things that change human history - There is also a possibility that what we may find in space could aid humanity and life on Earth. We could discover new elements or possible habitats that could be of value. The more we investigate the wonder that is space the more we can understand about our own planet. We have seen enough Armageddon-type films to know that we need to keep track on the movements of space and manage any sort of asteroid impacting Earth! Jokes aside, we can then point out when asteroids are coming past Earth so people can see and learn more for themselves.
• Manned space flights - I feel like for my lifetime, since the 1990s, we have heard more people say “we will be able to send people to the moon or mars on holidays”. Even if this hope is often distant, we could have more citizens explore space, not just astronauts.

Cons of Space Exploration:

• So expensive - Space funding has had both public and private money all over the world. As much as it has provided insights, satellites and moments in history, this money could have gone to something more pressing. Space is there and has always been there, so maybe rushing into it now as we have the technology is the wrong way to go about it. It is the ‘is ought problem’. Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should, and perhaps that money could have fixed more problems on Earth.
• Bad for environment - With a lot of missions being unsuccessful, as well as there being many space agencies that have missions going ahead, the impact on the environment is huge. The amount of fuel, money and manufacturing that goes into going to space is massive and is harmful for the environment. The majority of the sea is unexplored, which could be a great place to discover new species and habitats instead of going into space.
• People - many people have died in missions going into space that is such a waste of talent and life. There is a Netflix documentary I recommend you watch called “Challenger” and it goes into the problems that faced the challenger and why it was so shocking. I just feel this sort of intelligence could go into exploring the 90% of the ocean we don’t know about, rather than into space.

TL;DR - Tom Hanks has oscars, and medals to his name, but combined with his IMDB and personality, he is the greatest actor of all time

Awards

• Oscar for Best Actor in Philadelphia - Tom Hanks approaches this role with grace and understating, just adding to his amazing IMDB as well as cinematic prevalence.
• Oscar For Best Actor in Forrest Gump - Forrest Gump is one of, if not, my favourite movies of all time. This classic film adapts may historical events through the 1950s to 1980s to fit into one man’s life. Tom Hanks plays this role so well, and I think that is why we all remember “life is like a box of chocolates”.
• 7 Emmys and 5 Golden Globe wins - He is recognised throughout many different film associations as a great actor who plays many different parts in many different films. His versatility is something that also makes him stand out, from lonely man on an island in Cast Away to Pilot who settled a plane in the Hudson River in Sully, Tom Hanks really proves his acting abilities time after time.

Filmography

• Saving Private Ryan - (Nominated best actor). Again, Hanks prove this versatility as well as captivation when he plays a soldier fighting in World War One. What Tom Hanks manages to do, that actors often cannot, is act in a way that you forget his other characters. For example, Daniel Radcliffe can act exceptionally, but sometimes you still fell you are watching ‘Harry Potter’ in another movie.
• Big - (Nominated best actor) - Tom Hanks, even at a young age played a great role in the coming of age movie BIG. This is a heart warming movie, mainly due to Hanks’ amazing acting abilities that make you connect to his character.
• Cast Away - (Nominated best actor) - No one can deny that making a feature length film without much dialogue interesting is no easy thing to do, but Hanks achieves this in Cast Away. Only speaking a few times in the 2 hour movie but capturing an amazing story is the reason why I feel Tom Hanks is the best actor of all time.
• Toy Story - He is also not limited to intense movies made to be critically a masterpiece. As a voice actor for Woody in Toy Story, he makes the character his own and is now recognisable with adults and children alike.

Personality

• Dad of Hollywood - Finally there is a feeling that Tom Hanks embodied the position of [Dad of Hollywood] (https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20210208-is-tom-hanks-part-of-a-dying-breed-of-genuine-movie-stars). He is part of the last generation to cross over both Boomer to Gen- Z generations.
• Unproblematic - On a final note, he seems to be a really nice and unproblematic actor in real life, which are hard to come by in recent times.

TL;DR - China’s social credit system is the epitome of 1984 and a surveillance state, but is not as far-fetched as we perceive at first

It is quite easy to say “China is basically 1984” or “China has such a surveillance state that it doesn’t give a good life to its citizens”. This is not necessarily the case exactly. We look at China with very western ideals rather than appreciating what it is (even though sometimes we may not agree with some of its policies).

We are used to having Credit Scores, mortgage assessments, Uber ratings and eBay seller ratings - we don’t see an issue with this! China have just taken this premise and expanded it, or at least wish to. Rating and scoring citizens is [not just a Chinese phenomenon] (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-explained) but is taken to a new level.

There are some reports of ‘blacklisting’ citizens. I don’t think this is is in anyway a good idea, however I am also unsure if this will be implemented. If it was, I would take the angle that the future of citizenship can’t be blacklisting citizens and eradicating them of all freedom. Hatred breeds hatred. If someone is not able to book a flight to a holiday destination because they stole some gum from a sweet shop 10 years ago, it will breed resentment and possibly revolution.

People have to have the opportunity to change and grow. Society benefits off of people making mistakes and improving themselves. There are other parts to the credit system that seem ‘okay’. The idea that if you rip people off on eBay then your rating decreases and no one buys from you seems fair. This then put in place in China would mean that if you were a seller who stole or was fraudulent, you couldn’t do x,y,z. This doesn’t seem, as a premise that bad, but do we really want a nanny state?

Personally, China's social credit system is based off of sound logic, but humans don’t behave logically all the time. Humans are impulsive, silly and grow and learn all of the time and not allowing people to do certain things due to their past- it seems too dystopian.

TL;DR - Political Correctness is great for a tolerant society, but it should not silence people

Political Correctness is so prevalent in our society, and for good reason too. It has allowed people to take account for their actions and learn to adjust their approaches as society progresses and changes. On a personal level, my grandparents are the family members who take being ‘PC’ very seriously because they constantly worry that something they were once used to, could now cause great offence. This is great as it means people change with the times and change their behaviour to make others more comfortable. However, they are now scared to approach subjects of controversy over the fear of being ‘cancelled’. This is a real shame and I don’t think this is the aim for being ‘PC’ but it is a reality that some now fear using their voice.

