#5 Questionable Quotes - Winners Announced!
11 October 2019
What a great range of sceptical thoughts on show here! So many of you used both scepticism - questioning information - and then reasoning to show why you doubted a particular quote.
Stars were awarded to those who had clearly thought carefully about their reasons for why something might not be true or accurate.
Well done to this week's winners:
Our Primary winner is fulfilled_starfruit of New Horizons Children's Academy, who demonstrated how one quote had a lack of evidence to support it.
Our Secondary winner is beloved_chocolate of Graveney School, who gave a well-argued outline of why the idea that children shouldn't vote should be approached with caution and scepticism.
Thank you for everyone for taking part and we look forward to seeing your next entries for Competition 6, which will be live shortly!
This week our competition helps you to practice a tricky Burnet News Club skill: Scepticism!
Below there are 4 (made-up) quotes. Some are about Hong Kong, some are more general. Pick one you are sceptical about and explain why. Remember, to be sceptical about something means you want to challenge it because you don't necessarily think it's true. Ways you can show your scepticism include:
Giving reasons why you doubt its truthfulness
What facts and evidences it may not have thought
How it might be based on opinion rather than fact or making assumptions
For example: "I am sceptical about Quote A because..." and try to give strong, developed reasons. Try to write at least a paragraph.
Quotes:
A. "Children shouldn't be allowed to vote on who their country's leader should be."
B. "Big protests are the best way for people to create change."
C. "The situation in Hong Kong was always going to be like this. After the hand-over in 1997, it was never going to work."
D. "It is clear what will happen in 2047 - the 'one country, two systems' approach will end and things will be more straightforward."
Winners will be announced next Friday. Good luck!
Comments (148)
i'm sceptical about question C beacause it should work
I agree strongly with you cat
I disagree. I think that letter A is the one that is un true because everyone should be able to vote and give there opinion.
untrue is one word
ok thanks
My opinion for this answer is that if Britain help Hongkong with this issue this will be over by now. I could see what your answer was like but I don’t agree with what you were saying. The reason why I don’t agree because Hongkong needs help with their matters and since Britain was involved in this why not now?
I think that children SHOULD be allowed to vote who the country’s leader is going to be because they might be interested in Brexit or human rights
unless they know whats about then i agree with you tolerant_guiter
i strongly agree with everyone
I think you are right
I agree that children should be aloud to vote on who is going to be there country’s leader
I am sceptical about c because it should work that’s why we handed them over
I think D is not true because it’s always like this
.fighting
.swearing
.lots of crowd
And noise
At least a 1/4 of Hong Kong are on the streets, begging for the change.
I'm sceptical about quote D because things will not be straight forward because Hong Kong will fight the police and even more violence and protesters will be out on the streets until china either give them rights or Hong Kong will be attacked by the Chinese army
children should be allowd to vote on their contrys leaders because they might have a good anwser
I disagree with quote a . Children can also make a change for Hong Kong , not just China or adults. WE CAN MAKE A CHANGE AND WE CAN DO IT TOGETHER.
i think children because they have all the right and freedom to vote
i am spectical about B because if people in Hong Kong carry on fighting in ALOT of voilence nothing is going to change because if people are going to fight anger is going to spread and everyone is going to keep fighting
they should👍
Children shouldn't be aloud to vote because they could make bad choices but they should have a chance to vote who will rule
i feel that kids should not be able to vote but were just like over people so why cant vote for anything
I thing question a is false because chilldren have the same right as
adult's because we are all equal and if they don't they might not
like the way they do thing's so year bye.
I am sceptical about C. It should work unless they are stopped beforehand.
Children should be aloud to vote for there country leader because they might say some thing good.
I disagree with quote a . Children can also make a change for Hong Kong , not just China or adults. WE CAN MAKE A CHANGE AND WE CAN DO IT TOGETHER.
I think that children should be aloud to vote for there Country Leader even though they're (we) are younger. As long as as we understand whats going on around the world, I don't see why we cant get involved just as long as we are serious because we need to help and support as much as we can. Nobody has to vote for anything or even get involved if they don't agree with anything!
i disagree with a because children are still human even if they are younger we all have rights
I am sceptical on question B as there are other ways in his to solve things than with a huge protest, plus we want the world to be peaceful and to work together as a whole. Also we want human race to stay alive and not to start deteriorating like Hong Kong at the moment and we want to stay together as one.
I Disagree with A as for Children are still People and in a way We all have the same Qualities.Children may be Younger but we can still debate and decide who is suitable for our Country.
I am sceptical about Quote D because when the 'one country, two systems' deal ends, that will make Hongkong and its people more vulnerable to China. This system, in the first place, was made in order for Hongkongers to be free, not ruled by China. So if this agreement ends, it might be that China will fully take control of Hongkong. Obviously, whether you were born in Hongkong or not, some people won't want this to happen.
