The big debate

Is it ok to use abbreviations?
Some say skipping letters makes
messages harder to understand.
What you need to know
Abbreviations are shortened forms of
words or phrases. An example would be
using “btw” instead of “by the way”.
They can be used to save time when
writing or speaking.

Forms of abbreviation include acronyms.

This is when the first letters of a series of
words are said as one word – like ASAP
instead of “as soon as possible”. An
initialism is similar but the letters are
read out – like “BBC” instead of British
Broadcasting Corporation.

The use of mobile phones for texting, as

well as social media, means people use
Abbreviations are
abbreviations far more often nowadays.
useful for texting.

Yes – they simplify writing No – they’re confusing

W e encounter abbreviations every day in all kinds
of places. When people talk about medical
services in the UK – or United Kingdom – they’re likely
Since humans started speaking, language has
constantly changed. If it hadn’t we would still be
Abbreviations can actually make reading or speech
harder to understand if they aren’t used correctly.
to mention the “NHS”, rather than the National Health saying “thine” instead of “your” and “thou” instead If a word or phrase isn’t written out in full the first
Service. The SATs (or Standard Assessment Tests) are of “you”. Some abbreviations, like the BBC, are so time in a piece of writing, the reader may have to
referred to as “exams” – short for examinations. common that it would sound odd to say them in full waste time finding out what it means. If someone has
Some abbreviations are so common that we say and you don’t need to because people understand to ask another person what an abbreviation means
them without thinking but others are less well known the shortened version. Abbreviations can be used to it can be embarrassing for them and make them feel
or only used by certain groups of people. Last year make text and speech shorter or quicker and easier left out. For example, if someone has just started at
was Queen Elizabeth II’s 70th year on the throne and to understand. Shortening phrases can help people in a new school it might make them feel like they aren’t
during the Platinum Jubilee “platty joobs” was a top a hurry – for example, telling someone you’ll “BRB” is fitting in very well. Abbreviations make it harder for
phrase on Twitter. Some people say abbreviations quicker than writing “I’ll be right back”. Abbreviations people learning a new language too. Skipping letters
make reading and writing easier but others think that can make language less wordy and more lively and can cause misunderstandings and confusion because
shortened words or phrases can be confusing. What it’s fun to make up new ones with your friends. Better some have multiple meanings. For example, “LOL”
do you think, is it ok to use abbreviations? communication brings people together. can mean “lots of love” or “laughing out loud”.

Three reasons we should Three reasons we shouldn’t

Scan the QR YES use abbreviations NO use abbreviations
code to vote in
Junior the debate
1 Language has been evolving and
changing ever since humans started 1 Uncommon abbreviations can make
reading or listening take longer if you

LAST WEEK’S POLL using it, we shouldn’t stop now. have to find out the meaning.

Last week we asked,

should SATs exams be 2 Abbreviations can make text more
concise (shorter and clearer) and
interesting to read and help people to
2 Abbreviations can make people feel left
out, or embarrassed if they have to ask
someone what it means.
scrapped? The vote
45% 55% speak more quickly and get their point
was quite close but
most of you think YES NO across more effectively. 3 Some abbreviations have several
meanings and it’s not always clear from
SATs provide a useful
guide for teachers and
pupils, and should stay.
3 Abbreviations improve communication
and bring people together. They can be
fun to use and make people laugh.
the context (the circumstances and
background information) which one is
being used – that’s just confusing!
REX SHUTTERSTOCK

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Now that you’ve read a bit more about it, tell us what you think by voting in our poll at [Link]/polls.
Vote YES if you think it is ok to use abbreviations, or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week.

8 The aim of the Big debate page is to present two sides of an issue fairly and objectively, in order to stimulate discussion and allow our readers to make up their minds.
The views on the page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and the page is not funded by third parties. The page is created in association with the English-Speaking The Week Junior • 10 June 2023
Union, an educational charity helping young people discover their voice and realise their full potential. For more information, please see [Link]
 The big debate

Is it ok to use abbreviations?
Some say skipping letters makes
messages harder to understand.
What you need to know
Abbreviations are shortened forms of
words or phrases. An example would be
using “btw” instead of “by the way”.
They can be used to save time when
writing or speaking.

Forms of abbreviation include acronyms.

This is when the first letters of a series of
words are said as one word – like ASAP
instead of “as soon as possible”. An
initialism is similar but the letters are
read out – like “BBC” instead of British
Broadcasting Corporation.

The use of mobile phones for texting, as

well as social media, means people use
Abbreviations are
abbreviations far more often nowadays.
useful for texting.

Yes – they simplify writing No – they’re confusing

W e encounter abbreviations every day in all kinds
of places. When people talk about medical
services in the UK – or United Kingdom – they’re likely
Since humans started speaking, language has
constantly changed. If it hadn’t we would still be
Abbreviations can actually make reading or speech
harder to understand if they aren’t used correctly.
to mention the “NHS”, rather than the National Health saying “thine” instead of “your” and “thou” instead If a word or phrase isn’t written out in full the first
Service. The SATs (or Standard Assessment Tests) are of “you”. Some abbreviations, like the BBC, are so time in a piece of writing, the reader may have to
referred to as “exams” – short for examinations. common that it would sound odd to say them in full waste time finding out what it means. If someone has
Some abbreviations are so common that we say and you don’t need to because people understand to ask another person what an abbreviation means
them without thinking but others are less well known the shortened version. Abbreviations can be used to it can be embarrassing for them and make them feel
or only used by certain groups of people. Last year make text and speech shorter or quicker and easier left out. For example, if someone has just started at
was Queen Elizabeth II’s 70th year on the throne and to understand. Shortening phrases can help people in a new school it might make them feel like they aren’t
during the Platinum Jubilee “platty joobs” was a top a hurry – for example, telling someone you’ll “BRB” is fitting in very well. Abbreviations make it harder for
phrase on Twitter. Some people say abbreviations quicker than writing “I’ll be right back”. Abbreviations people learning a new language too. Skipping letters
make reading and writing easier but others think that can make language less wordy and more lively and can cause misunderstandings and confusion because
shortened words or phrases can be confusing. What it’s fun to make up new ones with your friends. Better some have multiple meanings. For example, “LOL”
do you think, is it ok to use abbreviations? communication brings people together. can mean “lots of love” or “laughing out loud”.

Three reasons we should Three reasons we shouldn’t

Scan the QR YES use abbreviations NO use abbreviations
code to vote in
Junior the debate
1 Language has been evolving and
changing ever since humans started 1 Uncommon abbreviations can make
reading or listening take longer if you

LAST WEEK’S POLL using it, we shouldn’t stop now. have to find out the meaning.

Last week we asked,

should SATs exams be 2 Abbreviations can make text more
concise (shorter and clearer) and
interesting to read and help people to
2 Abbreviations can make people feel left
out, or embarrassed if they have to ask
someone what it means.
scrapped? The vote
45% 55% speak more quickly and get their point
was quite close but
most of you think YES NO across more effectively. 3 Some abbreviations have several
meanings and it’s not always clear from
SATs provide a useful
guide for teachers and
pupils, and should stay.
3 Abbreviations improve communication
and bring people together. They can be
fun to use and make people laugh.
the context (the circumstances and
background information) which one is
being used – that’s just confusing!
REX SHUTTERSTOCK

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Now that you’ve read a bit more about it, tell us what you think by voting in our poll at [Link]/polls.
Vote YES if you think it is ok to use abbreviations, or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week.

8 The aim of the Big debate page is to present two sides of an issue fairly and objectively, in order to stimulate discussion and allow our readers to make up their minds.
The views on the page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and the page is not funded by third parties. The page is created in association with the English-Speaking The Week Junior • 10 June 2023
Union, an educational charity helping young people discover their voice and realise their full potential. For more information, please see [Link]
 The big debate
Are exclamation points necessary?
The seemingly simple punctuation mark
can stir up a lot of strong feelings.

