A picture is more powerful than words. Discuss.

Though many might believe that pictures hold a greater power, the claim is not completely justified. This is because words tend to be more influential as it has the power to influence people mentally and emotionally.

Technological advancements in the modern age have allowed people to have access to media more than ever before. Through apps like Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and Tumblr, people can share and view images which are mundane to the mind-boggling. A picture is more powerful than words.

Critics of words suggest that images have more power than words because they capture the imagination of society in an impactful manner. There is little doubt that images are considered more creative than words and have contributed largely to the society in positive ways. For example, the artist Banksy is known to highlight powerful messages through his art. Similarly, in the earlier times many artists like Goya, Picasso and Jacques Louis David had tried to revolutionize the world through their art. Photographs like A Man on the Moon or Steve McCurry’s Afghan Girl are considered important images that has changed the course of history. Photographs have also captured the horrors of war which has led to huge emotional response. Notable photographs include the Napalm Girl, which showed the impact of American war in Vietnam. Thus, it can be said that images have exposed the horrors that exist in the world. As such, a picture is more powerful than words.

Critics  of pictures valiantly promote the view that despite the allure of pictures and videos, words still hold a significant place. They explify their stand by citing the ever increasing sales of novels, books and magazines. For example, J.K Rowling’s Harry Potter is still popular; books like 1984 by George Orwell and Killing a Mockingbird by Harper Lee continue to leave a lasting impact on new audiences. Words are a powerful medium is also evident from the fact that, people continue to buy self-help books. For example books like “You can heal your Life” by Louise Hay and “The Alchemist” by Paulo Coelho have sold millions of copies and continue to inspire people and guide them to live a successful and happy life. Words are an elixer that soothes the mind and soul. Hence, pictures are not always more powerful.

However, pictures do not always convey the intended meaning and sometimes the people fail to connect with pictures on an emotional level. Words have a more lasting impact and can stand the test of time. For example, Shakespeare’s plays like Hamlet, The Last Lear and As you Like, use words that evoke a series of emotions that people can still relate to in present times. The mastery of his words continues to inspire and impress people around the world even today. In fact, many phrases used by people in daily life are actually from Shakespeare’s plays. His dialogues like “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players” are repeated and considered a metaphor for life even today.

Images of Mahatma Gandhi exemplify peaceful resistance. The famed head portrait of Che Guevera subliminally depict the fight against oppression. When Malala Yousufzai’s or Greta Thunberg’s stand to deliver the views, it is images that we first connect to, not words. Historically, the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima is still etched in all our minds. In more contemporary times, the incessant media coverage on Trump has painted in our minds a certain view of him. It is pictures that move and mould our thinking. Not words. A picture is more powerful than words.

No single word has changed the world, but a single picture has.

Elections are meaningless as many voters have no real knowledge of national or international issues. Discuss.

Yes Elections are meaningless…

  • It’s ruling cliques that really matter
  • Real dividing issues do not exist
  • Unrepresentative minority tends to vote
  • Policies are distant from voters’ real concern
  • In a democracy, there are genuinely ignorant or uninterested voters.

No Elections are not meaningless…

‘Most migration is caused by economic desire.’ How far do you agree?

For and against points for most migration is caused by economic desire

  • Some might fear torture and imprisonment
  • Some civilians are caught up in war
  • Some in wealthier nations encourage migration to fill low skilled, low pay jobs (eg Canada)
  • Some are fleeing religious persecution
  • There could be gender issues
  • Educated migrants e.g. doctors may migrate for economic reasons which can benefit host countries but create ‘brain drain’ in other countries
  • The well-off also migrate to third world countries as it has a lower cost of living
  • The developed world has a huge responsibility for the conditions that drive the need to migrate

Can international peace and stability really be attained today?

The First World War was supposed to be the ‘war to end war’. Just one hundred years ago, millions died in one of the deadliest conflicts in history. World War I did not bring the end of warfare. World War II had similar casualties but nothing really changed. With the rapid advancement of technology, the spread of questionable religious beliefs and growing inequalities, the world has witnessed even more bloody conflicts in the 21st century in Syria, Libya and Yemen. One must acknowledge that people and countries place self-interests first, and would result in whatever means to fight for their rights or gain dominance. It is evident that international peace and stability is unattainable in this highly interconnected world of today.

One may naively presume that with more international cooperation, wars would ease. However, some conflicts are driven by religious beliefs makes it all the harder for international peace to be attained despite cooperation in international trade. Furthermore, countries always strive to show their dominance to the world and tend to employ violence to satire their selfish interests. All countries face a constant struggle to survive and will indiscriminately threaten others to pacify national interests. Territorial disputes are the best manifestation of conflicts due to self-interests. These disputes are still prevalent today, among two or more countries in a bid to preserve their sovereignty.

The quest for international peace and stability today is also a futile once because inequalities still prevail all over the world, and marginalised groups often take to violence to fight for their rights, or are in fact victims of violence why the majority. The truth of the matter is that, when countries came to a consensus on human rights, there was much ambiguity, and thus, we currently live in a world where international peace is practically impossible because governments themselves do not exactly know what rights to grant to their people, and as a result, there are factions who feel that they are deprived of their rights.  The sheer scale of inequalities in the world, from the racial discrimination in the US to the sexual discrimination in Nigeria to the vast income disparity plaguing both nascent and developed nations, conflicts are inevitable. Hence, international peace and stability is not totally attainable today.