We should, as a society [applaud ourselves for the strives we make thanks to political correctness] (https://hbr.org/2006/09/rethinking-political-correctness). Terms that used to be prevalent and hurtful are being phased out of our vocabulary as a society. However it has made some believe they cannot approach subject matter, in case of offence. This is where I am mixed about ‘political correctness’ as in most cases it creates a better and more tolerant society but it shouldn’t mean people can’t say things they want, or approach subject matter in case of offence

TL;DR - There is a place for essential oils, but their benefits shouldn’t be oversold

Essential oils definitely have a place in both medicine and lifestyle. Oils such as lavender and tea tree have great benefits. Tea tree is something that is used regularly in the dermatology industry as a treatment for spots and types of acne. But this is where I think a distinction needs to be made. Essential oils can help and improve ailments and mood, however they are not a complete treatment.

As said, I think a balance of both ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ medicine is a great way to treat or approach any issues. Lavender for example is a great way to help anxiety or insomnia but can be coupled with sleeping tablets or anti-depressants if people wish. Just because you use essential oils does not mean you are entirely treated and I think this is where the wellness industry benefits off of lies.

Oils like the ones mentioned, are great but the wellness industry often portray them as miracle workers when they are not as [impactful] (https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/what-are-essential-oils#how-they-work). More work is being done to mean companies can not portray falsehood such as ‘essential oils can cure cancer’ however the wellness industry still extend the truth about their impact, in my opinion.

Essential oils are great if they work for you. It is subjective. However just because you use them does not mean you are treated, nor does it mean you have to believe the ‘wellness’ hype.

TL;DR - Headlines are a big catalyst in the fake news debate

Headlines are what draw you in to read an article, well that’s what they are supposed to do! More often than not people read a punchy headline and assume the rest of the article.

Take this example “Joe Biden to bring home a trillion dollars”. On face value people may think “Wow the President gets paid a lot” or " he doesn’t care about the people, just his wallet”. Yet the article may read “President Biden to increase economy by a trillion dollars”. Here we can see just how impactful headlines can be.

[Headlines then can affect] (https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/headlines-change-way-think) what existing thoughts or feelings you have so you create your own story. As a millennial and Gen-Z generation, we appreciate quick news and instant knowledge. However with this, headlines are promoting a falsehood as many are not reading the article but are just seeing the headlines.

TL;DR - Rugby should be more popular, it is more entertaining and exciting to watch than football

Football is a great sport both to play and watch. It is a sport that unites communities and is an escape for many people. However, I believe Rugby should be more popular as it does these things in a more [exciting and entertaining way.] (https://www.ruck.co.uk/15-reasons-why-being-a-rugby-supporter-is-better-than-being-a-football-supporter/)

• Fans and Experience
  One of the greatest things rugby has over football is the fan experience. Unlike football, rugby supporters are not segregated but are mixed all together. This means you make friends with the oppositions and it lightens the experience.
  At rugby games you can also drink alcohol! Rugby fans are often very merry during games and it makes the experience even better.
  Rugby is also a game for all shapes and sizes. There is a position in the team for anyone and is a very inclusive game and not as violent as it is often labelled.
• The Game
  There are many adaptations of the game. Football only really varies by how many players are on the pitch. However there is Rugby Union, Rugby League, Rugby Sevens, Touch Rugby and Wheelchair Rugby. There are so many different variations of the game to get involved with.
  There are also many ways to score points in rugby unlike just goals in football. In rugby you can score trys, conversations, penalties and drop goals.
  There are also many things that keep the game interesting that do not exist in football. Football gets exciting when a penalty is taken however this happens in rugby AND MORE! Line-outs, scrums and rucks make the game more interesting.
• World Cup and Tournaments
  As an England fan, we have been waiting since 1966 for another world cup win, however the Rugby team won in 2003. It gives more hope to fans that the team can perform well and win important tournaments (maybe ignoring this years awful 6 nations performances haha).
  During tournaments as well there is much more respect for the referee in rugby than in football. Referee Nigel Owens has become a fan favourite for his funny lines and authoritative demeanour. This respect for the referees is something that I think football could learn from.

TL;DR - There are such good Christmas movies out there, but Love Actually is a firm fan favourite

A film that can make you laugh, cry, sing and feel festive? IT IS ALL IN LOVE ACTUALLY. This Richard Curtis classic is full of amazing actors and great stories. Forget Home Alone and Elf, although they are great Christmas movies, no film is as gripping and re-watchable as Love Actually. This film is layered with different stories that all overlap in someway making it not only a good Christmas movie but a good movie regardless of what time of year it is. Unlike most Christmas movies, this film allows the audience to experience Christmas through different angles, not just a predictable festive feature film.

Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Liam Neeson, Bill Nighy and Rowan Atkinson are just a handful of the stars who play great roles in this movie. I think an important criteria of a Christmas movie is how re-watchable is it? And how does it fair compared to non-Christmas movies? Love Actually excels in both of these aspects. It is multifaceted and allows the audience to take different things away from it each time you view it.

In addition to this Love Actually has had a huge cultural impact. In the 2019 general election, close to Christmas in the U.K, now prime minister Boris Johnson parodied a scene from this movie in his [election campaign.] (https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-parodied-love-actually-in-campaign-ad-supporting-brexit-2019-12?r=US&IR=T). This shows just how much people appreciate this movie and reference it around the festive season!

Great actors, great story lines, great dialogue and great songs? What other Christmas film can compete?

TL;DR - Data is now a more valuable asset than oil. It seems dystopian to even have to fight for our own privacy online

Data is the new hot commodity. Our data is spread around the world with different organisations harvesting it for different intentions. Some good, some not so!

We should have, as individuals, more rights and knowledge of how our data is used and where it goes. We have all had that feeling right, when we have had a conversation with someone about something and then all of a sudden it appears on your search feed? This can’t be okay.