What you need to know

O Exclamation points are used with an
interjection or exclamation, like
“Watch out!” They’re also used at
the end of a sentence to express
significance or strong emotion.
O The exclamation point first appeared
in writing about 600 years ago and is
believed to come from the Latin
FUN toFACT e
word io, which means “joy.” wn in th
The onlytwo exclamation
O Exclamation points are sometimes ith
world w ts in its name isa!,
called “bangs,” “shrieks,” “gaspers,” poin is-du-Ha! H
u
and “screamers” by journalists, Saint-Loebec, Canada.
writers, and publishers. in Qu

Yes—they serve an important purpose! No—they’re the equivalent of shouting

If a character in a book says “Duck,” you might
think they’re pointing out a nearby bird. But if
they say “Duck!” it’s clear they’re warning
Exclamation points are a valid punctuation mark
that can be traced back to a 14th-century Italian
Famous author F. Scott Fitzgerald once said that
exclamation points are the same as “laughing
someone else to get down quickly, right? scholar. No one would say the question mark was at your own jokes.” They make the writer seem
Punctuation, such as exclamation points, has unnecessary—without it, how would we know a little desperate or like they’re shouting at the
been around for thousands of years and is an the writer is asking something? In a similar way, reader—and no one enjoys being shouted at.
important tool for conveying meaning. It can exclamation points signal to readers that the They can also make the reader feel like they’re
indicate the end of a sentence, a pause, a words contain strong feelings. But they don’t do being forced to have a specific feeling or
question, or—in the exclamation point’s case—a all the work—the reader still has to figure out reaction. Readers don’t want to be told how to
strong emotion or urgent instruction. But some what the emotions are. Exclamation points can read, and they should be free to react to the
writers think exclamation points are unacceptable also keep people safe. For example, on road signs, words on their own terms. And a good writer
and unnecessary. They say the writing should tell they warn drivers of a hazard ahead. Of course, doesn’t take shortcuts. They can create
the reader everything they need to know. What using exclamation points too often weakens their emotions with just words and sentences,
do you think? Are exclamation points necessary? effect, but that doesn’t mean they’re useless. whether that’s fear, wonder, or joy.

YES Three reasons exclamation points

are necessary NO Three reasons exclamation points
are not necessary LAST WEEK’S POLL
Last week we asked you if
1 Exclamation points have been around for
hundreds of years and are just as necessary
as any other form of punctuation.
1 Exclamation points make the writer
seem desperate and even like they’re
shouting at the reader.
conservation should focus on
smaller animals. Most of you
said yes, experts
2 They signal that there are emotions in the
writing but still leave room for the reader
to figure out what those feelings are.
2 Readers don’t want to be told how to
feel, and they should be allowed to
interpret the writing on their own.
should be
paying more 39%
NO
attention to 61%
3 Exclamation points on road signs make
drivers aware of hidden dangers. 3 The skill of writing is in crafting words
and sentences that carry emotion. the little guys.
YES

What do you think? The goal of the big debate is to present two sides
of an issue fairly in order to stimulate discussion and
Now that you’ve read a bit more about this issue, visit [Link]/polls allow our readers to make up their minds. The views on
GETTY IMAGES

so you can vote in our debate. Vote YES if you think exclamation points are necessary this page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and
or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week. the page is not funded by third parties.

8 The Week Junior • June 23, 2023

 The big debate
Are exclamation points necessary?
The seemingly simple punctuation mark
can stir up a lot of strong feelings.

What you need to know

O Exclamation points are used with an
interjection or exclamation, like
“Watch out!” They’re also used at
the end of a sentence to express
significance or strong emotion.
O The exclamation point first appeared
in writing about 600 years ago and is
believed to come from the Latin
FUN toFACT e
word io, which means “joy.” wn in th
The onlytwo exclamation
O Exclamation points are sometimes ith
world w ts in its name isa!,
called “bangs,” “shrieks,” “gaspers,” poin is-du-Ha! H
u
and “screamers” by journalists, Saint-Loebec, Canada.
writers, and publishers. in Qu

Yes—they serve an important purpose! No—they’re the equivalent of shouting

If a character in a book says “Duck,” you might
think they’re pointing out a nearby bird. But if
they say “Duck!” it’s clear they’re warning
Exclamation points are a valid punctuation mark
that can be traced back to a 14th-century Italian
Famous author F. Scott Fitzgerald once said that
exclamation points are the same as “laughing
someone else to get down quickly, right? scholar. No one would say the question mark was at your own jokes.” They make the writer seem
Punctuation, such as exclamation points, has unnecessary—without it, how would we know a little desperate or like they’re shouting at the
been around for thousands of years and is an the writer is asking something? In a similar way, reader—and no one enjoys being shouted at.
important tool for conveying meaning. It can exclamation points signal to readers that the They can also make the reader feel like they’re
indicate the end of a sentence, a pause, a words contain strong feelings. But they don’t do being forced to have a specific feeling or
question, or—in the exclamation point’s case—a all the work—the reader still has to figure out reaction. Readers don’t want to be told how to
strong emotion or urgent instruction. But some what the emotions are. Exclamation points can read, and they should be free to react to the
writers think exclamation points are unacceptable also keep people safe. For example, on road signs, words on their own terms. And a good writer
and unnecessary. They say the writing should tell they warn drivers of a hazard ahead. Of course, doesn’t take shortcuts. They can create
the reader everything they need to know. What using exclamation points too often weakens their emotions with just words and sentences,
do you think? Are exclamation points necessary? effect, but that doesn’t mean they’re useless. whether that’s fear, wonder, or joy.

YES Three reasons exclamation points

are necessary NO Three reasons exclamation points
are not necessary LAST WEEK’S POLL
Last week we asked you if
1 Exclamation points have been around for
hundreds of years and are just as necessary
as any other form of punctuation.
1 Exclamation points make the writer
seem desperate and even like they’re
shouting at the reader.
conservation should focus on
smaller animals. Most of you
said yes, experts
2 They signal that there are emotions in the
writing but still leave room for the reader
to figure out what those feelings are.
2 Readers don’t want to be told how to
feel, and they should be allowed to
interpret the writing on their own.
should be
paying more 39%
NO
attention to 61%
3 Exclamation points on road signs make
drivers aware of hidden dangers. 3 The skill of writing is in crafting words
and sentences that carry emotion. the little guys.
YES

What do you think? The goal of the big debate is to present two sides
of an issue fairly in order to stimulate discussion and
Now that you’ve read a bit more about this issue, visit [Link]/polls allow our readers to make up their minds. The views on
GETTY IMAGES

so you can vote in our debate. Vote YES if you think exclamation points are necessary this page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and
or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week. the page is not funded by third parties.

8 The Week Junior • June 23, 2023

 The big debate AL
PERSOIENNE
HYGdy found that
t stu le
A recen of British peopr
ird ve
a th ash all o
Having a bath is relaxing but do not wery day.
ev
showers are more efficient.
What you need to know
A hundred years ago this month, British
politicians debated a law about how
local authorities built new homes. An MP
(Member of Parliament) insisted that
there must be room for a proper bath.

At the time, many people did not have

toilets in their homes, let alone baths or
showers. Instead they shared toilets
with their neighbours and took baths
in a tub they put out in their kitchen.

Showers were first patented by William

Feetham in the 18th century. A patent is
a legal notice allowing just one person
the right to make or sell a particular
invention. It was in the 1960s that many Which is the best
people had showers in their homes. way to wash?

Yes – a bath washes the mind and body No – showers are quick and cheap
W e turn on the tap and hot water comes out.
It seems so straightforward that we forget that
it has taken thousands of years to achieve this feat of
Baths are about so much more than cleanliness. They
are a place to unwind, to pause and reflect on the
The price of electricity and gas is much higher than
usual and you need one or the other to heat water.
plumbing. One of the earliest known baths dates day to come or the one that has passed. You can Money experts recently worked out that a year of two
back to the Indus Valley civilisation that existed in choose to relax and do nothing in a bath other than baths a day costs £438 but a year of two showers a
modern-day Pakistan around 2500–1700BC. wiggle your toes, or you can learn something by day costs just £161. Baths are now a luxury, like flying
Showers were invented a lot later. Today, many reading a good book. You can even eat in the bath on a private jet or eating a steak. What’s more,
people have both a bath and a shower in their if you are hungry (although it takes skill not to drop showers are better for the environment because they
homes, so are lucky enough to be able to choose how anything). Even babies like baths. For the first few use much less water and less energy. You don’t have
to wash. Some people swear by showers to wake years of a person’s life, they are bathed before bed, to be in the shower for very long to scrub yourself
them up in the morning, whereas others say a bath not showered. This is because baths can be calming clean, but after a long soak in a bath, you emerge
at night helps them to unwind and sleep soundly. or fun – and importantly they give time out from the from a pool of your own dirt. Showers are efficient
A shower is quick and rinses away soap efficiently day. Humans have been soaking for thousands of when you don’t have much time in the morning. That
but a good soak in a bath is a special occasion. What years – the Romans valued bathtime so much they means you can stay in bed for an extra few minutes
do you think? Are baths better than showers? built special public bathing places in towns. – which is much more relaxing than sitting in a bath.