Following speculation that a law may be forced through the House of Commons to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, the Telegraph's comment editor Tom Welsh argued that such a move would be nothing more than cynical gerrymandering.
None of the arguments for extending the franchise hold water, he argued, and proponents of lowering the voting age were motivated solely by party political reasons.
I am highly sceptical with C since the Handover in 1997 was very Promising and They Fairly agreed .when the United Kingdom ended administration for the colony of Hong Kong and returned control of the territory to China.
I am sceptical about C because whoever has written this quote is acting a bit negative towards the problem, but their will be a revolution!
I am sceptical about A because I think children should get a say and it's there future that's gets affected by a discussion that they might not like and they wouldn't have a choice but if children could vote they might not always get who they as president or prime minister but at least they had a choice
I’m skeptic all about quote B because protests don’t ALWAYS change people’s thoughts. Like for example, climate change. Greta is a climate change activist and she is a teenager. There are climate change protests on the streets but the government don’t bother helping. They just talk about brexit. Climate change is a VERY important subject. What would happen if we all drowned? Where would people live? Now for the subject I’ve learned so far. Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a beautiful place. Buildings,medicines,clothing. Stuff like that. After the leader of China announced there was going to be a new law, people have been marching on the streets protesting to take back the law. People were seriously getting injured. It’s the governments’ fault for people getting killed. Why won’t they let them speak? Do they have ears? I pray with all my heart that Britain will intervene. But it could damage our relationship with China and there might be a Work War 3 . Do we want that to happen?
I disagree with C because England and other countries could help Hong Kong fight the war against China, just because it's Hong Kong's war doesn't mean we can't help as well.
i agree with Tolerate-Guitar because of the same reason .
i think children have the right to vote too .
It wont be equal
After reading all four quotations, I am most inclined to believe D is the most sceptical. My reason being is that it is the only one of the four that has no historical or provable evidence; this is because it's completely hypothetical due to the fact the events are in the future and unless a person has precognition, they have no rational or logical way of knowing these consequences.
👒-I really liked that you added a lot of vocabulary in comment.
🎩-I noticed that you wrote the extended word for quotes (quotations).
🧢-Next time you should keep up the great vocabulary/work.
PA.memorable_raccoon.
i am sceptical about A because equality matters and children have ideas and contributing skills so it would be a waist not to use them
I am sceptical about Quote B, "Big protests are the best way for people to create change", because I strongly believe that during big protests, things can get out of hand; only a few days ago a man attending one of the Hong Kong protests was shot in the chest by a policeman. You can’t control the crowd, and you have no idea what’s going to happen – all you’ve got is hope that everything goes well, and you come out alive. Besides, there are thousands of people joining these protests; some may have other ideas. One wrong decision with a bad intention can make all the difference… Innocent people, who know that what they are doing is right, come to express their opinion on a big issue, can end up dead.
I'm sceptical about 3 of the statements because:
A.Children may be irresponsible about voting and many children won't understand properly.In addition to this,they may not be able to comprehend the politicians' speeches.
B.Having a big protest isn't always the way to create change. For example, you can have a fair, democratic vote on how you want to change your country.Also, large protests may lead to wars as well as injustice and no peace.
C.This is not true because since the 'one country two systems' agreement was signed by China, in 1997, they have given Hong Kong their rights and freedom, however, they decided to stop doing that. Although Britain gave China Hong Kong back, I strongly believe Britain may have to be in charge again as China is not being fair.
I think C because it is the one that makes the most sense. It would have ended like this anyway. Hong Kong is such a small country next to the big population of China, they were bound to start a fight. The hand over in 1997 didn't help. Something like this was bound to happen eventually.
I disagree with A because they might be interested in Brexit or human rights and sometimes they might come up with one that the grown ups didn't think of and then they might agree with them. I also can't agree with C and D YET because if it does happen it's anyway going to happen in the future and people can't predict the future . Another thing I would suggest is that people should think about stuff like this positively rather than negatively. I would agree with B but only when it is a good change not a bad change because if you think about it , who would even want to listen to someone telling us to make a bad change. If a country is good why would someone want to make it a bad place and not keep it the same.
I am sceptical about A because, I don't really know what to think about this statement but I decided that I that I disagree and everyone, no matter what, have a right to protest.
I am also sceptical about B, although big protests DO create change, I believe a small protest, can make a big change, even in Hong Kong's situation (if China listens).
I think that C is wrong because like on B we can make a change, and make this work. But I don't know what's the means by 'it was never going to work' so I'm not sure about this.
I don't think D is correct because, no human being can predict the future so, we don't know if this problem will become more straight forward in the future but nobody knows.