I understand that, just like surveys and questionnaires, it is good for companies to know what to target or advertise. This makes sense. However it is the lack of consent to our data being spread around that I take issue with. The use of our data should be a clear right of the individual and more should be done to protect it.

An example i’m sure we are all aware of is the scandal with [Cambridge Analytica] (http://www.datarightsarehumanrights.com). This company managed to manipulate data from [50 million] (https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/government-policy-internet-must-be-rights-based-and-user-centred)Facebook users to influence political voting and advertising. The ability to manipulate our data and influence our voting, purchasing and thoughts is something that is very scary.

With examples like this, I think that it shows how Data Rights Should Be Human Rights as it effects not only what we buy, but how we live.

TL;DR - Globalisation has given us a lot of great things, but it doesn’t mean that it is entirely a good thing
Globalisation has allowed us to expand our horizons and see humanity as a large organism rather than a more self-centred view. However I think it is easy to only see the good in Globalisation, but this COVID-19 pandemic has allowed us to take a step back and analyse it with a different perspective.

Pros

People - It has allowed cultures to mix and learn from one another. This melting pot of societies we exist in now allows us to see the world through different perspectives which would not have been possible otherwise. Globalisation has allowed people to communicate with others all over the world!
Travel - Look no further than Instagram to see how much people love to travel. Globalisation has allowed countries to develop great tourism industries, like Iceland for example. Iceland's biggest economic driver is tourism. It not only is great for people to travel and explore but also benefits counties who may not have excelled in the same way without globalisation.
Improvements - The UN, EU and other [large organisations] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zxpn2p3/revision/4) aim to improve human rights and other problems facing the world, rather than individual countries. This has meant the world has become less poverty stricken, there are fewer people dying from hunger and life expectancy has gone up! Globalisation has its benefits in allowing more affluent countries the ability to help and send aid to other developing countries. It also means we can tackle global warming as a collective rather than individually!

Cons

Interfering - Some argue that globalisation has meant larger countries now interfere with smaller countries when they shouldn’t. An example of this may be the U.S involvement in Vietnam. This was a war where the U.S. need not have fought and lost so many lives. A more connected world means now national problems are international problems.
Richer have become richer - This means that globalisation has meant now big businesses can be more international = more profit. Or move their workforce to more tax efficient places or places with cheaper labour. This is all whilst the more normal worker now loses work as businesses move their work places or factories. This then how’s how globalisation may have caused a deeper class divide.
Exploiting tax havens - Again, echoing my previous point, now more [rich people are avoiding paying as much tax in their own countries] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/05/06/the-pros-and-cons-of-globalization/).
COVID-19 - In these crazy times we have also seen a more national approach to the vaccine rollout as well as travel.

TL;DR - This trivialises the harmful nature of drug use
There are many TV shows that glamorise drug use and the impact of harmful drugs on people and society e.g Breaking Bad and Narcos to name two. The legalisation of more harmful ‘Class B and A’ drugs seems like an awful idea.

1 - Alcohol
A lot of arguments point towards how alcohol kills more people than harder drugs. Alcohol for sure has awful side effects when abused. It also linked to about [60] (https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20101101/alcohol-more-harmful-than-crack-or-heroin#1) diseases when consumed regularly. HOWEVER - I don’t subscribe to the idea that just because something that is sometimes bad for society is legal that we should legalise all that could be bad. One wrong doesn’t make a right. Alcohol has bad side effects but it is also a way in which people can relax and socialise, unlike harder drugs. Legalising all drugs would mean that people would not behave in a way they normally would. It would not benefit society nor the people who live in it.

2 - Weed
Weed is a controversial subject and as more research is done into the impact of [CBD] (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/marijuana-legalisation?CMP=ILC-refresh) in medicine and therapies it look as though any stigma is overshadowed by its benefits. However the overdoses or harm done by weed is very minimal in comparison to harder drugs. Legalising Weed is something I can see in our future and is something that can benefit medicine and possibly mental health, unlike other more extreme drugs.

3 - People and Society
Finally, I think the big thing is why would we legalise something that can harm and negatively impact people’s lives? It trivialises drugs like they are not harmful when this is not the case!! I totally agree with Lydia’s point that actually, the strain on health/drug rehabilitation services is already high, why would we exacerbate this pressure?

TL;DR - Breakfast is not essential for a healthy diet, but if you enjoy it, IT IS GREAT!

• Skipping breakfast is not longer as dramatic as it once sounded. As mentioned, intermittent fasting is a great way to lose weight or eat healthily. Pushing back your breakfast or just going straight for lunch is actually quite good for you.

• Breakfast is not the most important meal of the day - This branding by Kellogg's was just to entice you into enjoying your morning cereal. As I said, if you enjoy it, it is not a problem but it may not be as good for you as you believe. As Sofia explained, the hidden sugars in breakfast products is often abnormally high!

• If you enjoy breakfast then it is good for you! Your mental health and physical energy levels may benefit form having breakfast so it shouldn't be just ruled out as BAD or UNNECESSARY.

Some are hungry in the morning and some are not, it really is subjective.

TL;DR - Big Fast Fashion Brands must take accountability for the issues they cause

Fast Fashion Brands are the often the center of debates concerning the effect of fast fashion on the environment, modern day slavery and impact on mental health.

Modern Day Slavery

• 1/6 people work in the garment industry and only [2%] (https://www.bwss.org/fastfashion/) of them earn a living wage
• There have also been examples of the working conditions at these factories being un safe and un-hygienic. These big businesses ignore workers rights to produce clothes at a cheap and fast rate.

Environment

• Personally I think they should be held accountable for their impact. In the U.S. [9.5 million tons of clothing is thrown into landfill] (https://www.bwss.org/fastfashion/) that could have been used as a result of fast fashion! This is insane and is a result of big brands like Boohoo and PrettyLittleThing creating cheaper clothing and promoting new styles constantly.
• The impact on the environment is also extortionate, not just in thrown away clothes but also textile waste that pollutes rivers and areas globally.

