The Debater – Spring 2021 by godolphinandlatymer

During the late 2000s, society witnessed the emergence of the cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, which changed how we all viewed the future of evolving technologies. A cryptocurrency refers to a digital form of currency that can operate independently from the government of a country. This new technolo y uses cryptography to secure and transmit data values during transactions. The founders decided to only generate a limited amount of ‘coins’ and that they would all possess a unique number for this ‘blockchain technolo y’ to guarantee authenticity. Following the creation of Bitcoin, many other cryptocurrencies started to emerge, which raised the question as to whether society will become reliant upon these digital currencies. Arguing for the proposition, this House believes that in the future, society will become increasingly dependent on cryptocurrencies, as they o er a more e cient way of making nancial transactions. The main points which the proposition will bring forth today are, rstly, how the use of cryptocurrencies promotes user autonomy, secondly, how it can help stabilise the economy of a country, and thirdly how transactions are transparent and available to all. Firstly, all cryptocurrencies are decentralised currencies, which means that transactions can simply occur between two bodies without the need for an intermediary, such as a bank. User autonomy is promoted, as people do not need to consult with an intermediary authority when making certain transactions, or even pay di erent types of banking fees.

This would bene t general society as transaction costs would be reduced or even eliminated; thus allowing people to have more agency and to exchange goods and services more easily, e ciently, and at a cheaper price.

Secondly, the proposition argues that we should endeavour to use cryptocurrencies as much as possible as they can help weaker economies. For example, if a country starts to enter a recession, the value of its currency will start to decrease, losing purchasing power. This places the nation in a weak international position as it becomes more expensive to trade with other nations. However, if cryptocurrencies are used, then the value of the currency does not depend on the state of the national economy but international demand; hence, they would be able to maintain economic stability. Finally, at the inception of the creation of cryptocurrencies, the founders decided to create a public ledger that could keep track of all the transactions between anonymous participants. This ensures transparency and safety, as it is a database system that stores information, which makes cryptocurrencies a secure modern technolo y. However, arguing for the opposition, this House believes

ffi

THB that we can rely on cryptocurrencies in the future - Cecilia Colao

The rst issue which arises is the volatility of the value of Bitcoin. The value of Bitcoin is dependent on its demand; hence, if demand is constantly uctuating it makes it a di cult means of exchange. Users in society would be undertaking huge nancial risks if they were to invest in cryptocurrencies, as transactions are non-reversible, so there is no guarantee that they would be able to earn their money back once the value has changed. If the demand for Bitcoin were to decrease, investors would start to lose con dence and withdraw their money, causing the value to crash. This could lead to individuals losing all of their savings in an instant. In 2011, the value of Bitcoin changed from $1 in April to $32 in June to $2 in November. This showcases how cryptocurrencies can simply not be trusted, as their value uctuates excessively and too frequently; hence, making it an unsuitable option for the future. Secondly, whilst the proposition has argued that public ledgers have been created, which would track transactions between various individuals, personal information remains hidden and inaccessible to everyone. This means that cryptocurrencies can be used for illegal or illicit activities, as criminals will know that they will be unable to track them. As the opposition, we believe that, because we know that technolo y is going to become an

increasingly integral part of our society, we should try and limit how it can cause detrimental e ects upon humanity. By relying on cryptocurrencies, we are allowing those who are violating the law, and who should be prosecuted, to use this platform to fund their illegal activities in a manner that exempts them from facing any repercussions.

Finally, in rebuttal to the proposition’s argument regarding the bene ts of a decentralised currency, many issues can arise from not having a governing authority involved in transactions. Throughout the 21st century, we have seen many new ways of hacking di erent types of technologies and, whilst Bitcoin is extremely secure, we do not have the assurance that it will never be hacked. If a cryptocurrency is hacked, then there is no way of reclaiming the lost money due to there being no governing body, so its users will have lost their savings. This proves how cryptocurrency is unreliable, and that we cannot place our faith in a system that does not guarantee nancial protections. Both the proposition and the opposition present logical reasons as to why the nature of cryptocurrencies could be bene cial or detrimental to society in the future. However, it can be argued that whilst the nature of these cryptocurrencies is still evolving, virtual currencies will be incredibly useful due to their practicalities and e ciency, especially as technolo y becomes an ever more fundamental component of our society.

ffi

4 ff

that the cryptocurrencies pose a threat to society, and that we cannot rely on them. The main points which will be presented today are, rstly, how the value of cryptocurrencies is volatile, secondly, how personal information remains hidden and can aid unlawful behaviour, and thirdly, how a decentralised currency without a governing body creates instability.