I meant 'I thought think D is incorrect'
I am sceptical about Quote B because sometimes big protests can't always change things, they can lead somewhere unquestionable or uncertain and can change the future in different ways that you might not know.
👒- I really liked that you backed up your answer with reasons
🎩- I noticed that you didn't use a lot of KS2 punctuation
🧢- Next time you should try to write a paragraph
Keep up the good work,
PA. fulfilled_starfruit
I’m sceptical about D because Hong Kong citizens are already protesting about it so I don’t think this would be straight forward
Question C: It wasn't inevitable what would happen. The world has changed so much in the last 20 years and I expect it to keep changing. Also I hope the English wouldn't make an agreement if they knew it would flop?
I am sceptic about quote a because think that children should have the right to vote for their country leader. After all we are the next generation therefore, we should be allowed to vote. As long as we are being serious about it because it determines our next leader. I also think that nobody needs to get involved or needs to vote if they don't know about the topic or maybe just because they do not want to. I do not see why just because we are younger we do not get to vote . If anything we should vote because it affects us more than adults because we are the next generation of young people.
Children have the rights to vote
It wouldnt be fair
Sometimes it just takes a little step to mess up but I disagree that we are not allowed to vote .
I understand that people think that oh the children might mess up but I know that we should have a chance or the rights to vote.
WE CAN DO IT!
I am sceptical about D because violence is never the answer, and by the way, I don't think I would listen to someone who is always nagging and fighting just because they don't get their own way. So I don't think it is ever okay to protest violently.
I am sceptical about question A because I think children should be able to vote and not adults because it is the childrens next generation and will effect them more than it will adults.
I agree with your answer but I have a different suggestion. In my opinion I think children should not vote who their country should be ruled by because they don’t know these kind of things. My reason is that adults have responsibilities in there actions but children doesn’t
I'm sceptical about about quote D because what has already happened in Hong Kong is just going to justify the fact that they are defenceless and China is taking over. I don't think China's going to change their mind any time soon.
I am quite sceptical about quote A because if children could vote for who their countries leader is, it could grant them a better future and it could make them more independent. Also it could grant them more education abilities depending on who the leader is.
I am sceptical about quote D because after 2047 it is quite likely that the people in Hong Kong will fight and protest even more to go back to the 1 country 2 systems because there protesting now when although China is trying to take a bit more power from Hong Kong it will just escalate even more when China has complete control over all aspects of Hong Kong.
I think quote D ("It is clear what will happen in 2047 - the 'one country, two systems' approach will end and things will be more straightforward.") is the one I am most skeptical about as it is always like that even though their personal system 'deadline' is not over China is affecting Hong Kong holding them to their rules which isn't Hong Kong's system so it is more like one country one system.
It isn't fair to not uphold a deal between two political powers!
I am sceptical about D i think this because they wouldn't know what the future will be like, they can't see into the future so how would they know it would be different to how it is now.
I am most spectacle about D as it says '2047' why must people wait that long for a peaceful country to live in. I also think that the amount of people who are hurt or attacked or killed in this period of time will get worse as the years go on causing a lot of problems for hospital and peoples health.
I am sceptical about quote C and use of the adverb "never" implies that there couldn't be change BUT there could've been change with the handover like: more awareness, better communication between the Chinese government, English Government and Hong Kong residents.
C because the changes never changes so why should they say that about it so why should that happen so that is why I chose c boom
I am quite spectical about quote A because if children could vote for who the leader of their country is,it could maybe make them have a better future and would also teach them to be more independent. On the other hand some children should not vote because if they did they could have a hard time choosing and not choose at all because they don’t understand what the person running to be a country leader has to offer.
I think, children definitely SHOULD be allowed to vote because it’s unfair if it’s only adults/parents. I believe this because everyone has rights to comment or vote
I am sceptical abut Quote A because we should see children’s opinions and what they think about the democratsic world and if they can make wise and independent votes.
I am sceptical about quote B because protests sometimes make people change their minds and they might get happy cause other people might join their team
I am sceptical about quote B because people shouldn’t protest to other people as it can hurt them or even be rude to them.It can be very harmful and they can be taken to jail.Big protest is not a way to change anything.
I am sceptical about quote a because children don’t know what leader would help them so they’ll pick leaders that do something like cancel school and stuff children want so that’s why I am sceptical about quote a
I disagree with the quote “D” because it might not be how it was in the past when China used to control everything , it could be different after 2047 , Hong Kong might be able to break out of being controlled by Hong Kong . I also disagree with A , like it changed with woman voting is allowed , children should also be able to vote becaus
I am sceptical about Quote B because if people did do protests it might disturb the people who don’t agree in your agreements.My reason for this is that there will be consequences and the police might get involved with the issue. This big protest might lead you to prison or a warning
I don’t know why not because, THEY CAN DO IT!