Mental Health

• Some of these big fast fashion brands also target their advertising at young impressionable girls, even when many of their clothes are more ‘risqué’.
• They also promote the toxic idea that you have to keep up with the new fashion consistently. As mentioned, this promotes a mindset of never being on trend or cool which effects young adults especially.

TL;DR - Astrology uses many human behaviours to relate to people, but predicts nothing

I totally agree with Lydia! Astrology is quite fun to read and look into. It is also fun to find out what your predictions are meant to be. However, they are obviously not accurate.

Astrology is based off of generalising different human behaviours for different star signs. So you can really apply most of the attributes they give you to your life, even though millions of others will do the same! No one group of people have the same life events coming up or act in the same way! They work on confirmation bias, you convince yourself that they specifically apply to you!

A task- if you are a Gemini, read a Libra’s astrology predictions or if you are a Capricorn, read a Sagittarius’ predictions. You’ll find you can apply things to yourself even though your astrological sign is irrelevant.

TL;DR - Of course humans create problems, but the extinction of humanity would be a great tragedy

It is within our human nature to want to continue to human race. Experience tells us that throughout history, the aim has always been to continue humanity. This is mirrored in the animal kingdom with animals continuing their species. This innate feeling then would show how we, as humans, feel our extinction would be a tragedy.

I think there is an argument that the impact of humans on the earth, animals and environment is often extensive and catastrophic at times. With that in mind I can understand the extinction of humans would lead to a ‘better’ world. But this disregards the wonder an exceptional capabilities that humans have in comparison to other species on Earth.

I think that the idea of ‘humans being extinct benefiting the world’ is ignoring a major point. As much as we have often animalistic behaviours, we also act in a way of [reason and we experience] (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/opinion/human-extinction-climate-change.html) the world in a different way to most other species. We create arts, philosophy, democracy and we encourage knowledge and understanding. For this approach to be wiped out with the human race would, in my opinion, be a tragedy.

TL;DR - What constitutes as gambling is a very grey area, however there should be more restrictions on gambling

Gambling is an addictive past-time. It plays on the idea that ‘it could be you’ who wins the next game, round or race. I don’t think it should be banned, we live in a free society where people can use and invest their money as they please. However, I believe the restrictions need to be enforced and tightened.

• An example of a country with more restrictions on gambling is in Japan. Gambling is not completely illegal, however it does come with many restrictions. You can only bet on [bicycle, horse and motorcycle races as well as football] (https://www.tsunagujapan.com/7-things-about-japanese-gambling-you-probably-didnt-know/).

• I watched an Amazon Prime documentary starring James May about Japan. On one of the episodes he addressed the game of [Pachinko] (https://www.tsunagujapan.com/7-things-about-japanese-gambling-you-probably-didnt-know/). This game is a form of gambling that works on a loophole in the restrictions. You can’t win money, but only toys/gifts that you can then exchange for money.

What this example shows is that you can only [restrict gambling so far] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55899644). I also think that there is a grey area now with what constitutes gambling, as there is more ‘gambling’ online now. An example of this is You-tuber Jake Paul promoting mystery boxes to his young and impressionable audience.
[Is this gaming or gambling?] (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/youtube-mystery-boxes-jake-paul-loot-box).
Personally I think gambling is a very grey area that needs addressing, more restrictions but not banning!

TL;DR - It may be Disneyland, but is should be Pixarland! Pixar have provided better and more ‘classic’ films than Disney!

Disney has made some classic films, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King to name just a couple. They are classic films and are a great watch in my opinion. However, the catalogue of great films is far greater from its animation rivals at Pixar.

In recent research into the impact of [streaming service Disney+] (https://insidethemagic.net/2020/05/pixar-disney-animation-cb1/), audience experience and film critics scores were higher for Pixar movies than its Disney rivals.
In addition to this [Pixar films have grossed more at the box office than Disney] (https://insidethemagic.net/2020/05/pixar-disney-animation-cb1/). This does not mean Disney are in any way unsuccessful, the $324 million made at the box office is nothing to be dismissed, just the content that Disney provide is no where near as good as Pixar, in my opinion.

I would argue that The Toy Story series are some of the best animated movies of all time! They appeal to children and adults alike. What Pixar manage to do is to animate emotion in a way that I think appeals to the whole family. This does not mean Disney can not, who didn’t cry at the Lion King? Just that Pixar have done this to a better quality and more consistently than Disney.

Just to note - this is a great article comparing movies from [Pixar and Disney] (https://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/articles/disney-vs-pixar-battle-of-the-animation-giants/). I didn’t use much information from it to form my opinion, but it is a very good read!

TL;DR - Cosmetic Surgery is a personal thing, and only under circumstances like an illness or accident, should it be covered by the tax payer or health insurance

• As a person living in Britain, I am approaching this opinion from the perspective of having a national health service. With this in mind, I would argue that cosmetic surgery for one person, such as a nose job or botox should not be funded by a tax payer. It is not a necessary medical treatment and therefore should be payed for by the individual. Society shouldn’t fund aesthetics!
• It is my understanding that most health insurance anyway, internationally, do not cover most cosmetic surgeries. I think personally it should stay that way. There is the argument that mental health wise someone may really feel strongly about getting a procedure that would help them in that sense. For me, the money then would be better going into mental health services and therapies, rather than funding something that may or may not alleviate any mental health problems.
• However, for me there are some exceptions. When someones has suffered an illness that has caused a bodily change that they want fixing, I believe insurance should cover it. Again if someone has been in an accident, the same should apply.
• You pay health insurance for accidents, illness or serious medial needs, rather than aesthetics, in my opinion.
• If there is an option to pay a separate tier of insurance for specifically cosmetic surgery, then maybe that would work? However I think under the general understanding of health insurance, it should not cover cosmetic surgery.