However, the natural corollary to the aforementioned arguments would be for apologists to contend that while international peace is largely unattainable today, there is a hint of hope. This could be attributed to the fact that international cooperation has been happening at unprecedented levels, and hence countries might turn to negotiations instead of violence to settle disputes. Furthermore, the establishment of regional bodies could mean that countries will be less motivated to use force and instead settle their conflicts peacefully so that they can enjoy perennial benefits from that regional body. The notion of international peace may seem like a plausible one. However, one must also understand that some countries are only effective insofar as the countries are willing to accept aid and understand the significance of preserving peace in that region.

Nonetheless, one could still assert that with the rise in surveillance technology today, it would be easier for governments to spy on clandestine groups who are planning a war, thus making international peace possible.  The Patriot Act in the US also makes it legal for the government to access electronic accounts such as email accounts of suspected terrorists. However, to presume that this could lead to the complete establishment of world peace would be highly ignorant, because terrorist groups, for example, have bases all over the world and it would be technically impossible for technology such as drones to track down these terrorists.

The notion of international peace is a multi-faceted one. There have been numerous developments over the 21st century that proved hope for a better tomorrow. However, an indubitable fact of humanity is that we are all actually myopic individuals who only want to satisfy our own needs. Furthermore, there are still countries living in a dystopia, where violence is rife. Their governments have too many issues on the plate to resolve, and so there are still factions in those societies who feel that they are deprived of rights and thus turn to violence. It is naive to believe that war may one day become a thing of the past.

‘Sport is a greatly overrated activity.’ How far do you agree?

For and Against Points for Sports is Overrated Activity

  • health advantages of sport
  • ways in which sport might allow us to indulge competitive streak/combat etc. in ‘safe’/controlled environments
  • sport’s role in international politics
  • limitations of sport as a leisure activity (what it can’t do compared to more intellectual activities etc.)
  • what we mean by ‘sport’ – a very wide category; are some sports more/less ‘overrated’ than others?
  • coverage of sport in the media (e.g. at expense of other more pressing and important concerns)
  • views about financial outlay and costs

How far do you agree that newspapers no longer contain news?

  • Article: The state of newspapers
  • news means different things to different people
  • many newspapers are published daily and report on daily events; magazines are usually published weekly or monthly
  • newspapers have to offer more than news if they are to compete with other news media such as the Internet and television
  • most newspapers report on at least the main news stories
  • most newspapers contain non-news items such as competitions, advertisements and TV listings
  • quality newspapers have a higher ratio of news-to-views columns than popular papers.

How far do you agree that we must have rules and regulations in order to maintain a civilised society?

  • rules are necessary for social and political control
  • rules are in place to control experimenters because of previous failures to recognise subjects’ rights
  • rules and regulations are needed to protect the vulnerable
  • history shows us that exploitation and abuse occur when rules and regulations are not in place
  • we need rules and regulations so that companies do not ignore the well-being of others in the pursuit of profits
  • when rules and regulations are not in place, TNCs are free to adopt different standards from when operating within defined boundaries
  • rules and regulations allow transgressions to be clearly identified and penalties to be imposed.

How important is it for a government to respect popular opinion?

Keywords: ‘How important’ and ‘government’ and ‘respect popular opinion’.

• Define popular
• Popular uprising – people power can be effective (e.g. Arab Spring)
• Minority governs the majority
• Respect basic human rights
• Communication through technology – quick to organise protests
• Media – greater awareness of global events
• Is it popular or just the powerful influence of minority groups (e.g. fundamentalism)
• Can respect popular opinion but still a need to adopt unpopular measures (e.g. austerity measures)
• The mandate to govern in a democracy/must be seen as transparent
• Repression – lack of respect – violent outcome (e.g. war in Syria)

To what extent is ‘people power’ the key to achieving a democratic society?

For and against points for ‘people power’ the key to achieving a democratic society

  • Keywords: ‘To what extent’ and ‘people power’ and ‘key’ and ‘democratic society’.
  • Democracy is supposed to bring Equality and Accountability
  • Can remove repression/dictatorship (e.g. Arab Spring)
  • There is little alternative if the country is undemocratic (e.g. Libya)
  • Violence – innocent victims (e.g. Syria and Yemen)
  • Power vacuum
  • Opportunity for the military/fundamentalism to take over (e.g. Egypt)
  • Can fail (e.g. Bahrain/Zimbabwe)
  • Democratic elections do not always give power to the people
  • Electoral colleges give as much weight to the few as the many

Modern technology used in weapons and communications means that war is now far less likely. To what extent do you agree with this statement?

  • modern technology enables war to be conducted impersonally and at a distance (Read Article1 and Article 2)
  • weapons can act as a deterrent to war; the effects of their devastation are widely acknowledged
  • laser technology allows for greater accuracy of weapons
  • the purpose of satellite surveillance technology is defensive; designed to avoid war
  • in the hands of terrorists or a military dictator, weapons can be used aggressively and can provoke conflict
  • weapons do not cause war or keep the peace; that is the remit of those who control them
  • communication systems can direct weapons.
  • non-lethal weapons can be developed.