Three reasons why baths are Three reasons why showers are
Scan the QR YES better than showers NO better than baths
code to vote in
Junior the debate
1 Having a bath helps you to take proper
time out. While soaking you have time 1 Having a quick shower is far cheaper
than running a bath, and many people

LAST WEEK’S POLL to think about the day you’ve just had,
to daydream and to make plans.
are trying to save money.

Last week, we asked

if it is ok to use
2 In the bath, people can do all kinds of
things, like chatting, eating, reading
2 Speedy showers are also better for the
environment, as you waste less water
and energy. Get wet, switch off the
abbreviations.
and relaxing tired muscles – all while shower, soap up then rinse off. Done!
Most of you felt that
77% 23% getting clean.
language is always
evolving and
abbreviations can
YES NO

3 We are bathed from the first day of our

lives. Getting into warm water is a very
3 When you know that a shower only
takes three minutes, you can stay in bed
for longer. That extra bit of sleep is
make writing simpler. natural human activity. more relaxing than a bath anyway.
REX SHUTTERSTOCK

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Now that you’ve read a bit more about it, tell us what you think by voting in our poll at [Link]/polls.
Vote YES if you think baths are better than showers, or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week.

8 The aim of the Big debate page is to present two sides of an issue fairly and objectively, in order to stimulate discussion and allow our readers to make up their minds.
The views on the page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and the page is not funded by third parties. The page is created in association with the English-Speaking The Week Junior • 17 June 2023
Union, an educational charity helping young people discover their voice and realise their full potential. For more information, please see [Link]
 The big debate AL
PERSOIENNE
HYGdy found that
t stu le
A recen of British peopr
ird ve
a th ash all o
Having a bath is relaxing but do not wery day.
ev
showers are more efficient.
What you need to know
A hundred years ago this month, British
politicians debated a law about how
local authorities built new homes. An MP
(Member of Parliament) insisted that
there must be room for a proper bath.

At the time, many people did not have

toilets in their homes, let alone baths or
showers. Instead they shared toilets
with their neighbours and took baths
in a tub they put out in their kitchen.

Showers were first patented by William

Feetham in the 18th century. A patent is
a legal notice allowing just one person
the right to make or sell a particular
invention. It was in the 1960s that many Which is the best
people had showers in their homes. way to wash?

Yes – a bath washes the mind and body No – showers are quick and cheap
W e turn on the tap and hot water comes out.
It seems so straightforward that we forget that
it has taken thousands of years to achieve this feat of
Baths are about so much more than cleanliness. They
are a place to unwind, to pause and reflect on the
The price of electricity and gas is much higher than
usual and you need one or the other to heat water.
plumbing. One of the earliest known baths dates day to come or the one that has passed. You can Money experts recently worked out that a year of two
back to the Indus Valley civilisation that existed in choose to relax and do nothing in a bath other than baths a day costs £438 but a year of two showers a
modern-day Pakistan around 2500–1700BC. wiggle your toes, or you can learn something by day costs just £161. Baths are now a luxury, like flying
Showers were invented a lot later. Today, many reading a good book. You can even eat in the bath on a private jet or eating a steak. What’s more,
people have both a bath and a shower in their if you are hungry (although it takes skill not to drop showers are better for the environment because they
homes, so are lucky enough to be able to choose how anything). Even babies like baths. For the first few use much less water and less energy. You don’t have
to wash. Some people swear by showers to wake years of a person’s life, they are bathed before bed, to be in the shower for very long to scrub yourself
them up in the morning, whereas others say a bath not showered. This is because baths can be calming clean, but after a long soak in a bath, you emerge
at night helps them to unwind and sleep soundly. or fun – and importantly they give time out from the from a pool of your own dirt. Showers are efficient
A shower is quick and rinses away soap efficiently day. Humans have been soaking for thousands of when you don’t have much time in the morning. That
but a good soak in a bath is a special occasion. What years – the Romans valued bathtime so much they means you can stay in bed for an extra few minutes
do you think? Are baths better than showers? built special public bathing places in towns. – which is much more relaxing than sitting in a bath.

Three reasons why baths are Three reasons why showers are
Scan the QR YES better than showers NO better than baths
code to vote in
Junior the debate
1 Having a bath helps you to take proper
time out. While soaking you have time 1 Having a quick shower is far cheaper
than running a bath, and many people

LAST WEEK’S POLL to think about the day you’ve just had,
to daydream and to make plans.
are trying to save money.

Last week, we asked

if it is ok to use
2 In the bath, people can do all kinds of
things, like chatting, eating, reading
2 Speedy showers are also better for the
environment, as you waste less water
and energy. Get wet, switch off the
abbreviations.
and relaxing tired muscles – all while shower, soap up then rinse off. Done!
Most of you felt that
77% 23% getting clean.
language is always
evolving and
abbreviations can
YES NO

3 We are bathed from the first day of our

lives. Getting into warm water is a very
3 When you know that a shower only
takes three minutes, you can stay in bed
for longer. That extra bit of sleep is
make writing simpler. natural human activity. more relaxing than a bath anyway.
REX SHUTTERSTOCK

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Now that you’ve read a bit more about it, tell us what you think by voting in our poll at [Link]/polls.
Vote YES if you think baths are better than showers, or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week.

8 The aim of the Big debate page is to present two sides of an issue fairly and objectively, in order to stimulate discussion and allow our readers to make up their minds.
The views on the page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and the page is not funded by third parties. The page is created in association with the English-Speaking The Week Junior • 17 June 2023
Union, an educational charity helping young people discover their voice and realise their full potential. For more information, please see [Link]
 The big debate

Is AI bad for new music?

Some people say that computers STILLNG
ROgChKthIey broke up
could replace real-life musicians. ou are
Even th 0, The Beatles usic
in 197 est-selling m
What you need to know b
still the up of all time.
gro
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a type of
computer system that can perform tasks
that usually require human intelligence.
These tasks include making decisions
and solving problems.

AI is being used to create music. It learns

to do this by analysing lots of different
types of music and learning details and
patterns from those songs.

Based on what the AI has learned, it can

then create music by mixing different
bits of existing music together. It can
also be used to experiment. For example,
it could show what Harry Styles would
AI music is
sound like singing a Taylor Swift song.
getting popular.

Yes – AI music isn’t creative No – AI can help spark new ideas

T he world’s oldest known musical instruments are
more than 40,000 years old. For tens of thousands
of years, humans have been making music for
Using AI might be cheaper than paying a musician.
If companies can use AI to produce popular music that
When people turn on their radio or headphones and
a great new song comes on, it makes them feel good.
pleasure and to express themselves. Recently, there makes lots of money from people buying and listening A catchy tune brings people together to sing and
has been a rise in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to it, it could put musicians out of work. If musicians dance. If people are enjoying music, does it matter
to create music. Some AI music has become so can’t earn money from music, there will be far fewer whether it was made by a human or a machine?
popular that it’s gone viral online. The technique of them creating new songs. Anyway, listening to Music makers already use computers, which help to
has been used by lots of musicians. Recently, Paul music that was made by a computer isn’t the same perfect sound and mix different layers of a song. AI is
McCartney from the famous 1960s band The Beatles, experience as listening to human-made music. When just another new technology, a tool that musicians can
used it. Taking an old song created by Beatles musicians create songs they put genuine emotions use to spark ideas. It won’t replace musicians but they
member John Lennon, who died in 1980, McCartney and real experiences into their work, creating songs can work with it. Building on music created by AI could
created a “final Beatles record” with the help of AI. that connect with people at a deep level. Songs save them time. It could allow lots more music to be
Some people think that using AI to create music isn’t produced by AI aren’t original because the computer produced and it could lead to new and unique styles
original or creative because it just makes songs out of just samples bits of music from already-existing music. of music emerging. AI could create exciting tunes that
old music. What do you think? Is AI bad for creativity? AI music isn’t genuinely creative. humans could never have dreamed of.