TL;DR - There is a place for violence. Violence isn’t wrong when used in self-defence. NOR is it wrong when used in a controlled manner in physical sports

• As an avid watcher and supporter of Rugby Union, I can understand how some view the sport as violent. However, just because is it a physical game that can sometimes cause violence on the pitch, doesn’t mean that the violence is wrong.

• There is something quite satisfying by seeing a shove or a push in a game like Rugby, as it ignites a passion for the game as well as entertainment for the audience. Violence under sporting circumstances is something that people enjoy watching as it is controlled and, within context, enjoyable. Just take a look at the popularity of Boxing, Judo or Karate. Even if we look back to Roman times, a more extreme version would be gladiatorial events.

• In addition to this, I don’t think we should say all violence is wrong. In the act of self-defence it seems perfectly legitimate in my opinion. It would be against our innate human nature to be attacked and not retaliate as a reflex. This doesn’t mean that you have to fight back, just instinctively I think most people would understand why you did. [Fighting back means you contribute to the fight] (https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2006-1-page-323.htm), however sometimes it is a necessity or an instinct.

• To mention, I don’t think violence is an answer to the worlds problems, and I am not condoning anarchy. However, what I am trying to explain is that violence can be justified in certain circumstances. We see throughout human history an inclination to fight in wars and battles. I am of the opinion that sometimes violence shouldn't always be referred to as “never the answer”.

TL;DR - Baby its Cold Outside is a Christmas classic and is not offensive if it is taken as a festive song in context of the time

• For me, this is an example of political correctness gone mad! There is always an annual review of this Christmas Classic and what it implies every December. But it is exactly that, a Christmas song. A song that gets people feeling festive and excited for Christmas.

• The lyrics for sure are questionable in todays world, “Say what’s in this drink?’ Does seem to imply something very dark in nature. This lyric however, about what is in the drink was referred to as what alcohol, not what drug or substance! This song has to be looked at in context.

• I don’t believe this song is something that is influencing society in a bad way, it is played for one month a year!

• With this, when she sings “say what’s in this drink” there is important context to note. During the 1940’s when this song was written [it was a standard joke] (https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/12/19/13885552/baby-its-cold-outside-feminist-date-rape-romantic). It was used when people wanted an excuse for doing something they knew was wrong but wanted to anyway. In this context then, really it doesn’t feel all as offensive as our 2021 goggles would see it.

• The original song labelled the male part [Wolf and female role Mouse] (https://time.com/5739183/baby-its-cold-outside-consent/). Some would look at it as a strange power dynamic, but for me, it s just a playful duet between two people at Christmas. It is only offensive if you over analyse it and I don’t believe it was made to be over analysed.

• For me, sure the song poses its problems, however I don’t think it is offensive. It provides a festive feeling that is is no way offensive or badly impactful.

TL;DR - Having children is not unethical, it is just a personal preference

• To debate whether or not having children is ethical seems like a relatively new phenomena in many ways. [Many millennials especially] (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/climate-change-having-kids-children_n_5d493eaee4b0244052e09033?ri18n=true), are debating the ethics of having children and bringing them into a world, that some deem to be getting worse. This seems very un-natural in terms of our instincts to make sure the human race continues.
• Climate Change seems to be a large factor into why some are reluctant to have children. When statistics explain that the [Arctic will be ice free by 2050] (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/children-climate-change-reproduction-conceivable-future-birthstrike_n_5d134d63e4b0aa375f564d27), it becomes apparent that the human race impacts the climate of our world, however I don't agree that this should effect the morals of having children.
• There are [330 members of the Birth Strike movement in the UK] (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/children-climate-change-reproduction-conceivable-future-birthstrike_n_5d134d63e4b0aa375f564d27) who have signed up declaring they will not have children to tackle the climate change issue. For me, this is a little extreme, however, although for me this is a little extreme, it is a personal preference, rather than a purely moral decision. It is subjective. I don’t see an ethical debate with regards to climate change and having children. This is where ethics have gone too far.
• Nevertheless, I can understand how there are ethics surrounding questions of having children such as; is it fair on the child if I bring it into a world that may be getting worse? Or can I support a child with my current situation? There are ethics to think about, however it should not just be an ethical decision, it is a preference.
• Robbie Spransy, a parent in a Huffington Post Article explained how [every generation faces its challenges] (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/climate-change-having-kids-children_n_5d493eaee4b0244052e09033?ri18n=true) but to better the world, creating these new generations is not a bad or moral question. I would personally have to agree with this take. Ethics are a part of deciding on whether to have children or not, but they reflect a preference rather than a moral stance.

TL;DR Catcalling is not only harassment, but a very common and intimidating form of harassment

• Is catcalling a form of wanted or consenting attention? No! Does it make women and men alike feel uncomfortable? Yes! Then for me Catcalling is a form of harassment.

• Catcalling [can elicit fear] (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/31/catcalling-power-women-rape-culture#:~:text=An%20international%20study%20of%2016%2C000,when%20someone%20defiles%20their%20space.) into the ‘victim’ (although I am reluctant to use that term), no form of flattery should be able to do that.

• Catcalling is, in comparison to other types of harassment, quite mild and often harmless. I have heard it labelled ‘lad banter’ and I have also been told it is a form of flattery. I do not agree. I think this sort of justification [exonerates the perpetrator and makes the issue a 'victims' interpretation] (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/31/catcalling-power-women-rape-culture#:~:text=An%20international%20study%20of%2016%2C000,when%20someone%20defiles%20their%20space.).

• Catcalling can range from a yell from a car, to someone who insists on walking with you whilst you walk down the street. It is prevalent, with over [80% of women ] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_harassment) internationally saying they receive often frequent catcalling.

• For me, Catcalling isn’t the worst thing in the world, and I understand why some think the term harassment carries a much more aggressive tone with it, however I am of the opinion, that if it causes fear and is unwanted, then it is indeed harassment.