I am sceptical about quote D because I think people will be more upset about the fact China will be able to control Hong Kong because if the ongoing protests stop the Chinese government from trying to control Hong Kong and people realise that around 10 years in the future, all their hard work will be gone. I think the future protests will become even more violent and maybe instead of a protest, it will turn into a war. Chinese laws are unfair and bias (for example, 99.9 percent of criminals on trial end up in jail) and if there are any future protests because of this, it will become into something unforeseen in history and I think the people of China (including Hong Kong) will end up destroying themselves. Also, I think no one can predict the future exactly as it will be, no one can expect how the world will turn out like.
I am sceptical about a because I am a child and I would want to make my future bright especially if I was in Hong Kong
I'm skeptical about a because in my opinion children should get the same rights as adults because we have the right to have an opinion. I think that children can do some amazing things if they put their minds to it for example Greta Thumberg (linking to precious heart). Greta Thumberg is a climate change activist she wanted to show that she has a voice so ,why can't we? I think that if children learn more about politics they will get the same level of intelligence as adults, because they're learning that they get an opinion forever. If children don't understand about politics they won't grow up to know what's happening in OUR world.
I think Britain should get invoved because they have been ivoved before and they would make world. I agree strongly with every one else
I am sceptical about Quote A because it's very important that the adults in any country should vote not children because children are small and they can say the wrong thing there for it's better the adults should vote.
I am spectical about Quote A that children should be allowed to vote who their leader should be because just because children are are younger than adults does not mean they should be treated differently ,but on the other hand children can be silly and just vote based on what their friends or family say or based on what someone dared them to do so my opinion is that children should vote on who their leader should be .
I am sceptical about quote B because a big protest may not change a problem going on in the world. You see, climate change people are starting big protests on the street but the UK government hasn’ done anything to solve climate change. Mostly, big protests the police get involved with the issue and in Hong Kong they throw a really bad gas. In a big protest some people actually get arrested and go to prison.
On the other hand, rarely a big protest causes a change but if it’s something to do with an issue the government, it may cause a huge change to the people in the country. Who knows it may cause a good change or a bad change. In my opinion, big protests don’t cause a change they cause more problems to the city(or country). The best way to settle country problems is to have a fair vote. But it may cause more problems within the country causing even more protests across the street. The best way to change things may not be a big protest.
I am sceptic about quote a because I think children and everyone else should be able to vote on who the leader so everyone can have a voice in there country
I disagree with “A” because children should be able to vote for a leader to rule in their country , is fair that grown ups get to vote and children not!Children are gonna be sad that only grown ups get to vote or protest for a leader to rule in their country everyone should vote or protest who will rule in their country (not babies or kids who are 1,2 or 3 years old because the will just rip the papers to vote also not all children should vote only ones that complete a form and hand it on the next day, but the children of the royal family should not do the form and just vote.
D-I'm sceptical about this since everyone doesn’t want the 'one country two system' to end because China does not care about human rights or people’s opinions. People may have protests to have a vote whether they want to end the system or maybe even have protests not to even end the system because they're already having protests about how they want China NOT to rule over Hong Kong.
On the other hand, It may happen since they made a deal and won’t want to break the promise. China may get too powerful and trick the citizens of China by, telling them they will get freedom and proper human rights if they have protests that Hong Kong should be part of China or have civil wars they may win since they have more citizens in China than in Hong Kong.China's government is already trying to make their move.
I'm sceptical about C because I am stuck in the middle .I agree in my opinion things won't change by protesting .Protesting isn't the right way to go about this situation. People are getting SHOT and HURT because of the lack of freedom that China is giving the citizens of Hong Kong. In sentence C it says things will never change.This is where I disagree we signed a contract saying that Hong Kong citizens may have their freedom until 2047.Maybe if England gets involved they can put a stop to the conflict between Hong Kong and China.
The Hong Kong citizens have chosen the wrong approach by protesting in a violence way . By putting their lives at risk is PERIL.I feel things may be able to change but NOT by protesting!!!!
I am skeptical about C "The situation in Hong Kong was always going to be like this. After the hand-over in 1997, it was never going to work."because the person has no evidence of why is wasn't going to work and they have made it negative and facts are never negative because you can't make information like an opinion.
I’m sceptical about option A because children should be able to make decisions for their future country. The should be able to protest against any bad decisions for their future made by the prime minister/president or people in China. Children should be able to make decisions by themselves as it is human rights. They should be able to decide their world leaders and should be able to make it themselves and not with bribery. It will also make children more independent and they will have a better future. On the other hand, if children are allowed to vote their parents might put too much pressure on them and will give up on trying to serve their country as children.
