In This Section">
Loading

AGT - Give Your Views!

Your chance to give your views!

Every response gets a green flag. The best response each month wins a prize!

October 2016 question

When she became Prime Minister, Theresa May said "BREXIT means BREXIT", but we are no clearer yet knowing what BREXIT absolutely means.

Some people think we should have what is called a 'hard BREXIT' where we leave the European Union totally and then renegotiate new partnerships in the future. Others think we should have a 'soft BREXIT' where we keep some aspects of being an EU member such as free trade and free movement of people.

What do you think?

The results:

Agree - 39%

Disagree - 61%

We should leave the European Union totally (hard Brexit) - agree or disagree?

Some reading that may help you decide:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32810887

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37507129

https://fullfact.org/europe/can-we-be-part-single-market-and-control-immigration/

Click the link below to leave your view. Remember that all students receive a green flag.

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/HCAGTOCT16

September 2016 question

Through medical advances, the ability of women to be able to have babies in their sixties is becoming more common. Recently the news has reported numerous stories of older parents having children.

Some believe it is the right of a woman to have a baby at any age, provided she is medically able to do so. Others think it is wrong to have babies when you are older because it is risky to the mother and does not consider the long term needs of the child.

What do you think? It is wrong for a woman over the age of sixty to have a baby - agree or disagree?

The result:

Agree - 57%

Disagree - 43%

Some of the best responses:

When a woman reaches the age of 51, the menopause may have already said that she's physically not meant to be pregnant. There are many risks involved in having a baby later in your life, like genetic mutations and even the possibility of the mother dying giving birth, along with the child. Not only are there many health risks, it's also selfish for a woman or a man to have a child over 60 for the child's emotional health. Their mum and dad can't do a lot of the things that younger parents do because they'll be too old. When the child becomes an adult, their parent may already be 75+ and will not be able to support them for as long as they need, and they may miss important events in a child's life like their wedding and graduation. If you need medical help because of your age, you would need to consider the child's long term needs and not just what you would want, because nature has already told you that you're too old to be having a baby. For these reasons, I do not think that you should have an baby over 60. I think that 45 is probably the oldest you should be.

Woman over the age of 60 are wiser and smarter when it comes to life than people that are younger. I think woman should be able to have children at any age they want because it's their life and we shouldn't have the right to dictate how they live their life. Unforseen circumstances may have meant that they couldn't have children until they got older or maybe it's the only chance they have to have a family of their own. No matter how old you are its still your right to have a child so why shouldn't they have children. People who are over 60 can instil more wisdom in their child than and young parent ever could.

 

April / may 2016 question

Donald Trump is currently favourite to be the Republican candidate for President of the United Sates - arguably the most powerful position in world politics.

Donald Trump's background is not in politics but as a successful businessman and TV personality. He holds controversial views on issues such as guns, abortion and immigration.

What do you think? Donald Trump would make a good US President. Agree or disagree?

The result:

Agree - 21%

Disagree - 79%

Some of the many good comments:

I disagree because he doesn't want to make USA better. He wants to move the people he doesn't like (Mexicans) and build walls. Throughout the process of trying to become president I haven't heard how he is going to improve USA's economy or how he is going to improve USA in any ways other than talking about moving people out of the country and talking and bitching about people. If you ask me, he does not have a clue about politics or how to make USA thrive, he is a childish man, who would become a dictator and ruin USA.

I think that he can make a good change even though he has some points that could offend or hurt other people but for the majority of the things he says is true and honest he is not afraid to speak his mind. Donald Trump has good experience with leading his own company meaning he is good with economy and is also a good leader. He can make a change some people disagree because they are scared with change and that's why I think he gets a negative view I personally think that he is a strong leader and is independent. This is what America needs right now! He wants to control Immigration in his country this is not a bad thing people are calling him racist because of this but if he personally thinks and many other people think that there is a problem with immigration and that he has heard this and said things that could stop it which is good he is trying to defend his country. He thinks that mass shootings are due to mental problems I partly agree with since I live in a country were no one can own a gun unless a license which makes me more biased to not having guns but if I do also agree that owning a gun is a good form of defence and is a very reasonable and safe idea

March 2016 question

In Australia, Queen Elizabeth is also their Head of State. The new Prime Minister is known to be against having a Monarch (King or Queen) and a debate is currently taking place as to whether, when the Queen dies, Australia should then have an elected President rather that a Monarch.