TL;DR - Zoos should only close if they do not provide a good quality of life for the animals

• On British day-time television, there is a show called “The Secret Life of A Zoo” and it shows the day-to-day workings of Chester zoo. As Lydiamae mentioned, at Chester zoo their aim is to help endangered species, look after them and give the animals a great quality of life. Why would we then close these zoos if they are providing an almost veterinary service?

• When many climates are now uninhabitable due to climate change or are full of poachers and hunters, [zoos provide a safe space for animals to thrive] (https://www.zsl.org/blogs/zsl-london-zoo/the-importance-of-zoos). Why would we then rid of a safe space for animals that also adds as a great educational tool for children and adults?

• However, we all remember the show Tiger King, right? When Joe Exotic sold, bred and kept tigers in an unsafe and dangerous facility, it triggered activists from organisations such as [PETA] (https://www.peta.org.uk) to step in. In these cases I can understand zoos, if we can even call them that, being shut down and closed for good. These zoos are not there for protection or conservation but are purely an economic diver, this surely can’t be okay.

• Personally, I believe zoos are a great space to conserve species and also often help to reintroduce them back into the wild. This allows not only people to learn more about these animals and even see them, but also provides a sanctuary for which animals can thrive.

TL;DR - Rioting can create important and needed change, however some use it as an excuse for violence.

Riots are often fuelled by pent up anger over the need for societal change. This is evidently justifiable. The act of rioting and protesting normally causes quick political change and media attention. People should have the right to protest and even riot if they feel that something needs reforming, such as police reforms or new introductions in gun-control legislature. I personally believe that rioting for a cause can be justified in this sense.

Rioting and protests often start as a result of an event that has embodied a movement that has required change for a long time. We have seen a lot of riots this year concerning women’s safety, police violence and climate change. [I don’t believe that all of the people protesting or rioting are there purely to loot or act violently] (https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8518681/protests-riots-work). However, I do feel that there are some, a minority for sure, but some people who use a protest or riot to instigate unnecessary violence and cause chaos. An example of this would be the riots in Bristol, U.K. in 2021. These riots started with a purpose, but [were then overshadowed by some who just wanted a fight] (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-riots-13-photographs-suspects-5269271).

Rioting and protesting is such a hot topic right now and I would love to hear more opinions on it. I am personally, of the opinion that riots can be justified as they can promote much needed change. However, I do believe there are sometimes better ways of approaching change as some exploit protests and turn them into riots that are, if anything, worse for the cause due to the negative media attention they receive.

TL;DR - The world is getting better, just the press and media often portray it as otherwise

The past two years have definitely been a challenge, I think we can all agree? A global pandemic, divisive political movements and we have been stuck at home for a long time. However, I don’t think this is a reflection of how the world has been getting worse, in many ways, it has actually improved.

Extreme poverty has fallen by half since the year 1990, but we seem so unaware of this. Negativity and media go hand-in-hand. Humans are naturally drawn to negativity. The more negativity something has drawn the more humans want to watch it; [a negativity bias] (https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health-crime-literacy-good-news).

In the same vain as my previous point; [Extreme hunger has fallen in the last 10 years] (https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health-crime-literacy-good-news), life expectancy is rising, death during childbirth is a lot more rare. There are plenty of positives that come from the developing world we live in.

I am not saying that there are no problems anymore and that the world is not just better but PERFECT! However, I do believe that there is merit to the idea that the world has measurably improved in many ways, but the press and media focus on the negativity that surrounds the current affairs.

TL;DR - The fastest and most efficient way to learn a language is to learn it in a useful way that applies to your daily life. Speaking the language regularly is the most helpful way to increase language learning.

Learning a language is a very difficult thing. Especially when you have either no idea where to start or no one to practice with.
Olly Richards, a polyglot - speaking 8 languages, explains that [speaking a language regularly] (https://www.summerlanguageacademy.com/blog/language-learning), whether you only know a few phrases or words, is the key to learning a language. As with my opinion, integrating a new language into your day-to-day life helps you not just learn a language but utilise it.
I personally am of the opinion that practice makes perfect and when it comes to language learning I think it is the same. Again, another polygot Teddy Nee explains that [you should learn phrases that you actually use frequently] (https://www.summerlanguageacademy.com/blog/language-learning) rather than learning a language form the very basic level.

The highly rated language learning app Babbel also recommends [“keeping it relevant”] (https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/10-tips-from-an-expert). By this, they mean that if you make it your goal to learn a language for use in conversation, then you are less likely to get lost in textbooks later in you language learning journey. I totally agree with this.

As someone who enjoys language learning, the hardest part, for me at least, it putting all of the knowledge together into coherent and conversational sentences. I believe I have eradicated this problem ever since I started using the language skills I had (very few I must admit) and talking with a penpal as well as a tutor multiple times a week. Language learning is difficult, but to learn it in a more useful and confident way, I believe practicing and using the language is the best way to learn.

TL;DR - Classical Music has many benefits that could help you. HOWEVER, it does not mean you have to listen to it if you dislike it.

Music is obviously extremely subjective, however when people recommend listening to classical music, it is often seen as pretentious or even out-dated.

Music in general has a lot of benefits and I am passionate about the impact and importance of music. [Classical Music, in particular, has health benefits] (https://takelessons.com/blog/benefits-of-listening-to-classical-music-z15) such as an improvement in productivity, reduction in stress and it decreases blood pressure. However, I think that there is sometimes too much pretentiousness that surrounds listening to Classical Music. Most other music genres also have health and productivity benefits like Pop, Rock and Soul. Music is so subjective that if you dislike Classical Music then it will, as a result, not decrease your stress levels. You should only listen to it if you appreciate and enjoy it.

Personally, it’s similar to when people recommend you read a classic book. Just because it is a classic, doesn’t mean you will automatically enjoy it.