When, if ever, should one be criminally liable for infecting another person with a disease? - Dilia Thovez This issue is historically relevant, particularly with relation to the sexual transmission of diseases, including HI . It is also a legal question that has recently become increasingly important, throughout the coronavirus pandemic. In order to discuss it, three main questions need to be addressed and evaluated, as well as the scenarios they disclose. Firstly, should someone be held criminally liable if they knowingly and intentionally infect someone? Secondly, should they be liable if they knowingly but unintentionally infect someone? Thirdly, should they be criminally liable if they transmit a disease recklessly, and if so, does this still apply even if they were not medically diagnosed? The rst hypothetical situation that must be addressed is one in which an individual knows they are infected with a contagious disease and intentionally infects another person. Arguably, it certainly does warrant criminal prosecution because a defendant knowingly, and deliberately, intended to in ict bodily harm by infecting another person. From an ethical standpoint, this is clearly immoral behaviour. Furthermore, such a case would ful l the fundamental legal principles of mens rea and actus reus. Therefore, it follows that, from a legal perspective, this would constitute criminal behaviour.

From this scenario stems the second, in which an individual knew they were carrying a contagious virus and pursued the risk of infecting someone else anyway, but did so without intending to infect. Notably, “there is a fundamental di erence between deliberate harming and the deliberate taking of risks. However, it can be argued that they both constitute criminal behaviour, although to varying degrees of severity. If an individual is aware of being a genuine threat to the health of another person and acts in a way that reasonably risks harm, they are not only being extremely irresponsible but acting immorally; therefore, they should be criminally liable for doing so. In relation to the second scenario, the complex issue of consent must also come to the fore of this discussio . Take a hypothetical situation in which someone knows that another individual is contagious and nevertheless engages in direct contact with the infected person, which subsequently causes them to also become infected. One might argue that it is possible to consent to the risk of exposure and therefore to bodily har . Whilst this relates to a completely di erent kind of legal philosophy, it can be contended that people cannot consent to being infected. Therefore, one would be criminally liable in this case too. This reinforces the crucial underpinning principle of the importance of an individual’s knowledge of their own infection. It can insofar be argued that the knowledge of being infected is the fundamental component of criminal liability for infecting someone else. However, the third question, regarding reckless behaviour, also needs to be

analysed thoroughly. Imagine an individual who is asymptomatic, yet positive and they come into direct contact with people, infecting others in doing so. This individual was unaware of having coronavirus and so, any infection of other parties was unintentional. Furthermore, due to their lack of symptoms, they could not have reasonably been expected to know that they carried the disease. Therefore, the lack of awareness results in such a case not allowing for criminal liability. However, if someone reasonably ought to have known that they did have a serious disease, failure to avoid contact with others would qualify as reckless behaviour. In addition to the evaluation of the three focal questions, one must narrow the scope of situations in which it is acceptable to hold an individual criminally liable for infecting others. Hence, there must also be a distinction between diseases. A law with regards to the sexual transmission of infectio , particularly HIV, is acceptable because this is a permanent and potentially fatal disease. Due to the nature of the virus and its fatality rate, it would follow for such a stance to extend also to Covid-19. However, it would be ridiculous to encompass much milder diseases. Therefore, when analysing criminal liability, there should also be another consideration of the disease itself and the risk it poses to health. What would be the case if an individual knows they have a viral cold and they nevertheless go into school, a workplace or indeed any public area? Common sense would suggest that they are not criminally liable because, by