Some people believe that the Monarchy provide us with stability and are an important part of our national identity. Others believe it is unfair that someone should hold such a powerful and rich role just because they were born into it. Instead, we should elect someone who would be accountable to the people.

When the Queen dies, we should end the Monarchy and have an elected President instead - agree or disagree?

Agree - 29%

Disagree - 71%

Some of the comments:

A monarchy is what sets us apart from most countries, You can almost count the countries with Monarchies left on one hand. Having a president would destroy that difference. Royalists would be furious and their could (potentially) be riots about a sudden shift in no Monarchy. Overall, keeping the Royal Family would be good for the country because they produce tourist attractions and makes us British.

I disagree with the fact England should have a president because England's history has been shaped by our kings and queens. Australia are independent so they shouldn't have to keep the royal family. however we shouldn't follow them. the monarchy is key to England and it is what makes us stand out from the other countries. In addition, we still have a Prime Minister to run England which is open to others but the royal family is too important to get rid of and start a new England.

I think the Monarchy should continue when the Queen dies because of the history of the royal family and carrying on with traditions. I don't think the public should choose a state leader. I find politics really confusing and having to choose a state leader would be even more confusing. I think you would be more committed to do a good job if you were born into a life of duty eventually becoming King or Queen. You would be brought up knowing what to do and how to act, just like Prince William and Prince Harry. I also think the Monarchy is good for the UK because the Royal family are good ambassadors. The UK also makes millions of pounds due to tourists who visit us just for the Royal Family.

February 2016 question

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning, which is the reproduction of human cells and tissue. It does not refer to the natural conception and delivery of identical twins.

The results:

Human cloning should be banned

Agree - 35%

Disagree - 65%

Some of the best responses:

I agree because if a woman was told she couldn't have children, then she would be able to have a child even though the reason she cannot have children. I saw on the email that it had the idea of bringing back the dead. That is a really good idea because if someone died too young or it wasn't their fault, then they can continue to live their live through the clone. If a child was seen as 'unfriendable' as in they have no friends and they can't get any, then a clone would do well as a friend.

One of the main arguments against cloning is that it is unethical, as people believe clones will not be treated as people. Although using clones carry many benefits, a lot of people think this will be their only purpose, which makes it understandable why they think cloning is wrong. For this reason it think clones should exist, as it will improve our understanding of medicines, create more Donor organs and allow replication of helpful characteristics, however I don't believe clones should be separated from society as a whole, and should be given choice and freedom if they please.

Although having a somewhat honest purpose it only goes to show the vanity of human life. The production of cells should only be done for medical purposes in terms of skin growth and the like. The idea of us creating a human life in a test tube is worse than just being unethical it is over stepping out mark as humans. The creation of life artificially goes against what God wanted from us - or so my former Christian self would argue. I believe that human cloning should be used to produce cells but creating a human is too far. Single parents what a child? Then review your options with adoption agencies. The way I see it is, should an individual be giving the ability to create life in ways other than sexual reproduction then it would provide them with a sense of power in which they can dominate us and create a 'Hitler' scenario - so with this point provided, I agree

 

JANUARY 2016 QUESTION

Around half the population make a New Year's Resolution. The top three are to lose weight, get more organised and spend less money. Other popular ones include giving up smoking, taking more exercise and spending more time with friends or family.

Given that only half of people actually stick to their resolution for more than six months, making a New Year's Resolution is a waste of time.

The results:

Agree - 39%

Disagree - 61%

Some of the best responses:

Making a New Year resolution is only a waste of time if you don't achieve anything. If you follow and dedicate yourself to reaching your New Years Resolution and meet your target - you would have achieved something. Nothing is a waste of time if you benefit/gain something from it. I stuck to my new years resolution last year to lose weight and I achieved it and lost 2 stone so in my eyes it isn't a waste of time. Just because some people don't follow their New Years resolution, It doesn't mean that the whole idea is a waste of time if other people benefit from doing it. If the statement "Given that only half of people actually stick to their resolution for more than six months, making a New Year's Resolution is a waste of time" was the case then education is a waste of time because some people don't get any qualifications however this isn't the case since people benefit a lot from education and can achieve things like good jobs and have a good quality of life.

People usually give up on them within the first few months, because that's what they're used to. Not many people stick to them, at least all the people I've met have been like this. I've never been able to keep one myself, as well. people will most likely go back to what they're like. This may seem cynical to say, but people don't change, and if they do they've moist likely been pressured to.