Three reasons why AI is bad Three reasons why AI is not

Scan the QR Yes for new music No bad for new music
code to vote in
Junior the debate
1 Musicians might be put out of work if
companies find it cheaper to use AI to
create music. That means they’ll have
1 If a song is catchy and you’re enjoying
listening to it, does it matter whether it
was made by a human or a machine?
LAST WEEK’S POLL less support to create new music.
Last week we asked if
baths are better than
2 Listening to music made by humans is
a unique experience, because genuine
2 AI is the latest technology and
musicians can use it as a tool. They can
get inspiration from it and use it to
showers. Most of you
feelings have gone into the piece. experiment and save time.
preferred the quick 36% 64% AI can’t recreate that.
3
refreshment of a YES NO Using AI to produce music could
shower, which uses
less water and is better
for the environment.
3 Using AI to make music isn’t very
creative because it uses pre-existing
music. This isn’t very original.
encourage an increase in musical
creativity. It could lead to new styles
of music emerging in future.

Now that you’ve read a bit more about it, tell us what you think by voting in our poll at [Link]/polls.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
ALAMY

Vote YES if you think AI is bad for new music, or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week.

The aim of the Big debate page is to present two sides of an issue fairly and objectively, in order to stimulate discussion and allow our readers to make up their minds.
8 The views on the page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and the page is not funded by third parties. The page is created in association with the English-Speaking The Week Junior • 24 June 2023
Union, an educational charity helping young people discover their voice and realise their full potential. For more information, please see [Link]
 The big debate

Is AI bad for new music?

Some people say that computers STILLNG
ROgChKthIey broke up
could replace real-life musicians. ou are
Even th 0, The Beatles usic
in 197 est-selling m
What you need to know b
still the up of all time.
gro
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a type of
computer system that can perform tasks
that usually require human intelligence.
These tasks include making decisions
and solving problems.

AI is being used to create music. It learns

to do this by analysing lots of different
types of music and learning details and
patterns from those songs.

Based on what the AI has learned, it can

then create music by mixing different
bits of existing music together. It can
also be used to experiment. For example,
it could show what Harry Styles would
AI music is
sound like singing a Taylor Swift song.
getting popular.

Yes – AI music isn’t creative No – AI can help spark new ideas

T he world’s oldest known musical instruments are
more than 40,000 years old. For tens of thousands
of years, humans have been making music for
Using AI might be cheaper than paying a musician.
If companies can use AI to produce popular music that
When people turn on their radio or headphones and
a great new song comes on, it makes them feel good.
pleasure and to express themselves. Recently, there makes lots of money from people buying and listening A catchy tune brings people together to sing and
has been a rise in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to it, it could put musicians out of work. If musicians dance. If people are enjoying music, does it matter
to create music. Some AI music has become so can’t earn money from music, there will be far fewer whether it was made by a human or a machine?
popular that it’s gone viral online. The technique of them creating new songs. Anyway, listening to Music makers already use computers, which help to
has been used by lots of musicians. Recently, Paul music that was made by a computer isn’t the same perfect sound and mix different layers of a song. AI is
McCartney from the famous 1960s band The Beatles, experience as listening to human-made music. When just another new technology, a tool that musicians can
used it. Taking an old song created by Beatles musicians create songs they put genuine emotions use to spark ideas. It won’t replace musicians but they
member John Lennon, who died in 1980, McCartney and real experiences into their work, creating songs can work with it. Building on music created by AI could
created a “final Beatles record” with the help of AI. that connect with people at a deep level. Songs save them time. It could allow lots more music to be
Some people think that using AI to create music isn’t produced by AI aren’t original because the computer produced and it could lead to new and unique styles
original or creative because it just makes songs out of just samples bits of music from already-existing music. of music emerging. AI could create exciting tunes that
old music. What do you think? Is AI bad for creativity? AI music isn’t genuinely creative. humans could never have dreamed of.

Three reasons why AI is bad Three reasons why AI is not

Scan the QR Yes for new music No bad for new music
code to vote in
Junior the debate
1 Musicians might be put out of work if
companies find it cheaper to use AI to
create music. That means they’ll have
1 If a song is catchy and you’re enjoying
listening to it, does it matter whether it
was made by a human or a machine?
LAST WEEK’S POLL less support to create new music.
Last week we asked if
baths are better than
2 Listening to music made by humans is
a unique experience, because genuine
2 AI is the latest technology and
musicians can use it as a tool. They can
get inspiration from it and use it to
showers. Most of you
feelings have gone into the piece. experiment and save time.
preferred the quick 36% 64% AI can’t recreate that.
3
refreshment of a YES NO Using AI to produce music could
shower, which uses
less water and is better
for the environment.
3 Using AI to make music isn’t very
creative because it uses pre-existing
music. This isn’t very original.
encourage an increase in musical
creativity. It could lead to new styles
of music emerging in future.

Now that you’ve read a bit more about it, tell us what you think by voting in our poll at [Link]/polls.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
ALAMY

Vote YES if you think AI is bad for new music, or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week.

The aim of the Big debate page is to present two sides of an issue fairly and objectively, in order to stimulate discussion and allow our readers to make up their minds.
8 The views on the page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and the page is not funded by third parties. The page is created in association with the English-Speaking The Week Junior • 24 June 2023
Union, an educational charity helping young people discover their voice and realise their full potential. For more information, please see [Link]
 The big debate
Is shouting at youth sports acceptable?
Some adults get carried away on the
sidelines, while others keep calm.

What you need to know

OIn recent years, there have been more
incidents of adults at youth sports
events shouting, swearing, and even
getting into physical fights.
OMany schools and leagues have rules
telling parents how to behave at
sporting events. Others have banned
parents from games entirely.
DID YOU?
KNOWy found
OA new rule in Deptford Township,
New Jersey, says that parents who stud
yell at Little League baseball A recent rly 61% of US
tha t nea play
umpires must serve as an umpire s 6 to 12
kids ageth sports.
for three games. you

Yes—sports are noisy and exciting No—shouting makes things stressful

A cross the US, millions of children and teens
take part in school, club, and league
sporting events. In recent years, some adults
You can’t tell parents not to cheer when their
child is competing. They’re proud of their kids and
Youth sports are about sportsmanship and fun,
not just winning. Shouting puts too much pressure
have become more emotional and aggressive as want to encourage and support them. Besides, on young players, and aggressive adults can be
they support their kids from the sidelines. Some shouting encouragement motivates all the scary and create a bad atmosphere for everyone.
shout instructions to their kids or other players. players to try their best. Sports are, after all, about That behavior can make players embarrassed,
Shouting can lead to arguing, using rude competition and passion. Shouting for your team anxious, and afraid to lose. It can even cause them
language or gestures, and even threatening or an athlete is a part of the experience and helps to make errors. Players need to focus on the game
coaches, game officials, the opposing team, or create an exciting atmosphere. Most parents are and make quick decisions without being
other parents. Occasionally, the fights get sensible and respectful, even if they do shout, and distracted by yelling from the sidelines. Coaches,
physical. Adults who yell say they’re just won’t let it lead to more aggressive behavior. referees, and umpires are often other parents
supporting athletes. But other sports spectators Why should a few poorly behaved people ruin it volunteering for the job. They don’t deserve to get
think enough is enough. What do you think? Is for everyone else? It’s the out-of-control parents shouted at—or worse. Adults should set a good
shouting at youth sports acceptable? who should be banned, not shouting. example and control their emotions.