and large, it is a harmless, common virus and therefore it is inconceivable to perceive this as a crime. By contrast, the spreading of a more harmful infection seems more illegal and immoral. Therefore, although not everyone su ers severely and symptoms are generally not ubiquitous, one should only be criminally liable in cases of severe diseases. In relation to the nature of the disease, it is worth considering whether the severity of an ensuing infection is important in analysing culpability. It might be argued that, if someone infects another individual, who happens to only su er mildly, or not at all, they are not criminally liable. This, therefore, brings to light the question of whether it is justi able to adopt an attitude that excuses potentially criminal misconduct on the grounds of the lack, or total absence, of damage to a person. Arguably, if someone knowingly infects someone else, then, irrespective of their intentions, they are criminally liable. Overall, the severity of the outcome of their actions is irrelevant in assessing guilt and criminal liability. However, if one were to be subject to criminal prosecution for doing so, this should be a fundamental consideration in sentencin . In conclusion, arguably, one can be criminally liable for infecting another person with a disease. Fundamentally, the possibility of criminal liability is contingent on whether or not someone knew that they were contagious and risked infection anyway, regardless of their intentions. Moreover, it is clear that one should not be criminally liable for infecting someone with a particularly mild disease and that any endeavour to do so would be inconceivable. Therefore, this should apply only to cases involving more serious diseases.

Addiction is de ned as not having control over doing, taking or using something, to the point where it could be harmful to you. Drug addiction is a condition which thousands each year must conceal in our country, due to fears of being charged or ned. In fact, in the UK in 2019, there were over 49,000 drug-related cases in court which is a staggeringly large gure. Arguing for the proposition, this house believes illegal drug use must be treated as a mental health issue, which according to the NHS it is, instead of it being treated as a criminal o ence. The three key reasons why this motion is crucial, are, rstly to remove the stigma around addiction and allow it to be treated like the disease that it is, secondly to help the justice and legal system and thirdly as it will also create a more inclusive and understanding society. As previously stated, addiction is a disease, that when left untreated ruins an individual's life. By treating drug use as a criminal o ence, many conceal their addiction, leaving them su ering in silence with nobody to turn to. By changing the way we deal with drug use, we create a more inclusive society for those su ering to get help and eventually reintegrate back into society. Being labelled a ‘user’ or an ‘addict’ by society has very negative connotations and many are looked down on due to their condition. This motion helps society to see these people as victims and allows them to seek help through their struggles. It is important to remember that nobody starts taking drugs aiming to end up a desperate and helpless user. Addiction is a genetic disease that claims too many lives each year and with

this motion, we seek to end criminal implications and give all these individuals a chance to recover, rehabilitate and move forward with their lives. Secondly, this motion would take great pressure o the police force and the justice system in general. Stop and searches are a common part of police jobs and whilst the proposition is not arguing they are entirely useless, we argue that this motion would allow police forces to focus on the more crucial parts of crime in their area. This motion aims to decrease penalties for drug use and replace them with actual help, whether this is in the form of mandated therapy, rehabilitation or a session with a GP. With all the issues in the current legal and prison system, such as underfunding and prison overcrowding, we would also see this being bene cial for prisons across the UK and we as a proposition believe this would lead to a better functioning society in general. Finally, we believe this motion would create a more understanding society as drug use would not limit the rest of a person’s life. When a young person starts using drugs they can quickly get caught in the juvenile excitement experimentation which in many cases, can quickly become deadly. Not only can these drug misuses be fatal, but can also lead to criminal records, which consequently ruin the entire future of a young person. When

7 ff

THB illegal drug use should be treated as a mental health issue rather than a criminal o ence - Daisy Studd

an employer sees ‘criminal record’ they are less likely to employ that individual. In the eyes of society, supplying drugs and taking drugs are almost equally bad, when in the eyes of the proposition this is not the case. We believe this motion protects the most vulnerable by aiding them and then allowing them to reintegrate into society. If this motion was enforced, the general public would also start to see drug users di erently, allowing them the bene t of the doubt and thus creating a more open and welcoming society.

On the other hand, side opposition believes that while addiction is a detrimental disease, this motion would also bring about many issues that must be considered. Side opposition brings forward two main cases today, rst, we believe the criminal repercussions of drug use can be used as a deterrent and that not all drug use links to mental health issues. A huge repercussion of using drugs is that you may face legal troubles. As side opposition, we believe this is a key deterrent in drug use for many people. By having such serious consequences, many young people turn away from these substances due to fears of jeopardising their future. The legal system can, in this way, be seen as a preventative measure in drug use for young people. We believe that if this motion were to stand, many young people would be more attracted to the idea of