December 2015 question

As 2015 draws to a close, once again the British Parliament are debating whether we should bomb Syria. This time we would be taking action again the so called 'Islamic State' who were responsible for the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and the blowing up of a Russian aeroplane.

David Cameron believes the time is right to do so because the so called 'Islamic State' are a direct threat to British citizens and their terrible treatment of the Syrian people is causing many of them to travel to Europe as migrants.

Other political leaders, such as Jeremy Corbyn, believe that bombing Syria will only make the problem worse.

What do you think? Should Britain join other counties and bomb the so called 'Islamic State' in Syria?

The results:

54% YES

46% NO

Best responses:

I disagree with this choice for not only one but two reasons, the first reason is because we think what they are doing is wrong, evil and sick, but by bombing there country we are being just as horrible as them. But my second reason is that if we show retaliation to what they are doing, they will see we are just merely fighting back and are just as bad as them but we should show them that we are the better people by not retaliating!

All of the countries that have joined in the attacks have faced violent acts of revenge against their people with the blowing up of the Russian plane and the shootings and bombings in Paris for example. By joining in we are making our country a prime target for acts of terrorism when we are at our most vulnerable with upcoming strikes in the emergency services and London and other cities packed full of Christmas shoppers. I.S. are already being bombed by the USA, Russia, France and more so do we really need to join in as well bearing in mind the potentially disastrous repercussions in the form terror attacks on this country?

The main problem with just bombing Syria is that it wont be enough to stop the attacks, and will most certainly cause more attacks. Sending an attack on Syria will only stop the Islamic State if the attack completely wipes them out, or if it leaves them with nothing left. However Islamic State is based around there beliefs, and they only attack because they think its the right thing to do. Even if you could take out every member of the Islamic State, other people could start to believe similar morals. I think bombing them would just make them more likely to attack, as it would give the impression that we want war, so they will fight back. The best thing we can do a the moment is maximising our defences, so we can be prepared for any attack, but I think our defences should be discrete, so the Islamic State wont feel threatened by us enough to attack again.

 

November 2015 question

In the majority of sports there is a separation between sexes, but lately there has been a growing number of female athletes requested that they would be allowed to play in men’s competitions.

Women and men should be allowed to compete together in sporting competitions.

Agree or disagree?

The results:

Agree - 43%

Disagree - 57%

Some of the best responses:

If men and women were to compete in sporting competitions together, this would make the competition unfair. Therefore giving an advantage to the male. In sports like tennis and badminton, men and women play as a team in mixed doubles, however the competition is still balanced due to the mixed team they are competing against. On the other hand, it would be unfair to put men and women up against each other in competition due to the imbalance of maximal performance. For example, it would be unfair as well as dangerous to have mixed rugby teams going up against each other. To conclude, I believe that men and women can work together in teams in non contact sports, as long as the competition is balanced out with the same genders on the other team.

I think girls & boys competing in athletic competitions shouldn't even be questioned, to achieve equality amongst both genders considering it is 2015 now, we should part with the stigma that females are any less capable athletically than a male. Society has taught females that they shouldn't take interest in athletic activities and that it's a "boy's thing" we have segregated boys and girls giving girls less challenging sports/activities to do in PE classes, this just reinforces this silly stereotype/stigma and I find it quite sexist. Girls should embrace their athletic and competitive skills, not be restricted simply because they have a uterus, if we don't do more to ditch these silly gender roles and stereotypes it is going to be much harder to progress as a society, girls shouldn't feel they're here to just be mothers and housewives, we're not in the 1950's anymore, males and females should be taught equally.

I disagree because it would be unfair to have men and women competing. This is because men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. This is not sexist but true, women may be at a disadvantage in some sports and men the same. Overall, it would be a bad idea to have women and men compete in the same races

 

October 2015 question

Social networking has taken the World by storm. Recently, Facebook claimed one billion users had used their site in one day alone. That is one in seven people on the planet.

Social networking allows people to share their lives, opinions and communicate in a way that nobody had thought possible a few years ago. However, some people find it takes away their privacy and gives people the opportunity to be nasty to others from behind the safety of a screen.

So would we all be happier if social networking did not exist?

