Positions

Marketing itself as the "Progressive" JavaScript framework, Vue makes a commitment to approachability, versatility, and performance, providing the best user interface available on the market.

This position names the painter Walter Sickert as Jack the Ripper. It argues that clues to his guilt appear in his own work and correspondence—pointing to letters supposedly sent in the Ripper's name and paintings said to depict the murderer's crimes.

This position holds that the song 'WAP' is a gross indictment of modern values, representing a decline of Western civilisation. It argues that the track affronts Christian American values and is an expression of rampant, debasing commercial capitalism.

This position holds that the song 'WAP' represents a crisis in feminism. It argues that, far from empowering, the track and its video perpetuate degrading ideas about women — reinforcing patriarchal ideals and commodifying female sexuality rather than liberating it.

This position holds that the best thing to watch on Netflix in quarantine is a documentary. It argues you can keep learning about the world even while it is closed for business, recommending gripping true-story titles such as Cheer and Don't F**k with Cats.

This position recommends watching a drama on Netflix during quarantine. It argues that the lockdown is the moment to finally watch the acclaimed films everyone talks about — like Roma, Marriage Story and The Irishman — so you need never pretend to have seen them again.

This position recommends reality TV as the best thing to watch on Netflix during quarantine. It argues that watching other people live their lives can feel more exciting than one's own confined existence — suggesting shows like Love Is Blind, Nailed It! and The Circle.

This position holds that the best thing to watch on Netflix during quarantine is something funny. It recommends comedies to lift the mood, suggesting series such as BoJack Horseman, Master of None, Parks and Recreation, Sex Education, and Russian Doll.

This position recommends watching something scary on Netflix during quarantine. It argues that horror — The Haunting of Hill House, or thrillers like The Stranger and Bird Box — offers a jolt of excitement, and even schadenfreude, that distracts from the anxiety and boredom of isolation.

This position holds that we are products of neither nature nor nurture alone. It argues that while genes and environment shape us, they do not determine who we are—because, ultimately, people exercise free will and shape their own destiny.

This position holds that we cannot know for sure whether climate change is real. It argues the data carries uncertainty and the climate is too vast to fully grasp—though climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that human-driven warming is in fact occurring.

Art is subjective in nature. It has open ends and it has space where people can make mistakes and learn. Some people might like Godard, Kurosawa, Majid, Hallstrom, Bergman, etc. but there are others who like the ones who produce films for mass consumption.

This position takes the agnostic view that we cannot know whether God exists. It argues that certainty about a deity is beyond human reach — that the question lies past the limits of what we can prove, and that the divine, if it exists, is something we cannot fully comprehend.

This position frames vaccine safety as uncertain and a matter of parental choice. It argues that parents have a fundamental right to decide their child's welfare, that vaccine-hesitant families are unfairly stigmatised, and that withholding vaccines from some in a trial raises ethical questions.

This position holds that we simply do not know whether people are born gay. It argues that no conclusive evidence has settled the question of genetics and sexual orientation, and that the very fluidity of the term 'gay' makes a definitive answer hard even to formulate.

This position holds that we do not yet know whether human beings have free will. It argues that the current scientific research into our capacity for free will is indeterminate — the question still open — but that researchers are actively working to find out.

This group believes that tearing down statues is an important method at redressing systemic racial inequality. Proponents include Black Lives Matter, and left wing, British commentators such as Namitha Aravind.

This position holds that children have no innate, hardwired faculty for learning language. Drawing on the 'blank slate' hypothesis, it argues the mind is empty at birth and that language is acquired entirely through experience and environment, not built-in instinct.

The consequences of not acting on the climate emergency are too great. We have the technology today needed to tackle this issue and need to move towards a carbon neutral and green energy world.

Sex-work is 100% a legitimate occupation. However the mainstream pornography is worrying because of so many accounts of bad practice from sex workers and models, in an industry with little regulation other than bare legislation. Certian things are fetishized in porn culture today, like "coming of age", where the girl is freshly 18. "Teen" should not be a porn category, and it's also not good that there's categories for Asians and Black people either because it objectifies them.