consuming drugs as the consequences would be much less severe. We believe this motion would entice many more to try di erent substances as the initial fear of conviction would be removed. We believe drug-related crime is incredibly important to handle and the nature of drug culture is too detrimental on a wide scale to be degraded by this motion. We believe that on the whole, the criminal charges that come with illegal drug use are completely fair and we believe they stop many from using drugs, due to the legal e ects they may have on their future life. Secondly, while the opposition does not neglect that sometimes drug misuse is linked to mental health problems, we believe it is unwise to categorise all illegal drug uses as a mental health problems. We believe that drug use is ingrained in youth culture, from music to general social life, alcohol and drugs are usually found at the heart of these atmospheres and many consume them for the enjoyment and the thrill they can provide. Side opposition holds the belief that not all illegal drug cases should be treated as mental health issues, as not all of them are. Ultimately, side proposition won this case as the issues of stigma around addiction and mental health have been neglected for too long. The key stakeholders a ected by this motion, are those using drugs who would bene t from the help supplied through this motion, the police force and legal system who would be able to dedicate their time to more serious criminal cases and the general public who would be further educated on the issues of drug use and be more open and understanding about the struggles of substance abuse and addiction.

THW ban the practice of human challenge trials - Nadia Baghai As you may have seen recently, the COVID Challenge trial has been given the green light in the UK. Why is this so important you may ask? This is the rst trial of its kind to be allowed anywhere in the world. It refers to the practice of purposefully infecting a group of volunteers with the virus. In the past, it has been used for viruses like malaria, typhoid and cholera but today we are using it to study COVID 19. It is important to weigh up new scienti c developments, especially when humans are involved, and due to the massive impact of the pandemic on all of our lives.

The initial point focuses on the continuously developing evidence that COVID a ects di erent individuals in unique ways. While the majority of su erers endure a cough, fever and loss of taste and smell, many are subjected to more serious symptoms, and over two and a half million have died from it. Why is this worrying? These volunteers e ectively have no idea what they are signing up to due to the random nature of those a ected by severe cases, and while the majority of those who die are in fact older, younger people have sadly lost their lives to this deadly virus. Therefore, it is simply unethical to subject individuals to a trial with no concrete evidence on whether they may su er severe pain, complications, or worse, death. No one should have to risk their life for a scienti c trial.

Let’s focus on the proposition’s side of the motion. Due to the con rmed unreliability of the virus in terms of symptoms, strains and unique reaction - the aws of this trial outweigh the bene ts. There is a strong suggestion that the data collected in this trial could be meaningless. Today, I will be outlining three main points: there is absolutely no way that we can provide completely informed consent - these volunteers essentially have no idea what they are signing up to; there is the issue of non-generalisability to high-risk populations; and lastly, the problem of the continuously changing nature of COVID.

Secondly, a key part of this trial is its subjects - those who are young and healthy with the exclusion of older adults and people with comorbidities. However, this is counterproductive as the highrisk population is the key group for which we are obtaining this research for! Therefore, how e cient is it going to be to infect the opposite of the key group? How will we be able to determine how transferable the results will be, and if this is not covered, could we be putting many at risk for no reason? Finally, as we know there have been many di erent strains of COVID as the virus has been

ffi

constantly mutating, things have become a little more complicated. While most of the strains don’t a ect people with di erent levels of severity, they do seem to act di erently, which could prove to be di cult when gaining results from trials. Will the results be applicable for all strains? Will the vaccine work on these strains? These questions are important considerations when putting people's lives at risk. Ultimately, COVID is a tricky virus and we have not yet got enough evidence to start these challenge trials due to the large number of complications and the risk of death. On the other hand, however, the opposition would stress the potential bene ts that this COVID Challenge trial can provide. Initially, in rebuttal to a point in the propositions claim, challenge trials can and should always be followed by immunebridging studies, to make the research transferable to high-risk populations. This allows scientists to understand whether the research of vaccine e ects in younger subjects’ correlates towards the older generations. Therefore, the point that highlights the ‘inability to transfer results,’ is invalid. Essentially, this trial can o er unique insights into how the virus works while giving us an ability to rank vaccines - nding the ones which o er the most promising chance of preventing the

infection of COVID. These trials can show us which vaccines are more e ective so we know which ones to focus on getting through the population; under closer inspection, it can show us how the virus actually develops and how transmittable it is. These were questions we weren't able to answer previously, but now we can do so in a controlled manner. Once we can gain data like this, we will be able to understand the nature of the virus and how to eliminate it. These trials can act as a catalyst in the process of solving the issue of COVID. Therefore, as the opposition, it should be understood that the clear ability of these trials to provide widespread, possibly worldwide bene ts, is promising one; and one must also acknowledge the scienti c support these trials have to ensure that they occur in a safe and controlled manner. Overall, upon re ection, we will all have our personal views on the ethics and e cacy of such trials. However, although there are risks for the trial subjects, and also questions of the validity of the results, any step forward is powerful - particularly in a crisis like this. Ultimately, it is fundamental that we learn more about the virus, and right now, a COVID Challenge trial may be the most e cient step forward for scientists and society as a whole.