Results:

Agree - 35%

Disagree - 65%

Some of the best comments:

Because social networking, such as Facebook, allows people to talk to friends and family. People can upload information they wish to share. Even though some people use this in the wrong way, cyber bullying, nasty messages (comments) or other things that can be offensive to people. I think this problem can be overcome if anyone who does receive a nasty message or is cyber bullied reports this immediately. Never the less people should be careful of what they post as it can be passed by other people. (personal photos or information- address, passwords, school, phone number etc.

I disagree because social media has been made for beneficial purposes, such as for communication and to find out what is going on in other peoples lives. this has made things easier for people, as they can keep up to date with anything they are interested in, keep up to date with the news and can contact people over long distances on a regular basis. Although there are disadvantages to this, such as the lack of privacy, and with cyber bullying and hacking constantly happening all the time, it may seem we are unsafe. However I believe many people still are safe and happy over social media and authorities are very good at making people aware of the dangers of using social media sights. I think because of this, social media is more of a benefit to us, rather than a danger or cost.

 

September 2015 Question

Over the Summer, BBC2 showed a series of programmes about the Chinese Education system and how it is different to that in England. If you missed the programmes, you can see a summary by clicking the link below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/taster/projects/chinese-school

One idea of the Chinese system is to have far less homework but to make the school day longer so the tasks are done in school instead. What do you think?

Question for September:

Stop homework and instead make the school day longer.

The results:

Agree - 58%
Disagree - 42%
 
Some of the best comments:
I don't think we should get homework unless its studying for an exam or if your behind on a subject and you need some extra work, but I also don't think that they should make the school day longer because its long enough as it is and would you add another class? or just make each lesson a few minuets longer. If you made the school day longer. I don't think it would make much difference if the school day was longer unless it was by a few hours but people would probably rather have homework than be at school lots longer than normal.
 
I'm sure that many students are aware of the common tenancy to slack of when told to work at home; I myself and no exception, however I make a strong attempt to complete the work when needed. It's come to my attention that as students we are expected to continue study for at least twelve hours a week, outside of timetables lessons – this is often difficult and would be executed better in school, however it would be a 'drain' and an inconvenience. In some ways I do feel that a longer school day would have some benefits to the students, but is also comes with disadvantages – and as many things, the disadvantages out way the advantages. If we're given more work to complete during school hours, there will be drop in the number of students who are missing deadlines etc. thus being a more productive environment. However, in contrast to that, it way promote a more agitated, draining school day. I'll refer to the 80 minute lessons that we, at Hugh Christie, used to have; the lessons would seem very long and as a result I, myself, would often loose concentration after one hour and my productivity would suffer for the remaining twenty minutes – perhaps even my behaviour. Furthermore, what would students that take on extra curricular activities do? Would they have to rearrange them to suit the school day? Yes, that's a possibility. We learn best in an environment that we're comfortable in, do we not? We have a very promising system currently in place at Hugh Christie that I am content in and am achieving in. A longer school day would prove to be more financially straining on the school itself but also more mentally draining on the students and staff members who are a part of it. To conclude, Less homework and longer hours at school would result in a less productive environment, in my opinion. Of course it's easy enough to 'slack off' at home in terms of completing homework, but there are sanctions in place for that. Personally I feel better learning at school, but studying at home – its all about preference, and this is mine.

 

June's question

Ten years ago, hunting foxes with dogs was made illegal by the Labour Government. However, the Conservative Party in opposition opposed the ban and now they have a majority Government are expected to introduce legislation to make it legal in some form again.

The arguments against fox hunting is that it is cruel. However, others argue that the fox population needs to be controlled and that hunting is one of the nest methods to do so. Also, hunting has a strong tradition going back many hundreds of years in rural communities and it is unfair to stop those people who wish to engage in the sport to do so.

What do you think? Should hunting foxes with dogs be made legal again??

The result:

Yes  - 50%

No - 50%

Some of the responses:

I think that hunting foxes should be made legal again because it is a very social sport. People from local areas come and meet up with each other and enjoy them selves, which other wise they may not. There are a lot of people who love to ride there horses alone the countryside and jump jumps they ordinarily wouldn't be able to. Also hunting with hounds also helps maintain the farm by spreading them out and keep the population of foxes down. So this is why I think fox hunting should be legalised.