I disagree with “D” because it might not be how it was in the past when China used to control everything , it could be different after 2047 , Hong Kong might be able to break out of being controlled be China . I also disagree with “A” , like it changed with woman , voting is now allowed for them , children should be able to vote as well because adults are just focusing on what adults are thinking but never let children express how they feel and who they want to vote , but really it should be for only children above 10 or people who do not misbehave or else our country might be messed up if they vote the most less countable , not dependable new prime minister as a example . I also disagree and agree with “B” because with the protests , the government can realise that he/she made a bad desicion and many disagree but it is mostly dangerous like Hong Kong , when protests started , it started becoming violent and started releasing tear gas and started beating and that is what I think
I am sceptical about quote B as big protests don’t always work out good as most big protests end up as violent protests . Big protests usually lead somewhere questionable in the future. During big protests the peace will be broken and police can’t always control the crowd . Also when there are big protests things get out of hand and the police may take action not necessary needed. There are other ways to make a change , we want the world to be peaceful and work together as a whole.
I disagree with “B” because big projects are not gonna change the world.PEOPLE WILL STILL FIGHT OR PROTEST AGAINST IT
A. children shouldn’t be able to lead the government because since there small they still can’t.
believe that quote D is wrong because if China is breaking its promise about the 'one country, two systems' then it already doesn't work. So, if it ends like this then it would become much worse. Adding to that, if this protest carries on then when it's 2047, China will take hong kong and treat it with cruelty just because of protesting for their democracy.
I think that children should be allowed to vote because some times it can help them to dissed who to pick for the vote but some times children want to pick who ever there pernts not who ever they want
No i don’t think children get to pick who there team leader is because there still young ,they don’t get to pick a leader
Sorry I meant B
Im septic about quote A I think every British citizen should have a voice even kids they should be able to choose who they are ruled by is it fair.
i think quote B is untrue. The best way to show your opinion is by speaking up and contributing in an election
I think D is true because of the "one country two systems". The "one country two systems" have been on for a very long time and eventuallyit will come to an end
My prediction on A is that I think that children should be allowed to vote because they could give a reasonable answer but on the other hand they shouldn't be involved because they might not understand what it means so they could just go "I choose that one"they couldn't understand what they are choosing.
I disagree with quote A because everyone should be able to vote. If children weren't able to vote, it wouldn't be very fair.
I doubt statement D because if people are protesting and the 'one country two systems' deal ends, many people would protest more because China has been foul and not fair towards Hong Kong.
I doubt comment B, because big protests are really risky to peoples life and it can lead to big conflict.
I am sceptical about quote A because all children 's rights should be respected whenever and wherever
I think A is the most appropriate because its only adults that can be heard for what they want to say but not children. Some people may disagree because some children will say silly things. That is why children should be able to be heard.
I am not sure of D because if we (Britain) fight back then China may learn it's lesson not to interfere with Hong Kong's safety.
I think A is the most appropriate because its only adults that can be heard for what they want to say but not children. Some people may disagree because some children will say silly things. That is why children should be able to be heard.
I am sceptical about quote A as children should be allowed to have a say/ vote if they want to, as we will be the next decade of adults making decisions to influence the world...
i am sceptical towards quote A as I think some children should be granted accessibility towards the voting system. what I mean is, some children could take a test of the voting system and other information around the incident, and if proven to know the facts they could be granted access to vote.
Im sceptical about about "Point A" because as children we don't know as much about what's going on in the world but adults are wiser and have more thoughts about what could happen due to history events.
Therefore, if children could vote then there would be bad things because we dont have as much of an idea about what could happen.
FCC BNC,
Motivated_Grape
I disagree on D as I doubt that after the agreement ends, China will stop trying to get Hong Kong back (if they haven't already taken it by then). If they haven't taken Hong Kong by then they will take that as a chance to take back power to Hong Kong. It will not be clearer, it will become more complicated.
I'm sceptical about B because big protests can get people shot and that could cause a war .That would just make matters worse.
I am sceptical about A, "Children shouldn't be allowed to vote on who their country's leader should be.". One of my points is that the vote that adults make on who will run the country is going to affect the children more in the future than it will ever affect them. For example, although Brexit is not voting for a leader, it is voting for a big event that - the way it is looking currently - will massively affect the future. Some people that voted in the referendum have sadly passed away but will never see what their actions have done to the country. If it affects MY future I would expect to vote on it, and not leave in in the irresponsible hands of adults. This would work in the same way when voting for a country leader.
I am sceptical of C because there could always be a different way EG: china could have waited until the time agreed and then said "hay, this was the deal you need to stick to it" and then there wouldn't be very much trouble
I am sceptical about point a because children would believe in the things they like best about the politicians running for leader
I do not think children should be able to vote.