TL;DR: The Winter Olympics are good, but are no where near as inclusive or entertaining as the Summer Games

The Winter Olympics provide audiences with entertaining sports and events, however, they are not better than The Summer Olympics. The Summer Olympics provide a ‘celebrity star power’ that the Winter Olympics does not. The Summer Games allow audiences to get involved and invested in the athletes of the games. If we look back at London 2012, we remember our Team GB star athletes such as Jess Ennis- Hill and Mo Farah. These athletes in the Summer Games allow [audiences a way of getting excited about the sports] (https://fansided.com/2016/07/19/15-reasons-summer-olympics-better-winter-olympics/16/), that the Winter Olympics is yet to provide.

Of course they should continue, they are a great way at promoting winter sports and are very entertaining to watch. BUT they alienate many countries’ ability to join. Winter sports are easily done in a colder climates like Russia or parts of Austria, but otherwise, they can become quite expensive to practice. They exclude countries who do not have the ability to compete. This is where, in my opinion, the Summer Games prevail.

TL;DR - Free Will feels real, but isn't!

As humans, it brings us comfort to believe that we have control over most things. It is then scary when there is no control over situations, like during natural disasters or approaching wild animals. I think this need for control is why some believe there is free will when in reality this is not the case.

Life is just a long series of yes/no decisions that you are able to make. I don’t believe we have a conscious free will that some argue we do. We are just a result of the choices our brain is wired for us to make rather than a totally free and random choice.

Just as American neuroscientist Sam Harris explains “Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control”.

All of the stimuli we experience, the way we are brought up and our genetics, make people unconsciously decide on things we think we have free choice over. There is nothing too bleak about this view for me, the feeling of freedom doesn’t become redundant, just that no choice is truly in our own conscious control or a result of free will.

I agree, not only is Goblet of Fire the best movie but the best book too! The Goblet of Fire is a turning point in the series where we see not only the actors move from children to young adults, but the storyline and mood of the movies turns darker and, in my opinion, more interesting and complex! The characters experience death for the first time and it is a symbol of things to come in the series.

Goblet of Fire also encompasses many things that audiences love to see. It plays on the Olympics of the Wizarding World, the TriWizard Cup which feels very exciting and new compared to the previous three films. It also allows us to see the character arch of the main trio develop in interesting young adults trying to find who they are. What is more entertaining than watching awkward teens try to find a date to a Yule Ball they don’t want to attend! An amazing movie and the best film in the series.

I am in total agreement on this one! Online hate speech is seen as less impactful than face-to-face hate speech. I think another thing is that when someone saying something online, we can’t sense the sarcasm or tone.
On places like the Youtube comments section and Twitter threads you can, as a creator, ban certain words that are used on your channel. But I guess how many words or phrases should you have to ban to create a safe space with no hate speech?
I totally agree, people don’t take responsibility for their actions online due to the anonymity it can provide.
Echoing the opinions of you both, social media companies should take stricter measures to ensure its platforms are as hate-speech free as possible!

TL;DR - The Prime Function of schools is to create well-rounded members of society, not purely to find jobs

This is a very interesting opinion as I think most people, post schooling, wish they were taught more ‘life-skills’ at school. You often hear people say “school should have taught me how to find a job” or “how to file tax returns”. However we seem to just forget the years we were taught to read, write, contribute, learn and become valued members of society.

Schools can’t teach you everything. Many children who are in school now will end up working in jobs that don’t yet exist. I think to say that schools prime function should be to help students find jobs would eradicate the hard work done through most primary schools. School teaches you abilities such as social skills, helps you find and learn about subjects you have interest in, and aids you in qualifications that can help you in the future.

This statement, to me, paints quite a bleak view of school. This doesn’t mean schools shouldn’t, when approaching leaving age, hold classes on the job market and CV making - but this isn’t its prime function!

TL;DR - Millennials are labelled as lazy, but are actually innovative!

(JUST TO CLARIFY - I am understanding millennial as a person born between the years 1981-1996)

The media attention on the laziness, self-entitlement and whiny nature of millennials is constant. However, I think the labels of the ‘brunch-loving’ and ‘avocado eating’ millennials over-looks the innovation that they bring to society. They are innovative, progressive and creative.

This ‘self-entitlement’ label that is often branded as lazy, but it could not be further from the truth. Millennials are asking more of society in order to improve it for everyone and give people a voice, who in the past have been pushed aside. This laziness and self-entitlement label that is put on millennials is just [a reflection of society’s and previous generations’ reluctance for change.] (https://starkraving.medium.com/millennials-the-lazy-entitled-screen-obsessed-generation-building-a-better-world-1f98588c5146)

Millennials also are a generation all about self-improvement. The ‘wellness industry’ is something that thrives on [millennials need to improve.] (https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/77109/myth-lazy-millennial) This is anything but lazy. The need to push yourself in many different ways (virtues, career or physical health) is the antithesis of laziness.

We also live in a world where Facebook, Amazon and other big online business make things quicker and easier to access. Does it make millennials lazy to take advantage of the ability to access things quickly? I don’t think so. Times change, society changes and what is ‘normal’ changes. Millennials wanting things quickly, whether it is a gift from Amazon or a delivery from Deliveroo, isn’t out of laziness but out of using and adapting to the word we live in.

TL;DR - Money cannot buy TRUE happiness

I recognise that money is a necessity. However I believe that true happiness doesn’t derive itself from money or what money can buy you.

Evidently money can make life that bit easier and financial freedom is something most people strive for. Yet, I believe that to find how money can make you happy, you have to know [what makes you happy] (https://time.com/collection/guide-to-happiness/4856954/can-money-buy-you-happiness/) in the first place.

Happiness comes from the experiences you have, people you surround yourself with and the life you lead, regardless of making the ‘big bucks’. There are studies that show that earning over $90,000 leads to increase in stress, anxiety and other mental health issues. We, as a society, overestimate how much money can help us be happy.

People bring you happiness not money and you cant buy true friendships, relationships or family. Appreciating and admiring what you have brings happiness rather than attempting to buy what you don’t have. [A study from the University of California] (https://time.com/collection/guide-to-happiness/4856954/can-money-buy-you-happiness/) explained that those who regularly appreciate, note and write down what they are happy with or grateful for are healthier, happier and have more energy than those who don’t. When you realise what makes you truly happy, you realise that you don’t need excessive money to achieve these fundamental things.