Hunting foxes with dogs shouldn't be made legal again, because hunting is already crucial enough and hunting them with dogs would be even more horrible. However, the dogs have hunting instinct in them, but I don't think it would be appropriate for people to train them that hunting is appropriate and it could lead to them attacking people, not just animals. I think hunting is a danger to people and animals. Hunting is like murder, even though for some people hunting may be a hobby, and it's their life choice and their decision and their right to chose what they want to do, if it's legal. Hunting can lead to a specific population of species dying out and you may never know how much of those species are left there. However, hunting can help to get rid of predators who are causing danger to humans and other animals. Killing specific species can also mean that you're taking away specific animals' food, even though it's beneficial for you to eat those animals that have been hunted.

Fox hunting is a cruel and inhumane way to kill an animal. Meaning that the fox should not be chased to be teared apart under no choice. I believe that things happen for a reason and killing any animal in any sort of way is against the rights of that animal. Also, using dogs to chase the animal is unfair, as they have to run through thorn bushes and barbed wire, without a choice. Even though it is a traditional sport, I think Fox Hunting should not be classed as a sport. If anything I think you should just shoot the animal, as long as you have a reason, as it doesn't suffer. However, fox hunting is murder and should not be legalized. Fox hunting is animal abuse and should have consequences just like any other case of animal abuse. No one would agree to chasing a dog, or a cat to have the aim of tearing it apart when it is caught, so why do it to foxes? It's a vicious sport and should not be legalized. It is classed a 'crime' when you abuse an animal, so why is Fox Hunting classed as a 'sport'?

April / may's question

All nations have a right to have nuclear weapons - agree or disagree?

The result:

Agree - 50%

Disagree - 50%

Some of the best comments:

I agree because everyone has a right to defend themselves. Furthermore, nuclear weapons are used more as threats and not actually attacks. However, as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings have shown they are a formidable weapons if they were to be used. Although I agree to countries being allowed to have nuclear weapons, I believe they should only be used in severe and desperate circumstances which will affect the world and not just the countries involved in the war.

I think that all nations have a right to have a nuclear weapon if everyone in the nation wants to have the weapon because if everyone wants a nuclear weapon then just let them have one so that then they have a way of fighting back if they get attacked with a nuclear weapon but if everyone would just give up with nuclear weapons and destroys all of them then everyone can live because if one of the nuclear weapons get fired then everyone is going to get involved and then there will be no creatures left on earth.

I agree that all nations should have their own nuclear weapons, but not too much because if each country liked had one nuclear weapon, another nation would not declare a war (unless they are stupid or have a serious problem with liking wars) because if we did have another world war all the nations would be pressing the fire button for the launch of their nuclear weapons which could end the world. so only the nation should have one nuclear weapon

 

 

March's question

University Education should be free - agree or disagree?

The result:

Agree - 83%

Disagree - 17%

Some of the best comments from students:

I personally feel that university should be free as everyone is entitled to their own education and the same opportunities to everyone else. This is a free country that accepts everyone for who they are, and everyone is equal to opportunities. So why should it be different for university? People who have the money can go to university, but the people who haven't got the money struggle with going to university and sometimes have to take a different route to their chosen career. On the other hand, People who want to go to university will be higher trained in different and more intellectual careers and qualifications. So by having to pay for the education will automatically make all the people who want and need each qualification work harder to get the money and work even harder to get the grades as they have to pay so much. In addition I feel that the fees of university are a ridiculous amount as the age of most of the students are still very young, meaning it is hard to get a good pay at work. Also you have to think about the amount of work you will be doing at university, can the students put up with the pressure of a job on top of wanting to get the grades and the amount of work they have to do. I agree and disagree, I personally feel there should be a box to pick if you agree with both paying and not paying for university.

I agree with this statement because families that do not have as much money as others may not be able to afford to send their children to university. This is not fair on the children, because the career path they are headed for may require university courses or studies, which would affect their career, as they will not have gone to university because their parents couldn't afford it. This is highly unfair, because families that can afford it know that their children will definitely go to university, so that they are set for a good career, which ultimately affects the start of their adult life.

Because it is part of children to do well at school and university and grow up to have a good job also if you come from a poor background and your family do not have a lot of money and you want to earn money to supply family with things it would be unfair just because you didn't have the money in the first place. If you want a job when your grown up so you can earn money how are you going to do it if u don't have enough money then you will never have enough money to go out with family and friends.

February's Question

On Thursday 7th May 2015, the United Kingdom voters will elect a new government. This election is expected to be the closest for a generation. If you could vote, who would you be supporting?