Three reasons why shouting at youth Three reasons why shouting at youth
YES sports is acceptable NO sports is not acceptable LAST WEEK’S POLL
Last week, we asked if taking
1 Parents are just trying to encourage their
children to do their best. 1 Shouting takes the focus off the whole
point of youth sports, which should be
about fun and sportsmanship.
selfies is bad for nature. Three
quarters of you said selfies are
2 Shouting creates an exciting, competitive
atmosphere and motivates all players to
try to win, which is the whole point. 2 Shouting puts too much pressure on
young players.
OK if you’re
careful, while 75%
NO
one quarter
3 A handful of adults are a problem. Other
people shouldn’t be punished for the poor
behavior of a few aggressive people.
3 No one in youth sports deserves to be
yelled at, including coaches and game
officials who are volunteering their time.
of you said 25%
YES
it’s too risky.

What do you think? The goal of the big debate is to present two sides of
an issue fairly and objectively in order to stimulate
Now that you’ve read a bit more about this issue, visit [Link]/polls discussion and allow our readers to make up their minds.
so you can vote in our debate. Vote YES if you think shouting at youth sports is The views on the page do not reflect those of The Week
acceptable or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week.
ALAMY

Junior, and the page is not funded by third parties.

8 The Week Junior • June 2, 2023

 The big debate
Is shouting at youth sports acceptable?
Some adults get carried away on the
sidelines, while others keep calm.

What you need to know

OIn recent years, there have been more
incidents of adults at youth sports
events shouting, swearing, and even
getting into physical fights.
OMany schools and leagues have rules
telling parents how to behave at
sporting events. Others have banned
parents from games entirely.
DID YOU?
KNOWy found
OA new rule in Deptford Township,
New Jersey, says that parents who stud
yell at Little League baseball A recent rly 61% of US
tha t nea play
umpires must serve as an umpire s 6 to 12
kids ageth sports.
for three games. you

Yes—sports are noisy and exciting No—shouting makes things stressful

A cross the US, millions of children and teens
take part in school, club, and league
sporting events. In recent years, some adults
You can’t tell parents not to cheer when their
child is competing. They’re proud of their kids and
Youth sports are about sportsmanship and fun,
not just winning. Shouting puts too much pressure
have become more emotional and aggressive as want to encourage and support them. Besides, on young players, and aggressive adults can be
they support their kids from the sidelines. Some shouting encouragement motivates all the scary and create a bad atmosphere for everyone.
shout instructions to their kids or other players. players to try their best. Sports are, after all, about That behavior can make players embarrassed,
Shouting can lead to arguing, using rude competition and passion. Shouting for your team anxious, and afraid to lose. It can even cause them
language or gestures, and even threatening or an athlete is a part of the experience and helps to make errors. Players need to focus on the game
coaches, game officials, the opposing team, or create an exciting atmosphere. Most parents are and make quick decisions without being
other parents. Occasionally, the fights get sensible and respectful, even if they do shout, and distracted by yelling from the sidelines. Coaches,
physical. Adults who yell say they’re just won’t let it lead to more aggressive behavior. referees, and umpires are often other parents
supporting athletes. But other sports spectators Why should a few poorly behaved people ruin it volunteering for the job. They don’t deserve to get
think enough is enough. What do you think? Is for everyone else? It’s the out-of-control parents shouted at—or worse. Adults should set a good
shouting at youth sports acceptable? who should be banned, not shouting. example and control their emotions.

Three reasons why shouting at youth Three reasons why shouting at youth
YES sports is acceptable NO sports is not acceptable LAST WEEK’S POLL
Last week, we asked if taking
1 Parents are just trying to encourage their
children to do their best. 1 Shouting takes the focus off the whole
point of youth sports, which should be
about fun and sportsmanship.
selfies is bad for nature. Three
quarters of you said selfies are
2 Shouting creates an exciting, competitive
atmosphere and motivates all players to
try to win, which is the whole point. 2 Shouting puts too much pressure on
young players.
OK if you’re
careful, while 75%
NO
one quarter
3 A handful of adults are a problem. Other
people shouldn’t be punished for the poor
behavior of a few aggressive people.
3 No one in youth sports deserves to be
yelled at, including coaches and game
officials who are volunteering their time.
of you said 25%
YES
it’s too risky.

What do you think? The goal of the big debate is to present two sides of
an issue fairly and objectively in order to stimulate
Now that you’ve read a bit more about this issue, visit [Link]/polls discussion and allow our readers to make up their minds.
so you can vote in our debate. Vote YES if you think shouting at youth sports is The views on the page do not reflect those of The Week
acceptable or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week.
ALAMY

Junior, and the page is not funded by third parties.

8 The Week Junior • June 2, 2023

 The big debate

Should SATs be scrapped?

Some people think that SATs put
unnecessary stress on pupils.
What you need to know
SATs stands for Standard Assessment
Tests. These are exams taken by pupils in
England in Year 2 and Year 6 to assess
their progress at primary school.

The tests are used to identify pupils’

skills in English grammar, punctuation
and spelling, maths and reading. Year 6
SATs results are used by secondary

TESTIENSG
schools to identify levels of ability in
their first year pupils.

Pupils in Northern Ireland, Wales and TIMschool pupilse

, high s nin
In Chinaexam that takeover
Scotland don’t have to take SATs. In

take an and is spread

Northern Ireland and Scotland they are

hours two days.

assessed as they learn. Pupils in Wales
Exams are part
do online tests.
of school life.

Yes – they’re not fair on pupils No – they help teachers and pupils
F or at least 25 years, the progress of primary school
pupils in England has been measured using
Standard Assessment Tests (SATs). However, the most
Exams can be very stressful for pupils. The build-up
can be nerve-wracking, and afterwards people
At secondary school, all pupils have to do exams for
their GCSEs, and many go on to do more, such as
recent set of SATs completed by Year 6 students were sometimes feel upset if they think they have not done A levels and university exams. Doing SATs at primary
criticised for being too difficult. There were reports well enough. Year 2 and Year 6 pupils are too young school is a gentle way to get younger pupils familiar
that some pupils were in tears about it. Parents and to be put under this much pressure. Also, it’s not fair with the format of exams. SATs also help teachers to
teachers were very upset, saying the papers were too to assess pupils just based on exams taken at certain identify pupil’s strengths and weaknesses in the core
difficult and some pupils didn’t even have time to times and in a narrow range of subjects. Instead, they subjects of maths, reading and writing. It’s important
finish them. Some people have called for the exams should be assessed on all subjects and frequently, for pupils to get the support that they need, especially
to be scrapped, suggesting that there are better ways as they are learning. This would be a much better when they are joining a new school. The Year 6 SATs
to assess children’s skills. However, others say that way to measure children’s progress. Exam questions marks help the Year 7 teachers understand their new
exams should be difficult and that they’re an aren’t the best way to prepare pupils for real life. students. Also, not everyone hates exams. Sitting
important way to prepare pupils for exams that Testing people on their creativity, problem-solving tests can be quite a satisfying way to check you have
they’ll have to do when they’re older. What do you and teamworking skills is much more useful if the aim understood your lessons. Exams are a good way to
think? Should SATs be scrapped? is to prepare young people for life and work. wrap up everything you have learnt through the year.

Three reasons why SATs should Three reasons why SATs

Scan the QR YES be scrapped NO shouldn’t be scrapped
code to vote in
Junior the debate
1 Exams are a source of lots of stress for
pupils and can be very upsetting. 1 It’s a good way to introduce younger
pupils to exams, which they have to

LAST WEEK’S POLL 2 It’s not fair to assess pupils’ ability take at secondary school anyway.

Last week we asked if

people should eat
based on a few exams. Instead, they
should be regularly assessed and on
many different subjects.
2 They’re a helpful way to identify a
pupil’s strengths and weaknesses,
which means that teachers can provide
gene-edited food.
them with the support they need.
Most of you felt that
it could have bad
effects in the future
34%
YES
66%
NO 3 Answering exam questions on English
and maths doesn’t prepare pupils for
real life. People should be challenged 3 Exams can be fun and give students a
sense of satisfaction. Studying for and
that we don’t know on the skills that will help them in life sitting an exam is a good way to make
about yet. and jobs, such as working with others. sure you’ve understood your lessons.
REX SHUTTERSTOCK

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Now that you’ve read a bit more about it, tell us what you think by voting in our poll at [Link]/polls.
Vote YES if you think SATs should be scrapped, or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week.