I think that if children vote the people of china are likely not to use them as they are from children and it would of been a waste of time. Plus children might not put there true answer and just but what ever
A:I think kids shouldn't be aloud to vote on who their country's leader should be because they are only young and probably most kids wouldn't understand on what they are voting for.
B:I think doing protests won't help in anyway because all you are doing in a protest is proving a point (there is other ways to do so) and causing a possible death threat or harm with the police (which is not resolving the issue)
C: I think it could have worked but there is 1 issue that's caused loads of more issues,China wants to be a leader of Hong Kong and wants them to follow their rules,this has caused complaints and hundreds of protests.
D:I think this might ease down a little but not for a few years after 2047 because eventually I think Hong Kong will stop all protests and give in.
I am sceptical about Quote D because they don't have much proof and they haven't thought much about it.
I am sceptical about A because children will have opinions on their country's leader, and the country's future. People think that children are too young to vote, and they won't understand how important the issue is- but people tend to forget adult can make mistakes too, and children can make good decisions.
Another point is, for some adults, the results of the vote may not affect them much, but for children, it could affect their whole future, and they should have a chance to determine their own futures.
I am sceptical of statement B because it seems to me that big protests are not always guaranteed to work and aren't the best way to create change as the people in power are not always the most rational. Climate Change, which is an important and relevant issue, has created awareness through marches and protests against governmental policies about this topic. However, even after millions of people appearing in protests around the UK and even the world, what has been done about this? Almost nothing. All the UK has decided to do is to change the goal for a carbon neutral country to 2050. Is that really much change after so much protesting? This shows that a lot of protests, even the most important pressing issues and globally important problems do not initiate much change immediately. Therefore, I think that although the idea of protesting seems to be a very good way to initiate change, they aren't the best way to initiate change.
I am sceptical about quote A because I think that children of 15,16,17 years old should be involved in their country's voting system because they are responsible enough to vote
I am sceptical about D because I don't think that is how events are going to play out. I think that it is not possible for events to go as smoothly as this. I am sure that there will be complications in the democracy of the 'one country, two governments' that we cant foresee.
i am sceptical about point D because this is quite obviously not true, as no one can time travel and
I am sceptical of quote D, because they haven't thought it through as well as they should have. It is true that in 2047, the 'one country, two systems' approach will end; but things will not be more straightforward.
As we have seen, Hong Kong have made it obvious that they want nothing to do with China, so, if or when China take over Hong Kong, the people of Hong kong will not be happy at all. They will probably protest a lot, and it may even end in a civil war, or a world war, if we're not careful.
I agree with accomplished reality
I am sceptical about B. This is because in 2018 Greta Thunberg protested about Climate Change, she was on her own and yet here we are today watching her give speeches on tv about Global Warming. Protests don't have to be big to make an impact.
I am sceptical about A because we children like having fun, right? We sometimes make silly decisions because we are young and for an excample if we where voting about Brexit we don't really understand adult stuff and we will just vote what our friend votes and adults are sensible and make the right decisions (sometimes) and people are not really mature enough to vote and we don't even know all about these adult names and we will vote for someone who might not deserve it and children don't know who and why they are voting for them and have no reason why they deserve it.
I'm sceptical of quote A because the adults always get to make the decisions and the children is never free to say want they want to say and they don't get to vote for they leader. If the child is 18 years, and they are not allowed to vote, it is not fair because they are nearly adults and they should get to vote
I disagree with C because u cant be sure if it would happen or not
I'm sceptical about quote A. EVERYONE has a voice and an opinion so EVERYONE should be able discuss there ideas
and talk about their creative thoughts. Adults ( 18+) are aloud to vote and speak what they think. Children are not aloud to vote which I think is not right. All around the world lots of chaos is happening and children should be able to take part in it and make speeches in front of audiences.
I sceptical about D because China broke their promise by saying their should be one China and that nobody should do the one country two system. What do you think China will do next? Go to London and say he doesn't want to do the one country two system anymore or do what he likes. I think China doesn't even keep promises ever I think they say it but does not do it. Hon Kong need a change in life they need to be free they shouldn't be used like servants or robots they should have their own lives with nobody.
I'm sceptical about quote C because it should be able to work. The 'two system' should not even be a thing. If the 'two system' was not a thing, everything would be fine and no protest should be caused. Also all the destruction would not have happened.
I am sceptical about quote c. Because the two system should work. If the two system can't work it should not be a thing. B:I disagree on quote b because a big protest is not the best way to create a change it will jus make matters worst and a big accident.