The result:

Conservative - 18%

Labour - 18%

Liberal Democrat - 7%

UKIP - 25%

Greens - 0%

None of the above - 32%

Conservative? https://www.conservatives.com/

Labour? http://www.labour.org.uk/content/home

Liberal Democrat? http://www.libdems.org.uk/

UKIP? http://www.ukip.org/index

Greens? http://www.greenparty.org.uk/

None of the above?

Click here to leave your view. It will be confidential like in the election.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HCAGTFEB15

January's question

Is it sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech?

The freedom of speech is stated in the United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948:Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

However, sometimes governments think it is right to restrict the freedom of speech. For many years, leaders of Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland were banned from speaking on the media in fear that they were promoting terrorism. Similar restrictions are also currently in place to prevent people from promoting extremist views. However, with the internet, is it even possible for government to control freedom of speech even if they wished?

Do you agree or disagree that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech??

Click here to leave your view:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HCviewJan15

Further information:

http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/philosophy/house-believes-it-sometimes-right-government-restrict-freedom-speech

The results:

Agree - 25%

Disagree - 75%

Some of the best comments:

Over the years, there have been many attacks to different cultures, races and countries. I believe that this is partly due to the freedom of speech, so with a limited amount, I feel like it could easily cut down. Most attacks, I feel are because some people have said things that have offended other groups, cultures or races. Also the freedom of speech is commonly misunderstood and some people believe it promotes terrorism because often with terrorist attacks come with a message maybe saying that there will be more, or why they have done it - from revenge to honour. So with limited freedom of speech I feel like it stops any accusations of promotion of terrorism.

I believe that the government should not restrict the freedom of speech. I believe this because if they were to restrict it the people would not be able to say what they think is right. Without the view of the public then the government wouldn't know what was right for us and our country. The public opinion is very important to our country because the government doesn't know what we would like and it would be likely for him to get it wrong when discussing an debate.

I personally believe that everyone is entitled to their own right to the freedom of speech, it is one of the few things in life that are free and it is one of our few rights as humans. Everyone has different point of views and ideas and they should all be taken in and respected even if you strongly disagree with the point that might be being made. For example a pupil should have the same right to speak as a teacher as they should be classed as the same not a teacher having more power just because they are older and wiser. But each the pupil and teacher should respect each other and each others opinion even if one of them are incorrect. Personally I find some teachers should have a little more respect for students as yes we may be younger but we still do have the right to speak how we feel about a situation or topic, but this is the same for students. Many teachers deserve a lot more respect than they get, as some students talk to teachers like dirt on their shoe. Teachers are not there to make our lives a living hell they are there to guide us the best way to a bright future. It is our will to learn and make the most out of the help we get. I think sometimes many people forget that everyone has the right to be able to speak and everyone has completely different opinions and they ALL should be respected.

DECEMBER'S QUESTION

"Attempts to extend radically the human lifespan should be welcomed not feared"

Results

Yes - 53%

No - 47%

Some of the responses:

If the human life span was to be radically extended it would cause more problems then solve. Not only would there be a shortage in food due to many more people needing to feed and the food supply not being able to keep up leading to many people starving. There would also be a more money needing to be spent on the elderly (who would have normally died) who need more expensive medical help, therefore taxes would increase and many companies would be bankrupt, this leading to many people losing jobs. The cost of housing would also increase because less people are dying and freeing their houses. The resources such as fuel would also decrease due to many more people using them. The crime would increase due to the many who would lose their jobs and need the money or wealth that crime provides to buy the food that would increase in price due to the shortage. There would also have a change in society such as the rich will become richer and more corrupted while the middleclass and poor will become poorer. this will lead to many rebellions and maybe even war.Therefore if the life expectancy were to increase it would cause many more less favourable deaths, such as starving; a maybe the extinction of the human race.

I believe that the money available for medical research should be spent on finding cures for illnesses, such as the many types of cancers and heart disease, that cause the deaths of many people whose lives are cut short. I believe that it is more important to give everyone the chance to have an active long life, rather than just extending life for the sake of it without having any enjoyment of living.

I believe that attempts to expand the average human life span would have catastrophic affects on the world. My reasoning behind this is the fact that if everyone were to live until 150 then there would be even more mouths to feed, more carers to be paid and more people who will live on the streets. The world already has a huge strain on it's shoulders as developed countries try to help place like Africa and other poorer countries. Adding to the human life span would further increase the world hunger issues we have today. In addition to this, if people were to live longer then more houses and flats would need to be built. When the room runs out, people will be forced to sleep on the streets and live without a real home. This will further increase the pressure on many countries and although people will live longer and live to see new innovations in technology it just would not be viable.