ffi

THB that social media companies were justi ed in deplatforming Trump - Antara Martins The incitement of ‘terrorism’ seemed to be the last straw for Twitter when they permanently banned ex-president Donald Trump from his account. Following this act, many other social media companies suspended the ex-president from their platform inde nitely. Whether or not they were justi ed in de-platforming him remains a heated debate, and at its core, challenges whether the fundamental right to freedom of speech is more signi cant than the purpose that particular right is used for.

On the 6th of January, the world watched in horror as a savage mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol Building and carried out a violent attack against the 117th United States Congress intending to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election in vain. However, what was even more shocking was the encouragement given by the former president to partake in these riots. According to the New York Times, Trump urged his supporters to ‘ ght much harder' against ‘bad people’ and ‘show

strength’ at the Capitol. When Trump signed up to the Twitter terms and conditions, he agreed to the same conditions as the millions of users around the world did and if any civilian were to incite violence in the way the ex-president of the United States did, not only would they be deplatformed, legal action would also be pursued, so why should Trump be treated any di erently? However, it is clearly stated in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everybody has a right to freedom of speech. Archon Fung, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government stated, “We couldn’t beat you in the war of ideas and discourse, so we’re pulling your mic”, in response to the recent de-platforming of Trump, and many believe that this is a valid point. If we disagree with someone’s views, beliefs and ideas, shouldn’t we challenge that in open debate and discussion? Is it not a much better idea to have a healthy debate about a particular area of disagreement, rather than simply de-platforming someone just because you may not believe in their views and ideas, because don’t we all have a right to freedom of speech? On the other hand, the proposition could argue that it is frankly a common misconception that Trump was banned from his account on Twitter because of the racist, miso ynistic and discriminatory content he was posting for the world to see. And if that were the case, then and only then, could the opposition

Whilst this may be the case, the opposition could argue, why should it be up to people like Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey to have the power to de-platform people, when they have their own respective biases. For example, if the head of a social media company was a Trump supporter, it would have been very unlikely that the expresident would have been deplatformed, however, if they were strongly against Trump, they would have immediately banned him. The question is, what kind of precedent does this set for all future de-platforming cases? If and when future leaders incite violence like Trump, aren’t we

saying they can continue to have a platform just as long as the CEO of a social media company supports them, even though these leaders would be committing a crime? Facebook has announced that they started their own ‘Supreme Court’, that too, with people who Facebook themselves has employed. So how far can social media companies really take their power? How can we allow them to play judge and jury, when they may also have potential biases? Shouldn’t there be some fair regulatory body that is responsible for deciding whether an individual should be deplatformed, like the ones issued for newspapers and news channels? This debate may or may never be resolved, but it makes us think about what we individually value most. Whether or not Trump will be allowed to have his account back from all the social media platforms that have currently suspended him, is still pending, but now all we can do is wait to see what the tech giants decide upon.

make the case of the right to freedom of speech. However, it's important to realise, those tweets, however horrible they were, weren’t why the expresident was banned from his Twitter account and suspended from many other platforms such as Facebook and Instagram. He was de-platformed because he encouraged a crime, namely, the storming of the U.S. capitol. In other words, though his hate speech was awful and simply cannot be justi ed, ultimately his de-platforming was due to him encouraging people to commit domestic terrorism. Surely then these social media companies were justi ed in not allowing Trump to have his platform? Surely, if people are using these platforms in the wrong way and are also abusing their social media privileges so that they can hurt and endanger several people, they should not be allowed to have one in the rst place?