I am sceptical about D because you don't know how it will turn out and it is in the future so how do you know it will turn out like that because 2047 is in around 28 years time . The statement you have made has a likely chance of being false because once again 2047 is in around 28 years time . You don't know what will happen in 2047
I disagree with quote D because how could ANYONE know what is going to happen 28 years. So, how do you know that the one country two systems is going to settle everything when it ends?
Yes I sure it is C yah your right if it would happen or not but it is still c because like you said that 😒 It if will happened or not because have you been there clever pie? I pretty sure that your equal is no no one has been there well I don't know in word people might have been there but everyone agree with c even my friend William agreeonthat so it might happen !
Pls reply to my comment because you shoul get involve on that.
Thank you.
I am sceptical on B because protesting will probably get you nowhere and they should just demand in any other way with never taking to the streets in their city
I'm sceptical about C.Saying " it was never going to work " is an opinion because the word never is your choice of words. How did you know it was never going to work? Are you a sidekick?
I'm sceptical about quote D because it says "it is clear" and "will end" that sounds like someone's opinion not a fact to say that. I don't think that's true
I am sceptical whith C. How do you know that it will always be like that,besides I think that you should have a reason. Also, if "it was never going to work" why did the protesting start about 4 months ago and the deal happened a few years ago? I am also sceptical about B because if " big protests are the best way to create change" what do you mean,how will it make change? In my opinion some protests can end up in war. Basically, like the post that says "should Britain get involved" . Actually, I agree with A if children were allowed to vote they can vote for a bad leader the country could be at risk.
I'm sceptical about quote d because even though China will take full control of Hong Kong,Hong Kong will still want their democracy and how can someone predict what is going to happen in 28 years? The Quote uses language such as "it is clear " , "will be" and "will end" which are opinions disguised as facts because the person writing doesn't know things will happen for definite and what one person thinks is clear might not be what somebody else thinks
I am slightly sceptical about opinion B. Protests, agreed, can be a great way to get many people, with the shared views, to voice their opinions on what they think is unfair or unjust. Personally, I am a big supporter of the recent massive climate strikes. However, this is not always the case. Some may argue that not all "big" protests are as amazing as they seem. Many, not as much today though, have turned violent easily causing deaths and injuries. So a couple of questions to think about it: Are violent protests still as effective as nonviolent and most importantly is it right?
I am sceptical about Quote D because although China will technically be allowed to rule Hong Kong as a dictatorship in 2047, that will not change the opinions and human rights of Hong Kong. The key arguments for Britain intervening include not only the contract between Britain and China but also their lack of human rights. In 2047 when China can reclaim Hong Kong fully, the citizens of Hong Kong will probably continue to protest and if China react as they have done so far, it will remain an unacceptable standard of respect for their rights. If the situation hasn’t changed by 2047, I am sceptical that the situation will magically resolve or that the people of Hong Kong will give up in the fight for their rights to be preserved and their voices to be heard.
I strongly disagree with statement A. My first reason is that every individual in this world deserves a chance to share their opinion weather what the topic is.My second reason is that children could have really good reasons for their opinion and they could make really good and interesting points about it to.
I am sceptical about Quote A because it states that children should not be allowed to vote on who their political leader is, when it is affecting them as well. If they have enough knowledge of politics and can understand what candidates are standing for, they should be able to vote, because it is impacting them and if they can make a self-made, conscious, well-informed decision, they should be able to vote, because it is their future also that is being impacted by this. If you do not let children who understand what they are voting for vote, then you are letting other people dictate their future. At least, in this way, they have some way of changing the way they are governed in their opinion, which is just as important as an adult's, not just the opinion of other people.
I think that Hong Kong and china are going to start world war 3 for just for a one country two systems and why do they have to send their army to stop this protest. They have until 2047 so why cant they be patient it's only 38 years until they can take over Hong Kong i know it is a long time until 2047 but cant they just mind their own business plus i think that why would they want such a small space. And they should have freedom of speech. And if they are from Hong Kong it why would it mean that they are specifically Chinese. And they don't have to kill a teenager with a rubber bullet.
Children should not be aloud to vote because they might not know what it is about so they might choose the wrong person so every one would get who they didn't wanted
"The situation in Hong Kong was always going to be like this. After the hand-over in 1997, it was never going to work."
I am skeptical about C because my question is: What on earth makes this person think that and what has the 1997 handover got to do with it? Furthermore, when they were with the United Kingdom they weren't a democracy and now they are still not a democracy since China decides almost all of their things. So how could it have not worked if there wasn't much to change? However, it was decided that China would take Hong Kong in 1898. So they were planning this for a long time; however, no one can predict the future. So no one would have known that it was going to be like this. Furthermore, many generations would have gone through the timeline of 1898-2019 so maybe they all had different opinions on what to do wit their situation in the future? But again, I'm still wanting to second guess it since it uses such strong vocabulary eg never and always. And what do they mean "work?" What were they expecting? It couldn't have been perfect since everyone has different opinions on the situation.