TL;DR - Creationism should be taught in schools but in a philosophical, rather than scientific manner

The main premise of Creationism is that everything we experience has originated from divine creation or a divine creator. There are also different degrees of Creationism, some purist interpretations (from Genesis for example) and others that adapt to modern scientific knowledge, like the idea of The Big Bang.

Creationism means different things to different people in different religions. What I’m trying to say is that it’s subjective. It’s theological and philosophical, so I think it should be approached in this way when it’s taught in schools. The reason why I take a mixed approach is that personally, I believe it should not be taught in any scientific discipline in schools but could be taught and discussed in religious and philosophical studies.

I personally think when approaching something so philosophical as Creationism, providing a space for constructive positive discourse is a necessity. The best knowledge comes from debate, opinion and understanding. Tolerant societies come from discourse. So to eradicate Creationism as a concept from schools seems a bad choice as it promotes no positive discourse.

Freedom of speech is important to keep in mind when discussing things like Creationism as some may believe in it wholeheartedly. So, as a result, to deny schools the option of teaching it, even as a theological concept, seems dystopian and just unfair. I believe there is merit in allowing teachers to educate students on a broad range of opinions, religions and interpretations, including Creationism.

TL;DR - Both indoor and and outdoor play are essential for children to thrive

The importance of outdoor experiences and outdoor leaning for children is undeniable! After reading the same Muddy Puddles article, it really is telling how much time children spent indoors other than exploring the outdoors! Especially with the COVID-19 restrictions put in place of the past year, I’m sure numbers of children choosing to be indoors rater than outdoors has only gone up. A very sad statistic, I feel.

The health benefits of children being outside learning and playing is also a huge reason why we should encourage more outdoor time for kids. The reduction in stress, improvement in mental health, decrease in childhood obesity as well as improving life skills e.g crossing the road safely and stranger danger are essential for children.

However it’s important to note - Indoor time doesn’t equal screen time!

I don’t think we should just rule out the importance and benefits of children playing and learning indoors. I recognise saying this after a year of Lockdowns may be poor timing, however the premise remains the same. Indoor learning and playing can help children in a way that is often overlooked. We often assume outdoor time is better, when in reality there are benefits of indoor time for children.

I read an article from PlayGround Centre on the benefits of both indoors and outdoors time (https://www.playgroundcentre.com/indoor-vs-outdoor-play/?region=au) In this article it’s explained that indoor play can be a great source of creativity as it encourages children to work with the toys, arts & crafts and other things they have available to them. The idea that all children want to play with a cardboard box - rather than the toy inside. Creativity is a great way for children to learn and play.
We also know in places like England, it rains a lot! So in times where it is more feasible to be inside, creative indoor activities are a useful source of learning for children for example Lego, Puzzles and Board Games.

Finally, I also think indoor activities are good when children want to play by themselves. Outdoor activities have many benefits, however they do often rely on the idea that there is a group of children rather than an only child or a child who prefers to play alone sometimes.

I agree with the conclusion of the PlayGround Centre article - both indoor and outdoor play are ESSENTIAL for children to thrive!

TL;DR - Judith Grimes was essential for the show to continue and be exciting to watch!

The Walking Dead has been a show that has kept me, and I’m sure many others entertained during the COVID-19 Lockdowns. As a result, I am now acutely aware of the importance Judith Grimes! She was indeed, possibly doomed from the beginning, being born into a world full of death, deceit and destruction. However, I do believe that if we remove the ethics of introducing Judith, and focus merely on her impact on the show, she was essential. The introduction of Judith Grimes had an overall net-positive impact on the show.

I agree that Judith Grimes’ character had to face situations that felt often unnecessary. However, that is in relation to the world pre ‘Walkers’/‘Creepers’/‘Biters’! What the character of Judith Grimes does is allows the other characters, as well as the audience, to remember a world that used to exist. She keeps the impact of Shane, Lori and Rick alive. I feel that, on a macro-scale, the show portrayed a sense of normality by using the character of Judith, as it reminds us of the human nature of keeping life going, regardless of circumstance.

The show is often centred on human nature and moral choices. I think Judith, especially as a baby, allowed other characters to show their nurturing sides. For example she was well loved and looked after by Daryl and Carol. Judith allowed characters to show a new side to them, a caring side that has been almost eradicated in the world of ‘Walkers’/‘Creepers’/‘Biters’.

What I also believe Judith did is provide a sense of innocence and vulnerability in a world where these aspects of human nature are covered up. Most of the other characters are conditioned, in this difficult world, to cover up any insecurity or vulnerability, whilst Judith allows us an insight into the vulnerability of life as well as the vulnerability of the other characters.

Also, the introduction of Judith Grimes made Carl Grimes less self-centred and it gave him something to focus on! Judith Grimes, as a character, allowed the show to keep moving into new and exciting situations!

The debate over whether celebrities should voice their political opinions is a contested one. Social Media, such as Twitter and Facebook have allowed everybody the opportunity to raise their voice when it comes to politics, but why is it frustrating when celebrities get political?

One argument would be that celebrities should not be silenced purely because they live a lavish, and often extraordinary, lifestyle. They have visions for society just like the rest of us and should be able to voice it. An example of this would be actress Emma Watson becoming a UN ambassador for equal gender rights. To retract someone’s right to Freedom of Speech on the basis that they might have some influence on public opinion seems a little dystopian.

They also often shed light on subject matter that could pass the ‘average person’ by. David Attenborough has shed light on the environmental issues that challenge the world via his awe-inspiring documentaries (such as ‘Frozen Planet’ or ‘Life’), for example.

Celebrities are intertwined with political discourse as well as political change. For example the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan was a successful actor, as well as Arnold Schwarzenegger who was a two-term governor of California. The term ‘celebrity’ and ‘politician’ are more intertwined now than ever before and thus silencing their political opinions may be un-democratic.