8 The aim of the Big debate page is to present two sides of an issue fairly and objectively, in order to stimulate discussion and allow our readers to make up their minds.
The views on the page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and the page is not funded by third parties. The page is created in association with the English-Speaking The Week Junior • 3 June 2023
Union, an educational charity helping young people discover their voice and realise their full potential. For more information, please see [Link]
 The big debate

Should SATs be scrapped?

Some people think that SATs put
unnecessary stress on pupils.
What you need to know
SATs stands for Standard Assessment
Tests. These are exams taken by pupils in
England in Year 2 and Year 6 to assess
their progress at primary school.

The tests are used to identify pupils’

skills in English grammar, punctuation
and spelling, maths and reading. Year 6
SATs results are used by secondary

TESTIENSG
schools to identify levels of ability in
their first year pupils.

Pupils in Northern Ireland, Wales and TIMschool pupilse

, high s nin
In Chinaexam that takeover
Scotland don’t have to take SATs. In

take an and is spread

Northern Ireland and Scotland they are

hours two days.

assessed as they learn. Pupils in Wales
Exams are part
do online tests.
of school life.

Yes – they’re not fair on pupils No – they help teachers and pupils
F or at least 25 years, the progress of primary school
pupils in England has been measured using
Standard Assessment Tests (SATs). However, the most
Exams can be very stressful for pupils. The build-up
can be nerve-wracking, and afterwards people
At secondary school, all pupils have to do exams for
their GCSEs, and many go on to do more, such as
recent set of SATs completed by Year 6 students were sometimes feel upset if they think they have not done A levels and university exams. Doing SATs at primary
criticised for being too difficult. There were reports well enough. Year 2 and Year 6 pupils are too young school is a gentle way to get younger pupils familiar
that some pupils were in tears about it. Parents and to be put under this much pressure. Also, it’s not fair with the format of exams. SATs also help teachers to
teachers were very upset, saying the papers were too to assess pupils just based on exams taken at certain identify pupil’s strengths and weaknesses in the core
difficult and some pupils didn’t even have time to times and in a narrow range of subjects. Instead, they subjects of maths, reading and writing. It’s important
finish them. Some people have called for the exams should be assessed on all subjects and frequently, for pupils to get the support that they need, especially
to be scrapped, suggesting that there are better ways as they are learning. This would be a much better when they are joining a new school. The Year 6 SATs
to assess children’s skills. However, others say that way to measure children’s progress. Exam questions marks help the Year 7 teachers understand their new
exams should be difficult and that they’re an aren’t the best way to prepare pupils for real life. students. Also, not everyone hates exams. Sitting
important way to prepare pupils for exams that Testing people on their creativity, problem-solving tests can be quite a satisfying way to check you have
they’ll have to do when they’re older. What do you and teamworking skills is much more useful if the aim understood your lessons. Exams are a good way to
think? Should SATs be scrapped? is to prepare young people for life and work. wrap up everything you have learnt through the year.

Three reasons why SATs should Three reasons why SATs

Scan the QR YES be scrapped NO shouldn’t be scrapped
code to vote in
Junior the debate
1 Exams are a source of lots of stress for
pupils and can be very upsetting. 1 It’s a good way to introduce younger
pupils to exams, which they have to

LAST WEEK’S POLL 2 It’s not fair to assess pupils’ ability take at secondary school anyway.

Last week we asked if

people should eat
based on a few exams. Instead, they
should be regularly assessed and on
many different subjects.
2 They’re a helpful way to identify a
pupil’s strengths and weaknesses,
which means that teachers can provide
gene-edited food.
them with the support they need.
Most of you felt that
it could have bad
effects in the future
34%
YES
66%
NO 3 Answering exam questions on English
and maths doesn’t prepare pupils for
real life. People should be challenged 3 Exams can be fun and give students a
sense of satisfaction. Studying for and
that we don’t know on the skills that will help them in life sitting an exam is a good way to make
about yet. and jobs, such as working with others. sure you’ve understood your lessons.
REX SHUTTERSTOCK

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Now that you’ve read a bit more about it, tell us what you think by voting in our poll at [Link]/polls.
Vote YES if you think SATs should be scrapped, or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week.

8 The aim of the Big debate page is to present two sides of an issue fairly and objectively, in order to stimulate discussion and allow our readers to make up their minds.
The views on the page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and the page is not funded by third parties. The page is created in association with the English-Speaking The Week Junior • 3 June 2023
Union, an educational charity helping young people discover their voice and realise their full potential. For more information, please see [Link]
 The big debate
Should there be live-action remakes?
Some people think animated films should
be left as they are, rather than remade. FUNaFnA CT
imated
In the ow to Train
of H
What you need to know ve sion gon, Toothless
r
D ra
Your e of the
O Live-action movies mix real-life as b ased on on ats.
w rs’ c
actors with the latest special animato
effects to make fantasy look real.
O Popular animated films that have
been remade into live-action ones
include The Lion King, Aladdin, and
Beauty and the Beast.
ODreamWorks Animation is now
making live-action versions of the
How to Train Your Dragon films.
O The original films were based on a The live-action
book series about a Viking named version of The
Hiccup and Toothless the dragon. Little Mermaid

Yes—they give new life to old stories No—that’s not very creative
F rom Toy Story to Frozen, Moana, Minions, and
Encanto, animated films are huge. Timeless
movies like these build magical worlds where
The original animated film The Little Mermaid came
out in 1989. Many adults love it for sentimental
Animated films have beautiful styles of animation
that are created for a specific story and contribute
dolls talk, little yellow creatures cause trouble, reasons, but it can seem old-fashioned to young to the film’s magic. Some movies use classical
and families live in enchanted homes. Recently, audiences who have grown up with state-of-the- two-dimensional sketch-style animation, while
studios have been making live-action versions of art special effects. The live-action version that others have a more modern three-dimensional
big animated hits. How to Train Your Dragon, came out this year was a chance to update a classic style. Creating animation takes years of effort
which will hit theaters in 2025, is just the latest story for a younger generation. Years ago, from the people who work behind the scenes.
animated film to be getting a live-action remake. filmmakers didn’t have the technology to make Live-action remakes make it seem as if the hard
Some people who love the original movies are live-action fantasy worlds look as real as they do work of the original animators isn’t good enough
excited to see them brought to life again. Others today. Now they can make live-action movies that or is too old-fashioned. It’s not very creative to
think the animated films were so good that are as amazing as animated ones. It’s exciting for simply remake a film in a different style. Instead,
there’s no need to redo them. What do you think? kids to see what their favorite characters or film studios should come up with original ideas
Should there be live-action remakes? creatures look like in the “real” world. and stories to make into new films.

YES Three reasons there should be

live-action remakes NO Three reasons there should not be
live-action remakes LAST WEEK’S POLL
Last week, we asked you
1 Remaking films is a great way to update
animated classics and introduce them to
a new generation of kids.
1 Part of what makes animated movies so
special is the beautiful animation styles,
which are different in each film.
if exclamation points
are necessary. You voted
overwhelmingly
2 Amazing technology that enables
fantasy to look like reality has been
invented—we should use it.
2 Animators put years of hard work into
their films. Live-action remakes make it
seem like that’s not important.
in favor of
using the
7%
NO
93%
punctuation YES

3 It’s exciting to see fantasy worlds

brought to life in the film’s “real” world. 3 Remaking old films isn’t very creative.
It’s better to come up with new ideas. mark in writing!

What do you think? The goal of the big debate is to present two sides
of an issue fairly in order to stimulate discussion and
Now that you’ve read a bit more about this issue, visit [Link]/polls allow our readers to make up their minds. The views on
so you can vote in our debate. Vote YES if you think there should be live-action this page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and
remakes or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week.
DISNEY

the page is not funded by third parties.