So, this is why I don't think that it's true.
I disagree with A because the leader of the country could affect their future life, and they could not help to change it. Allowing children to vote would also make the public votes more ‘public’ than they currently are. Also, this makes the public votes more of the majority view.
I mean “ I am more sceptical about A. “
Personally, I am most sceptical about quote C. The first reason being that this is an opinion of someone. Also it is unfair to say that on the hong kong people
I am spectical about quote A because eventhough we are chidren, we can still have the right to choose on our leader. We would have to be careful but still, everyone be able to! Mayeb not children that are very young but maybe some that will understand like maybe 10 years old or older because right now, 18+ are allowed to vote. A vote for children could change future life for them. It would give more points of view to see what children think to see whats simular to adults and children. More votes will be added and more people would participate to something important that would change future life for everyone. One vote with kids in it might never change in the future for them. It's not fair if adults and teenagers will vote all of the time! If a keep will be taken and adults decide but the childs don't agree and grow up, nothing will change and no vote will return back.
Every kid should have to right at to at least say their opinion as everyone has their own reasons.
I am sceptical about quote A because just because we are children doesn't mean that we can't do anything
I'm sceptical about Quote C because I believe that everything can be solved difficult or easy. We could get involved and help with the crisis and everything will go like expected, but if we don't do the promise we could potentially never find a solution to this crisis.
I am sceptical about all quotes. I strongly disagree that big protests are the best way to bring a change. This is because there are many misunderstandings between people when these protests are going on. In addition to this, the damage caused by all the weapons used will cause a major financial crisis. After carefully examining the views of my fellow Economists, I can see that many people do believe that it is Quote D. I can understand that the person who has stated this does not know the future but there is a chance that the person who has quoted this is correct. The reason I don't think Quote A is right because some children may not be aware of what they are trying to vote for. I do not want to take the right of democracy away from children but I just don't think it is suitable for children. I do not think Quote C is correct because the Chinese government had not agreed to what they are doing.Also this person is being quite pessimistic about the fate of Hong Kong
I'm sceptical about B because not always do you march on the street being violent. This only effects the peaple and sometimes causes death. the Chinese government don't care so it won't change their mind . Even if you protest peacefully sometimes unfortunately it doesn't go your way.
I am sceptical about Quote A because I think it would get out of hand! Children would just be picking people that they like or by their looks, when it's really about what they can do to make the world/country a better place. For example there could be this really gorgeous lady and the children could be like "Wow! She's so pretty, I should vote for her." Instead of actually thinking about what they would do, they could just pick based on looks! Personally I think that older people could do a better job, mainly because they are experienced and have been on earth longer than the youth! Do you agree with me?
I disagree with A because children haven’t had the same amount of experience as adults and may take sides with friends and wouldn’t be a fair test, but B is also unfair as there are many different ways to deal with it instead of having big protests . Even though C is also wrong as well as D all these statements are opinions so no one can rely on these .
I believe that quote D of “it’s clear what will happen in 2047- the ‘one country, two systems’ approach will end and things will be more straightforward” is the most skeptical. The one country, two systems approach is where each of the two regions (Hong Kong and China) will be able to exist side by side with their own governmental system, legal, economic and financial affairs. Twenty two years after Britain handed over Hong Kong, China is already deciding that they don’t want Hong Kong to be a democratic country; this is taking away their governmental system. 28 years before anything was supposed to happen. Which is why I believe the quote is skeptical because the approach is more likely to be abandoned before 2047. Another reason is that it’s more likely to not be straightforward if the system were to end. This is due to the fact that the people of Hong Kong are already protesting and the police are reacting to the protests in violent ways. This indicates that the people will carry on protesting until their voices are heard and China will carry on disagreeing. They might never come to an actual agreement showing that it will never actually be straightforward. Additionally, the use of the word “clear” makes the statement sounds more like an opinion rather than a fact. We also are unable to predict what will happen in 2047 so who's to say whether they will come to an agreement or not?
I am sceptical about C. If we knew that the handover would lead to this. Then why did we do it in the first place? Were we selfish enough to leave the Hong Kongers to suffer? Or were we doing this for our own future's good. I agree even though the act was wicked it was for our country so they had to choose one or the other either way or not only would we have the crisis to deal. With now but we got other social problems to deal with. (racism, global warming ect.) On the other hand, why did we hand it to China? If possible, we could've handed it to a strong but caring country. Now, young children have to march miles just to get their voice heard. Couldn, t we have just found a better place for them or leave them on their own and why?
Thank you for reading.