The debating arm of www.thebigqs.co.uk. New academic questions are regularly uploaded for quick debates. Anyone and everyone is welcome and encouraged to join in.
Monday, February 28, 2011
What do the current Arab revolts mean for the world?
People are talking about an unprecedented era of democratic freedom and progression in the Middle East, while their opposites are talking about instability and Civil War. Who is right? What are the likely outcomes of these uprisings?
Labels:
International Relations,
Politics,
Theory
Thursday, February 24, 2011
What is love?
Near to the top of any list of philosophical questions is something about love. It can often seem to be a highly personal topic. Yet there is also much to analyse. Is every loving relationship the same? Of course not right? So what is love? What is the commonality? And is there such a thing as 'true love', as opposed to the type shared with family and friends?
Monday, February 21, 2011
What does playground bullying teach us about the causes of conflict?
The following section is quoted from an article by Joan Raymond: "High school can be hell, filled with cruel cliques bent on tormenting their peers. But the queen bees at top of their social heap aren’t the most abusive against their classmates, according to a study published in the February issue of the American Sociological Review. The most popular kids in school — the top 2 percent of a school’s social hierarchy — are actually the least aggressive, along with those at the bottom. It's the teens just slightly down from the pinnacle of popularity that give their peers a hard time. Researchers from the University of California, Davis, found that adolescents in the top 98th percentile of the school's social pecking order have an average aggression rate that is 40 percent greater than kids at the top. They also have an aggression rate that is about 30 percent greater than kids at the bottom of the popularity pack. “The more kids crave popularity, the more aggressive they are,” says co-author of the study, Robert Faris, assistant professor of sociology at UC Davis."
(http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41463106/ns/today-parenting/)
I have often thought that there is an underplayed link between aggression between individual people, and aggression between groups, of whatever size. And if you're going to look at the causes of aggression and conflict then playground bullying is as good a place as any to start.
The question of what playground bullying can teach us about the causes of conflict is a big one. But the above quote, if applied to wider scale conflicts, would also be very suggestive. Do you think we can extrapolate from such ideas and draw parrallels with inter and intra state conflicts?
(http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41463106/ns/today-parenting/)
I have often thought that there is an underplayed link between aggression between individual people, and aggression between groups, of whatever size. And if you're going to look at the causes of aggression and conflict then playground bullying is as good a place as any to start.
The question of what playground bullying can teach us about the causes of conflict is a big one. But the above quote, if applied to wider scale conflicts, would also be very suggestive. Do you think we can extrapolate from such ideas and draw parrallels with inter and intra state conflicts?
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
To what extent do you agree with Liberal Internationalism?
This is a belief that nations should intervene in the affairs of other nations in order to pursue liberal objectives. Different people define it in different ways, often depending on how critical they are of it. How critical of it are you? Is there ever a case for intervening in the affairs of others? And if so when should we do it?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
What do we live for?
If you've been staying in touch despite my absence recently then you'll be happy to know that I'm back! The internet has just been connected at my new house today. So quick first post and then on to all those emails (groan):
Toqueville once said that people live to acheve two things: happiness and glory/honour.
Toqueville once said that people live to acheve two things: happiness and glory/honour.
- Do you agree?
- Is there a division between the two or is the second merely a contribuent to the first?
- Did we seek glory and honour more in Toqueville's day (early nineteenth century) than we do now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