When I was 11 my parents told me that they were having another child, but they refused to tell me the sex of my sibling. However, when I walked into my sibling's new room, where toy cars and helicopters covered the oors, and blue wallpaper had just been put up, I gured it out quite quickly. Although I was more than excited by the prospect of a baby brother, I looked at my parents in disbelief that they resorted to these gender stereotypes. They told me that it's a fact of nature that boys are more attracted to a red Ferrari car than a Barbie doll. I responded by saying that of course, they're going to be if that's what we are instilling upon them at such a young age. What I had said is the same narrative that is being pushed by most gender equality activists: the belief that gender stereotypes are purely a consequence of societal and cultural pressures. This narrative is egalitarian and therefore incredibly alluring but might not be the full truth. In this article, I'm going to be exploring the di erent ways in which socialisation and biological factors contribute to stereotypes in order to try and understand how much of a social construct gender di erence really is.

An argument in favour of the proposition is that gender roles are even portrayed in the wild. It is proven that young female kanyawara chimpanzees use sticks as rudimentary dolls, to imitate them caring for real o spring; however, there was no evidence to suggest that male chimpanzees do this as well. This evidence disproves the contribution of social factors to gender di erences, as animals have no sense of culture nor civilisation, hence if gender stereotypes did exist they would have to be a consequence of biolo y. Moreover, the main argument that supports biological determinism looks at the innate di erences between the male and female brain, and how these contribute to stereotypes. For example, studies have shown that on average more females than males have a brain suited for empathising which could be useful in academic elds such as psycholo y, and on average more males than females have a brain suited for systemising which can be useful for things such as mathematics or engineering. This might not seem like such a signi cant di erence but the consequences of this can potentially be linked to the disparity between men and women in job elds, where only 10% of professors of mathematics are female, whereas 70% of PhDs in Psycholo y are earned by women. However, it is important to note that the argument of biological determinism isn’t suggesting that because of this we should discourage women to

THB that gender di erences are more biological than social - Sanaya Mittal

However, side opposition would question the validity of this argument, arguing that the brain is malleable and hence susceptible to socialisation. They believe that the people we surround ourselves with, and the environment we grow up in, all have massive in uences on the brain. Subsequently, they would argue that research on the di erences between the male and female brain isn’t a re ection of the innate di erences between men and women but rather mirrors di erences in the brain because of how men and women have been socialised. This theory coincides with how attempts at gender-neutral parenting resulted in children not conforming to typical stereotypes, hence equating these stereotypes to social factors. Moreover, gender

activist Cordelia Fine looks at how gender stereotypes haven't historically prevailed, as in the 19th-century pink was seen as a ‘boy colour’ as it was deemed ‘stronger’. However, one could argue that this evidence still demonstrates a prevalence of stereotypes as strength is being associated with boys, it is just the perception of pink as a strong colour that has changed. Overall, side opposition is arguing that gender di erences have been cultivated by society over time by the way that we raise girls and boys di erently. This article is controversial as by talking about innate di erences between men and women, it could be seen as legitimising stereotypes and therefore negating many equality movements. However, this is not the point. Although I don't doubt gender stereotypes have been enhanced by society, it's important to recognise they were founded upon something we can’t really change - our biolo y. It's about accepting that it is not sexist to recognise di erences between men and women, but rather by recognising them we are promoting a fairer chance at equality.

enter the elds of mathematics or make generalisations such as ‘’all men are better at maths than women’’ as that would be inherently sexist. Rather, know that, as said by a British psychologist, “it is not sexist to accept that biolo y a ects behaviour’’. This argument is still controversial however as some people might believe that if this the case, then laws like positive discrimination, in certain job elds, shouldn’t in theory exist as they are trying to remedy something that is biologically inevitable. Overall, side proposition is fundamentally arguing that even if children weren’t exposed to stereotypes or weren’t parented in a way that aligned with these stereotypes, the same gender di erences would prevail as that is what is ‘natural’.

Does ‘Cancel Culture’ aid societal development or does it hinder it? - Sama Abuzayyad You’re cancelled. Platform stripped. Reputation ruined. “Career ended”. Why? For a post, you made 15 years ago about why the sky is blue. No, this is not an accurate representation of what cancel culture is; however, could this be the direction we are going in? As a society, we have an innate desire to evolve but the question which I will be addressing today is whether ‘Cancel Culture’ allow this or instead force humanity backwards.