This position holds that we must artificially reshape the climate system through geo-engineering to survive. It argues that conventional clean technologies cannot be deployed fast enough, and that humans won't change behaviour in time — leaving radical intervention the only realistic option.

This position favours the Nordic Model, which decriminalises selling sex while criminalising its purchase. It argues this targets demand and shields sex workers from prosecution and exploitation, while pairing the law with support for those seeking to exit prostitution.

This group believes that there are other ways to look at this debate. They are neither in favour of tearing them all down, or defending them till the death. They see the issue as symptomatic of wider concerns the we should address. Proponents include free speech activists, left wing historians such as David Olusoga and the moderate press.

This position holds that 'under God' should stay in the Pledge of Allegiance. It argues that keeping the phrase is a superficial matter rather than an attack on anyone, that removing it would itself infringe religious freedom, and that the nation was founded by its framers under God.

This position holds that homelessness is best addressed by improving the wider economy. It argues a prosperous society gives more to charity and offers the homeless more opportunities for jobs, housing and healthcare — tackling the cause rather than just the symptoms.

Social services provide homeless people with more extensive aid, helping them to obtain housing, health care, and education in ways that individual donations can't.

This position holds that felon voting rights should be decided by each individual state. It argues that the US Constitution leaves election and voting rules to the states, so seeking a single national consensus on felony disenfranchisement is both pointless and contrary to that design.

This position holds that 'under God' should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. It argues the phrase privileges one religion over others in a nation founded on religious freedom, and notes that it was not part of the original Pledge but added only later, in 1954.

Any separation of pupils by sex that denies them the opportunity to interact socially with other pupils of the other sex hinders the pupils' social development.

This position holds that the monarchy should be reformed rather than abolished or preserved unchanged. It argues that the institution is worth keeping but must adapt to modern expectations — for instance, by becoming financially sustainable and funding itself.

Critical Race Theory inspires more problems than it solves. CRT is a racist way of thinking. It is a threat to constructive, rational dialogue. Institutions should reject any policies or anti-bias trainings that rely on CRT.

This position holds that some statues should be removed, but that the movement has gone too far. It argues the effort began as a worthy attempt to take down symbols of white supremacy, yet now targets statues that should stay—and risks threatening historical monuments indiscriminately.

The sexes learn and behave differently, hence, they thrive in a same-sex environment.

This position holds that society should strive for a genderless world. Drawing on postgenderism, it argues that gender and gender roles in all their forms are a narrow lens on human experience that constrains people and prevents them from reaching their full potential.

This position holds that we should act on climate change, but gradually, to avoid disrupting the economy and people's livelihoods. It argues for beginning a measured transition to renewable energy and for governments to incentivise going green, rather than imposing sudden, radical change.

Some people may not want to uproot the grammatical conventions which have already been set. It would be better and more meaningful to create a new set of pronouns, or use one of the sets that have already been created.

Critical Race Theory brings attention to how race influences all of society, and everyone can use CRT to become anti-racist. We need CRT to encourage our societies to be more just and inclusive of all people.

They/them has been used as a gender-neutral pronoun for ages, but many English teachers will call it out as improper grammar. They/them as gender-neutral pronouns should be officially recognized as proper grammar because millions are already familiar with using them in this way.

This position argues that no action should be taken on climate change. It holds that other problems are more pressing, that stopping climate change is simply too expensive, and that the funds involved would be better redirected to other, more urgent causes.

This position argues that nothing should be done to help homeless people. Though it calls homelessness heartbreaking, it holds the problem is an unavoidable part of life, that some are homeless by choice, and that those affected must ultimately learn to help themselves.

This position holds that we can never know whether Alexander Hamilton's financial plan truly put America first. It argues that a lack of evidence — and Hamilton's early death — leaves his real motives and aims permanently beyond reach, so the question cannot be answered.

The pandemic has proven that there is still hope. We, as a society, are taking what we've learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and can apply those lessons to our fight against climate change.

This position attributes the high number of US coronavirus cases to weak underlying infrastructure. It argues that the American system — above all an exclusive, hard-to-access healthcare system — was simply too fragile to cope with the demands of a pandemic.