November's question

Remembrance day on the 11th November this year has extra significance because it is the 100th anniversary of the start of World War One. This was supposed to be the war that would end all wars; but 100 years on we are still involved in conflicts around the world.

Is going to war ever right? What do you think?

Results

YES - 32%

NO - 68%

Some of the comments:

Yes I think this because if something is being hurt or damaged like people or a certain object (like twin towers) this is allowed. As you feel angry against the people who did this to your citizens and buildings that cost damage to repair.

I do not believe war has ever been right! This is because far too many soldiers died during the wars, just for a little extra land! I think war is pathetic as it kills far to many men, endangers lives and causes countries to clash!

I think that war should only ever be used as a last result, if someone is putting you under mass threat it is possibly the only option. Morally, I think it is wrong and that there are better ways to resolve and overcome issues, avoiding collateral damage and disrupting the lives of people not directly involved. I think the decision to go to war is one that should come as a result of long term thought and lack of further alternatives. War can affect many innocent people, but sometimes it can be prevented by using pre-emptive strike which I therefore also think can be a just cause under certain circumstances. I don't think anybody could have a legitimate reason to start wars and I think it is only necessary and justifiable when it is to meet a mass threat.

In my opinion, I believe that war can never be justified however, this opinion all depends on who you and whether it is you who is going to war. For example, it is debatable that war is right due to the collateral damage it causes to innocent people and how it can destroy religions. It causes huge damage and other solutions could be used instead. Talking is an example of an idea that can avoid war as I believe that war should be left for a last resort. This is because of the destruction it causes. On the other hand, if you were someone such as Hitler then you could argue that you are taking things to war to help your country and do what is best, as I said before, it all depends on who you as to what you believe and whether or not it is morally right. It is arguable that modern life today has changed people's perception on war due to the fact that video games have been created. Therefore, young children or teenagers could believe war is right when they may not know the reality of it. Overall, I believe war can never be right but my views may change in the future.

The purpose of Britain’s armed forces is to protect British interests at home and abroad - and nothing else. During the recent Iraq War, which I opposed, there were no strategic or commercial interests to defend nor were British citizens threatened. The same applies to the current war in Afghanistan. This war, according to some estimates, may continue for another 30 years, producing a death toll of British servicemen that will far exceed the worst years of the troubles in Northern Ireland. It is because we have no interests to defend in Afghanistan and I demand an immediate withdrawal of our troops from that theatre. In addition, I firmly oppose the threatened war against Iran. That nation also presents no credible threat to Britain, and we are deeply suspicious of allegations of “weapons of mass destruction” emanating from the same neo-con clique who lied about Iraq’s alleged atom bomb and WMDs.

I believe that war can never be fully justified as it is mainly taken out of revenge and to prove a point. Furthermore, it can also be done in self defence and it is arguable whether it is right to take a life for a life and the effects that war will have on innocent people. War should never be something that is used to get out of a problem and it certainly won't solve a problem; due to the fact that in the future it could provide fuel for another war to be caused to get revenge. War can also go against many people's religions and I cannot think of any reason why it can be justified due to the idea of the damage it causes, deaths, injuries and destruction to morale and countries. Others may argue that war can be justified as it can boost morale if you win, help you in the future and benefit development but in my opinion I do not agree with this. It depends on who you are as to what you may think due to religion, past experiences and views on others.

 

 

October's results

Earlier this year the UK Independence Party (UKIP) won the European elections in the UK. They believe that our best interests would be served by leaving the European Union. The UK has been a member of the European Union since 1974 and all the other main political parties believe we should remain members. What do you think?

 "The UK should withdraw from the European Union"

Agree - 25%

Disagree - 75%

Some of the comments posted:

I believe that the United Kingdom should not withdraw from the European Union because some companies like logistics rely on the UK remaining in the EU in order to make it cost effective. If they left it would cost more to import and export goods via road whereas now it is a lot cheaper. Even though the costs are high and we are bailing money to other countries like Greece we will have to accept that sometimes countries in the EU are going to need help from other countries.

We have to remember that politically Great Britain is completely stable. We actually don't need an help from European union. I think that staying completely in the European union should give more problems as it can resolve. Great Britain actually don't have any political problem, and we should make a decision: To disagree completely, following the monetary unit, the Euro, or agree, being a independent country, as we should do to have a complete balance on ourselves.