If someone recklessly o ends, is it unjust to excuse them? Is it considered oppression if we trade the promotion of hate speech for a balanced and happy online community? Social media’s audience is increasingly becoming younger which guarantees the presence of more impressionable users. By eliminating ‘Cancel Culture’, we foster an atmosphere where hate speech is normalised. How is this exhibited? If only there was exemplary ignorance broadcasted across the entire internet... Cue Donald Trump. From propagating racism to publicly declaring ‘total destruction on North Korea’, he never fails to disappoint. ‘Cancel Culture’ enables us to remove platforms from those who wish to advocate hatred, prejudice and judgement of others, preventing such individuals from tarnishing the minds of our next generation.

As a society with an abundance of inherent issues, we must hold people accountable. If we choose to actively ignore the source of the problem, directly refusing to pinpoint responsibility, we are denying ourselves the ability to grow as a community. As a student, I know we will always be held accountable for o ensive actions or comments in the workplace. Why should this di er behind a screen? Moreover, as online communities, such as YouTube and TikTok, are increasingly in uencing younger generations, by encouraging others to take responsibility, we can normalise progression through failure and the recognition of mistakes. We can demonstrate that people can evolve regardless of a problematic past. Therefore, ‘Cancel Culture’ has a positive e ect in that it requires individuals to be answerable, teaching us the importance of accountability. Regarding whatever the social issue is, muting people, who propagate or are associated with forms of discrimination, teaches the rest of society that we will not foster this message, promoting equality. By using ‘Cancel Culture’ to remove such users from the platform, we can collectively endorse the message that our community will not tolerate forms of racism, homophobia or sexism. Moreover, by removing such individuals from these platforms, we can ensure that other trolls don’t feel validated or as if their actions are justi ed. Ergo, ‘Cancel Culture’ rewards us with control in shaping a society that advocates equality. However, could ‘Cancel Culture’ do more harm than good? Not only does it stimulate this concept of mob mentality with no escape, but it also

completely obliterates almost any possibility of future redemption. By ‘cancelling’ someone, users relentlessly and collectively condemn one individual, many of whom are unfamiliar with the original o ence and are simply interpolating themselves for the sake of adrenaline or fun. Yet, we must question, is the spurning of victims of ‘Cancel Culture’ ‘fun’? At times, ‘Cancel Culture’ is slander disguised as social justice. When we consistently berate people, by responding to an o ence with millions of derogatory comments, we move into the territory of harassment.

Has this article o ended you yet? There will be a unanimous o ence as I have covered both proposition and opposition but is o ence ever avoidable? Eradicating o ence is neither sustainable, practical nor possible. Ricky Gervais once said, “O ence is never given, it’s taken… and just because you’re o ended, it doesn’t mean you're right”. As a comedian, he has mastered self distance and being insouciant. As a community, we are beginning to embolden an atmosphere where o ence for the sake of being o ended is celebrated. O ence is an integral part of human nature and will always be unavoidable. We can attempt to police extreme prevention of o ence, however, ironically this will lead to major suppression of speech, thereby o ending someone. “Cancel Culture” vili es one of our basic human rights: free speech.

Summary execution is de ned as the accused being immediately executed without trial. Many believe that this is what social media is morphing into as opinion easily becomes fact. In the hyperbolic environment of ‘Cancel Culture’ truth can be exaggerated to such an extent where it’s considered in-genuine, progressively swaying further from the fact. Additionally, can you truly judge someone on who they were 10 years ago? Has society barred the possibility for change? What was acceptable in the past, will not be tolerated in the present. As the years pass, we gain increasing social awareness; which we did not have years ago. To judge past actions through the lens of present awareness takes retrospect to the extreme. Lastly, how can humanity expect to evolve if we’re bound to the outcome of summary execution where the accused is robbed of a defence. Ultimately, although ‘Cancel Culture’ enables us to curtail the in uence of controversial gures, the culture itself has been pushed to such an extreme where we risk in icting more harm than good. The inconsistency of ltering targeted individuals deprives us of our destination for social justice. Recently in an American study, 46% of those polled believed ‘Cancel Culture’ had gone too far, exemplifying the unjust reality of the culture. Although it teaches generations to acknowledge topics that shouldn’t arise in modern society, we have simultaneously glori ed the ‘ending of careers’. If we continue to abuse this method, it could transpire into a form of suppression and modernised ostracism. We can decide whom we can individually wish to ‘cancel’ yet this does not need to spiral into the modern toxicity that has evolved from today’s ‘Cancel Culture’.