8 The Week Junior • June 30, 2023

 The big debate
Should there be live-action remakes?
Some people think animated films should
be left as they are, rather than remade. FUNaFnA CT
imated
In the ow to Train
of H
What you need to know ve sion gon, Toothless
r
D ra
Your e of the
O Live-action movies mix real-life as b ased on on ats.
w rs’ c
actors with the latest special animato
effects to make fantasy look real.
O Popular animated films that have
been remade into live-action ones
include The Lion King, Aladdin, and
Beauty and the Beast.
ODreamWorks Animation is now
making live-action versions of the
How to Train Your Dragon films.
O The original films were based on a The live-action
book series about a Viking named version of The
Hiccup and Toothless the dragon. Little Mermaid

Yes—they give new life to old stories No—that’s not very creative
F rom Toy Story to Frozen, Moana, Minions, and
Encanto, animated films are huge. Timeless
movies like these build magical worlds where
The original animated film The Little Mermaid came
out in 1989. Many adults love it for sentimental
Animated films have beautiful styles of animation
that are created for a specific story and contribute
dolls talk, little yellow creatures cause trouble, reasons, but it can seem old-fashioned to young to the film’s magic. Some movies use classical
and families live in enchanted homes. Recently, audiences who have grown up with state-of-the- two-dimensional sketch-style animation, while
studios have been making live-action versions of art special effects. The live-action version that others have a more modern three-dimensional
big animated hits. How to Train Your Dragon, came out this year was a chance to update a classic style. Creating animation takes years of effort
which will hit theaters in 2025, is just the latest story for a younger generation. Years ago, from the people who work behind the scenes.
animated film to be getting a live-action remake. filmmakers didn’t have the technology to make Live-action remakes make it seem as if the hard
Some people who love the original movies are live-action fantasy worlds look as real as they do work of the original animators isn’t good enough
excited to see them brought to life again. Others today. Now they can make live-action movies that or is too old-fashioned. It’s not very creative to
think the animated films were so good that are as amazing as animated ones. It’s exciting for simply remake a film in a different style. Instead,
there’s no need to redo them. What do you think? kids to see what their favorite characters or film studios should come up with original ideas
Should there be live-action remakes? creatures look like in the “real” world. and stories to make into new films.

YES Three reasons there should be

live-action remakes NO Three reasons there should not be
live-action remakes LAST WEEK’S POLL
Last week, we asked you
1 Remaking films is a great way to update
animated classics and introduce them to
a new generation of kids.
1 Part of what makes animated movies so
special is the beautiful animation styles,
which are different in each film.
if exclamation points
are necessary. You voted
overwhelmingly
2 Amazing technology that enables
fantasy to look like reality has been
invented—we should use it.
2 Animators put years of hard work into
their films. Live-action remakes make it
seem like that’s not important.
in favor of
using the
7%
NO
93%
punctuation YES

3 It’s exciting to see fantasy worlds

brought to life in the film’s “real” world. 3 Remaking old films isn’t very creative.
It’s better to come up with new ideas. mark in writing!

What do you think? The goal of the big debate is to present two sides
of an issue fairly in order to stimulate discussion and
Now that you’ve read a bit more about this issue, visit [Link]/polls allow our readers to make up their minds. The views on
so you can vote in our debate. Vote YES if you think there should be live-action this page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and
remakes or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week.
DISNEY

the page is not funded by third parties.

8 The Week Junior • June 30, 2023

 The big debate
Should conservation focus on smaller animals?
Some say it’s time to change the strategy
for helping endangered species.

What you need to know

An estimated 42,108 species are at
risk of extinction (no longer existing),

DID YOU?
including 35% of amphibians, 22% of

KNOWildlife
mammals, and 13% of bird species. Eastern small-
footed bat Black-footed ferret
rld W
Many conservation groups focus on The Wo onservation
c
large, popular animals like pandas, Fund, a s had a panda
a
whales, tigers, and gorillas. These group, h go since 1961.
are known as “flagship species” or on its lo
“charismatic megafauna.”
Studies have found that animals
with large bodies, forward-facing
eyes, and an impressive appearance
Galápagos pink
are the most appealing. Hellbender salamander land iguana

Yes—protect the little guys No—big problems require big solutions

G iant pandas have adorable faces. Elephants
and lions are famously beautiful and majestic.
These animals are the focus of major conservation
There are many endangered animals people don’t
pay any attention to, which means they get less
There’s a reason conservation efforts often focus on
attractive or charming animals, and that’s because
efforts, but few people talk about the black-footed support, money, and scientific and community they get people’s attention and inspire them to
ferret, Eastern small-footed bat, Galápagos pink efforts to save their lives. Maybe they’re quirky or help. Sure, people are more likely to donate money
land iguana, or hellbender salamander (also scary-looking, but they still need our help. Many of to an adorable polar bear than a flopping salmon
known as a “snot otter”). They’re endangered these creatures provide important benefits to at first. But once they get involved and start to care
too, but many wildlife experts say these animals people, like killing harmful insects and rodents. about saving animals, they’re more likely to help
are being left out because they’re small and Protecting a species isn’t very effective if it doesn’t the fish and other small creatures. This is known as
considered less attractive. US lawmakers help the entire ecosystem (group of plants and the “umbrella effect.” Plus, many of the flagship
recently introduced the Recovering America’s animals in an area that affect one another). Each animals are “keystone species,” which are essential
Wildlife Act to focus efforts on less “charismatic” ecosystem relies on a careful balance of predators to an ecosystem. Saving them helps others in their
creatures like these. What do you think? Should and prey. If conservationists help one species habitat survive while giving the public a greater
conservation focus on smaller animals? without protecting the others, it can cause harm. appreciation for the value of nature.

YES Three reasons why conservation

should focus on smaller animals NO Three reasons why conservation
should not focus on smaller animals LAST WEEK’S POLL
Last week, we asked you if
1 Small animals need our attention and
support too, which means people need
to know about them.
1 Big, striking, and beautiful animals
motivate people to care about
conservation efforts in general.
yearbooks should go fully
digital. A large majority said
no, it’s better to
2 These species can protect humans from
pests and provide other benefits. 2 Once people are inspired to protect one
animal, they’re more likely to help other
animals as well.
have school
memories 11%
3 It’s important to maintain the balance
between small and large animals in
3 It’s vital to save larger keystone species. preserved 89%
NO
YES
VIRGINIA STATE PARKS; GETTY IMAGES; ALAMY (2)

every habitat. That helps other creatures survive. in print.

What do you think? The goal of the big debate is to present two sides
of an issue fairly in order to stimulate discussion and
Now that you’ve read a bit more about this issue, visit [Link]/polls allow our readers to make up their minds. The views on
so you can vote in our debate. Vote YES if you think conservation should focus on this page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and
smaller animals or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week. the page is not funded by third parties.

8 The Week Junior • June 16, 2023

 The big debate
Should conservation focus on smaller animals?
Some say it’s time to change the strategy
for helping endangered species.

What you need to know

An estimated 42,108 species are at
risk of extinction (no longer existing),

DID YOU?
including 35% of amphibians, 22% of

KNOWildlife
mammals, and 13% of bird species. Eastern small-
footed bat Black-footed ferret
rld W
Many conservation groups focus on The Wo onservation
c
large, popular animals like pandas, Fund, a s had a panda
a
whales, tigers, and gorillas. These group, h go since 1961.
are known as “flagship species” or on its lo
“charismatic megafauna.”
Studies have found that animals
with large bodies, forward-facing
eyes, and an impressive appearance
Galápagos pink
are the most appealing. Hellbender salamander land iguana

Yes—protect the little guys No—big problems require big solutions

G iant pandas have adorable faces. Elephants
and lions are famously beautiful and majestic.
These animals are the focus of major conservation
There are many endangered animals people don’t
pay any attention to, which means they get less
There’s a reason conservation efforts often focus on
attractive or charming animals, and that’s because
efforts, but few people talk about the black-footed support, money, and scientific and community they get people’s attention and inspire them to
ferret, Eastern small-footed bat, Galápagos pink efforts to save their lives. Maybe they’re quirky or help. Sure, people are more likely to donate money
land iguana, or hellbender salamander (also scary-looking, but they still need our help. Many of to an adorable polar bear than a flopping salmon
known as a “snot otter”). They’re endangered these creatures provide important benefits to at first. But once they get involved and start to care
too, but many wildlife experts say these animals people, like killing harmful insects and rodents. about saving animals, they’re more likely to help
are being left out because they’re small and Protecting a species isn’t very effective if it doesn’t the fish and other small creatures. This is known as
considered less attractive. US lawmakers help the entire ecosystem (group of plants and the “umbrella effect.” Plus, many of the flagship
recently introduced the Recovering America’s animals in an area that affect one another). Each animals are “keystone species,” which are essential
Wildlife Act to focus efforts on less “charismatic” ecosystem relies on a careful balance of predators to an ecosystem. Saving them helps others in their
creatures like these. What do you think? Should and prey. If conservationists help one species habitat survive while giving the public a greater
conservation focus on smaller animals? without protecting the others, it can cause harm. appreciation for the value of nature.