The idea of withdrawing from the European is an interesting prospect, however we do have very strong trade links with Europe. Also, if we did withdrawn I don't know how we would cope on our own as we don't have all the luxuries that the Mediterranean to (e.g. fruits and silk). Furthermore, I think Nigel Forage may have stated this because he wanted to get a major seat in the government. As we are one of the first five countries to start the European Union if we left then many may follow suite, forming the collapse of the European Union. My last point is that we would be a closer neighbour in terms of trading with North America, and the older generations my dislike this.

 

September's results....

Testing on animals is never justified.

Agree?

Disagree?

Why?

  PERCENT
AGREE 28%
DISAGREE 72%

Some of the best comments posted:

Testing on animals to help the human race is justified. I believe this because if a world wide disease was infecting humans left and right and scientists needed to create a vaccine quick then they can't just test on humans straight away because that could kill the test subjects and the lives of many more in time. However, if you were bringing an animal pain for no reason or want to see how it reacts then I believe that is not quite right. Hundreds of animal lives could help save millions of human lives but if you are killing animals just to see their reactions to things then that is disgraceful. To conclude this, I believe that animal sacrifices must be made to save thousands and millions of people, however the thought of animal experimentation is still unpleasant and in some cases it is highly unjustified. 

I disagree with animal testing because they own this planet just as much as we do. Most (if not all) animals we test on have actually been here longer than humans anyway! Also, some drugs we test on animals have different affects on us. For instance, Warfarin was tested on rats in the 1980s but proved fatal to them. Later on, it was proven that it is actually useful to us as it thins the blood so that damaged hearts can circulate the blood properly. I believe the solution to animal testing is to use humans who want to be tested on instead than poor malnourished animals.

Even though people shouldn't test on animals, it's an important part of our medical research and without testing on animals we wouldn't know if they are safe for humans. It's not completely accurate, but animals have a shorter life span than humans. Therefore, I think sometimes it can be justified for important medicines.

Many people agree with animal testing and think it is fine but on the other hand many disagree and think it is cruel.  Personally I disagree with animal testing because even if it is to produce medicine, it is harming animals unfairly. It doesn't matter what animal is going through the pain whether it is a rat or even a monkey, I feel ashamed to live in a world that puts helpless and innocent animals through various testings.

I believe that animal testing can never fully be justified because we are related to monkeys, therefore, testing on the animal can surely not be right as it is almost like testing on ourselves. Furthermore, if things do not go well and the animal ends up with dying then this too is not fair as if it was a human we would be horrified by this. The animals used for testing could also be useful in the future. This is because we are rapidly running out of resources and in the distant future if we run out of food then animals such as rabbits may be our last resort. However, if they have all been killed or injured then this may limit our supplies. By doing the testing you could also end up with releasing diseases in animals if the disease spreads therefore, it could also be a risky process. What I specifically mean by this is that if the animal has a cell mutation due to the product being tested that then becomes infectious both humans and mammals could collect this without being aware.     Some people also believe that testing on animals can be cruel and in my opinion if the product being tested is for make-up then I think that this is not necessary as make-up is not essential. I believe that if the testing is done on animals for finding a cure for something such as cancer then maybe it can be justified.    However, on the other-hand by having the animals under constant supervision could give us information that could be very valuable if the animal has to be put into captivity in the future. Furthermore, if the testing is to find a cure for the animal then this could also be another justifying reason. Animals have been able to create cures for things such as anaesthetics due to the testing done.  To conclude, there is almost no right or wrong answer to this question as there are both positives and negatives of doing the testing on animals. However, I clicked the "agree box" because in my own opinion I still do not believe that it is right to test on animals despite the advantages it may give us.

Animal testing isn't as bad as it seem only when cruel people treat them like they are worth nothing have 50 rodents  in a small cage getting killed by crushed up at the side that when animal testing gets bad. Testing certain product on animals is okay but make sure they recover after doing so it is cruel constantly testing hair product and creams on animals why don't we test them on humans instead, people who have been put in prison or committed a murder such as a death sentence what American have and the electric chair. British let people get away with this 25 year for taking someone life sounds fair. I disagree on animal testing as it is unfair what have the animals done to us they was on the planet way before us and we are taking the world away from them we came into the world 500 thousands years or a little more. and we are killing innocent animal for hair product. so no I do not agree on animals testing as the condition they are keep in are truly outrageous and nothing is settle the government does nothing to stop this.  

View Image