YES Three reasons why conservation

should focus on smaller animals NO Three reasons why conservation
should not focus on smaller animals LAST WEEK’S POLL
Last week, we asked you if
1 Small animals need our attention and
support too, which means people need
to know about them.
1 Big, striking, and beautiful animals
motivate people to care about
conservation efforts in general.
yearbooks should go fully
digital. A large majority said
no, it’s better to
2 These species can protect humans from
pests and provide other benefits. 2 Once people are inspired to protect one
animal, they’re more likely to help other
animals as well.
have school
memories 11%
3 It’s important to maintain the balance
between small and large animals in
3 It’s vital to save larger keystone species. preserved 89%
NO
YES
VIRGINIA STATE PARKS; GETTY IMAGES; ALAMY (2)

every habitat. That helps other creatures survive. in print.

What do you think? The goal of the big debate is to present two sides
of an issue fairly in order to stimulate discussion and
Now that you’ve read a bit more about this issue, visit [Link]/polls allow our readers to make up their minds. The views on
so you can vote in our debate. Vote YES if you think conservation should focus on this page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and
smaller animals or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week. the page is not funded by third parties.

8 The Week Junior • June 16, 2023

 The big debate
Should yearbooks go fully digital?
Some people say hard copies enhance
school memories. Others say no to print.

What you need to know

Yearbooks are often available in
elementary, middle, and high
school as well as college.
The first officially published
yearbook dates back to 1806,
when a class at Yale University in
Connecticut bound a book with
names of students and faculty and
DID YOU?
printed images of students.
KNOW t known
s
In most schools, students have to The oldearbook is from
g ye ege
purchase a yearbook, which covers survivin sachusetts Coll .
as
the M armacy in 1 82 3
the cost of printing. Prices can range
of Ph
from $10 to $100 each.

Yes—everything is online these days No—print yearbooks are a keepsake

N othing signals the end of the school year like
warmer weather, summer plans, and flipping
through your brand-new yearbook. Across the US,
The average size of a high school yearbook is
140 pages, which uses a lot of paper and is
Yearbooks document a special time in life, and
a hard copy symbolizes how important and
many students purchase a printed copy of their expensive to print. And the more it costs to print, meaningful it is. You can hold it in your hand, flip
school’s annual yearbook, which is filled with fun the more it costs students to buy. Digital through the pages at your own pace, and return
memories and photos of friends, teachers, and yearbooks don’t kill trees and are more affordable. to things you want to see again. Plus, you can
classmates. Students often sign one another’s Printed yearbooks are also big and heavy. Kids read all the signatures and personal messages
yearbooks, too, with messages they can read have enough to carry around, and they’re used to from your friends and teachers in their own
again and again for years to come. Yearbooks are doing their homework and keeping photos on handwriting. People tend to be more thoughtful
a special tradition, but many people say there’s their devices anyway. With digital yearbooks, the when they know something is going in print or
no point in printing them anymore. Instead, there editors also aren’t limited by space. They can they’re writing it out by hand. And just because a
are online versions that students can scroll include everyone, which means no one is left out. yearbook is digital doesn’t mean it’s forever—a
through and store on their devices. What do you If there’s a mistake, it can be fixed instantly. An computer problem could wipe it out entirely, and
think? Should yearbooks go fully digital? error in a printed yearbook lives forever. those memories would be gone.

YES Three reasons why yearbooks

should go fully digital NO Three reasons why yearbooks should
not go fully digital LAST WEEK’S POLL
1 1
Printed yearbooks waste paper and A printed yearbook symbolizes how Last week, we asked you if
money. Digital versions are more important school memories are. shouting at youth sports is
accessible to all students.
2 It’s more meaningful to read handwritten acceptable. It was a close call:

2 Yearbooks are clunky and heavy. It’s messages, and people are more thoughtful Just over half of
easy to store and look at a digital one. when they know their note will be in print. you said it’s 47%
NO

3 3
If a yearbook is digital, there is unlimited Digital yearbooks aren’t necessarily OK for adults
space to include everyone and it’s much forever. They could get lost or erased, to be loud on
53%
YES
easier to correct mistakes. along with all those special memories. the sidelines.

What do you think? The goal of the big debate is to present two sides
of an issue fairly in order to stimulate discussion and
Now that you’ve read a bit more about this issue, visit [Link]/polls allow our readers to make up their minds. The views on
so you can vote in our debate. Vote YES if you think yearbooks should go fully digital
GETTY IMAGES

this page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and

or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week. the page is not funded by third parties.

8 The Week Junior • June 9, 2023

 The big debate
Should yearbooks go fully digital?
Some people say hard copies enhance
school memories. Others say no to print.

What you need to know

Yearbooks are often available in
elementary, middle, and high
school as well as college.
The first officially published
yearbook dates back to 1806,
when a class at Yale University in
Connecticut bound a book with
names of students and faculty and
DID YOU?
printed images of students.
KNOW t known
s
In most schools, students have to The oldearbook is from
g ye ege
purchase a yearbook, which covers survivin sachusetts Coll .
as
the M armacy in 1 82 3
the cost of printing. Prices can range
of Ph
from $10 to $100 each.

Yes—everything is online these days No—print yearbooks are a keepsake

N othing signals the end of the school year like
warmer weather, summer plans, and flipping
through your brand-new yearbook. Across the US,
The average size of a high school yearbook is
140 pages, which uses a lot of paper and is
Yearbooks document a special time in life, and
a hard copy symbolizes how important and
many students purchase a printed copy of their expensive to print. And the more it costs to print, meaningful it is. You can hold it in your hand, flip
school’s annual yearbook, which is filled with fun the more it costs students to buy. Digital through the pages at your own pace, and return
memories and photos of friends, teachers, and yearbooks don’t kill trees and are more affordable. to things you want to see again. Plus, you can
classmates. Students often sign one another’s Printed yearbooks are also big and heavy. Kids read all the signatures and personal messages
yearbooks, too, with messages they can read have enough to carry around, and they’re used to from your friends and teachers in their own
again and again for years to come. Yearbooks are doing their homework and keeping photos on handwriting. People tend to be more thoughtful
a special tradition, but many people say there’s their devices anyway. With digital yearbooks, the when they know something is going in print or
no point in printing them anymore. Instead, there editors also aren’t limited by space. They can they’re writing it out by hand. And just because a
are online versions that students can scroll include everyone, which means no one is left out. yearbook is digital doesn’t mean it’s forever—a
through and store on their devices. What do you If there’s a mistake, it can be fixed instantly. An computer problem could wipe it out entirely, and
think? Should yearbooks go fully digital? error in a printed yearbook lives forever. those memories would be gone.

YES Three reasons why yearbooks

should go fully digital NO Three reasons why yearbooks should
not go fully digital LAST WEEK’S POLL
1 1
Printed yearbooks waste paper and A printed yearbook symbolizes how Last week, we asked you if
money. Digital versions are more important school memories are. shouting at youth sports is
accessible to all students.
2 It’s more meaningful to read handwritten acceptable. It was a close call:

2 Yearbooks are clunky and heavy. It’s messages, and people are more thoughtful Just over half of
easy to store and look at a digital one. when they know their note will be in print. you said it’s 47%
NO

3 3
If a yearbook is digital, there is unlimited Digital yearbooks aren’t necessarily OK for adults
space to include everyone and it’s much forever. They could get lost or erased, to be loud on
53%
YES
easier to correct mistakes. along with all those special memories. the sidelines.

What do you think? The goal of the big debate is to present two sides
of an issue fairly in order to stimulate discussion and
Now that you’ve read a bit more about this issue, visit [Link]/polls allow our readers to make up their minds. The views on
so you can vote in our debate. Vote YES if you think yearbooks should go fully digital
GETTY IMAGES

this page do not reflect those of The Week Junior, and

or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week. the page is not funded by third parties.

8 The Week Junior • June 9, 2023