Table of Contents:
Abortion
Adoption by Same Sex Couples
Advertisements Do More Harm Than Good
Affirmative Action in Education
Afghanistan, Invasion of
Africa, Intervention In
AIDS Drugs for Developing Countries
American Way of Life, Rejection of
Animal Rights
Antarctic Exploration
Arms Trade, Role of UN and US
Assisted Suicide Legalization
Asylum Seekers, US should welcome
Bailouts of Private Corporations
Bailouts of Banks
Biodiversity, Protecting Endangered Species
Campaign Finance Reform
Cannabis/Marijuana Legalization
Capital Punishment/Death Penalty
Capitalism vs Socialism
Censorship of the Arts
Children, Choosing Sex of
China, Fear of
Coal, Use of
Corruption in Developing Countries
Democracy Promotion Worldwide
Debt Relief for Developing Countries
Direct VS Indirect Aid to Developing Countries
Drinking Age should be lowered
Drugs in Sports, Performance Enhancing
Drug Legalization (all drugs)
Economic Development vs Protecting the Environment
Electoral College, Abolition of (electing President reform)
Energy Crisis: Nuclear vs Renewable Sources
Estate Tax / Death Tax
Extraordinary Rendition in War on Terror
Free Trade: Good or Bad?
Gay Marriage
Gays in Military ---needs updating and specific to US
Genetically Modified Food (GMOs)
Geneva Convention and War on Terror
Global Warming : Is More Action Needed
Globalization
Globalization: Marginalizing the Poor?
Greenhouse Gasses: Cap and Trade
Gun Control ----needs to be specific to US
Healthcare, Universal in US
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
1
Human Cloning
Human Rights: What are They?
Immigration Laws Relaxation of
Iran and the Bomb: Good or Bad?
Marijuana for Medical Purposes
Mercenaries: Good or Bad
Minimum Wage: Good or Bad
NAFTA: North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement Good or Bad?
NATO: Disbanding of
Negotiating with Terrorists
Nuclear Weapons, Abolition of
Overpopulation and Contraception Global
Politics and Special Interest Groups
Pornography
Positive Discrimination/Affirmative Action
Prison Reform
Prisons, Limit to Violent Offenders
Prostitution
Protectionism Bad and Good
Protectionism of Industries
Repatriation of Illegal Immigrants
Safe Sex Education vs Abstinence Only
Sanctions vs Engagement in International Affairs (carrots or sticks?)
Science: A Threat to Society?
Security vs Liberty
Sex Offenders: Naming and Shaming
Smoking Restrictions
Space Exploration
Stem Cell Research
Sudan : increased military presence
Term Limits for Elected Representatives
Terrorists Should Be Treated As Prisoners of War
Torture in Interogation
Trade vs Aid for Developing Nations
Unhealthy Food should be Banned from Schools
United Nations: A Failure?
USA: Farm Subsidies should be Abolished
USA: A threat to world stability or a force for good?
US Military: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
Women in US Military: Allow Combat Positions
World Bank: Success or Failure?
Zero Tolerance Policies for Crime
97
99
101
103
105
107
109
111
113
115
117
119
121
123
125
127
129
131
133
135
137
139
141
143
145
147
149
151
153
155
157
159
161
163
165
167
169
171
173
175
177
179
2
Abortion
2/4/2010
Context
The issue of abortion is one of the most contentious, and emotive dilemmas faced by modern societies. The question is
whether one should allow the termination of a child whilst it is in its mother’s womb. For some, the question is even more
fundamental: at what stage is the foetus in the womb to be regarded as a child? The battle-lines are drawn between strict,
religious (‘pro-life’) arguments (that it is never permissible), and those (‘pro-choice’) that emphasise the mother’s right to
choose as the primary concern. Whilst abortion has been accepted by the American state since the land-mark Roe vs. Wade
case in the early 1970s, this is by no means a reflection of universal agreement – either international or within America itself –
as many Western countries still have considerable restrictions on abortion. For example, the Irish position has softened only
recently, and the Catholic Church steadfastly refuses to change its resolutely pro-life stance in the face of criticism from
Women’s and other lobby-groups.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to
carry the child during pregnancy and undergo child-birth. No-one
else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and
thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important
events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through
the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have
the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other
cases where something with such profound consequences is
forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the
child’s right to life is just circular – whether a foetus has rights or
not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue.
Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed.
Not everyone agrees that foetuses of two, four, eight, or even
twenty weeks are children (see point 3).
Of course, human-rights should be respected, but it is never the
case that a person has a right to make a decision with no
reference to the rights and wishes of others. In this case, one
might wonder about the rights of the father to have a say in the
fate of the foetus. More importantly, though, pro-choice groups
actively ignore the most important right – the child’s right to life.
What is more important than life? All other rights, including the
mother’s right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you
have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an
autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable
right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the
entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether
another human lives or dies.
Not only is banning abortion a problem in theory, offending against
a woman’s right to choose, it is also a practical problem. Enforcing
an abortion ban would require a quite degrading and inhumane
treatment of those women who wished to have their foetus
terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women travelled abroad, they
would be able to have an abortion in a country where it was legal.
Either the state takes the draconian measure of restricting freedom
of movement, or it must admit that its law is unworkable in practice
and abolish it. The ‘third way’ of tacitly accepting foreign
terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in
the sanctity of life. In addition, the demand for abortions will always
exist; making abortion illegal, will simply drive it underground and
into conditions where the health and safety of the woman might be
put at risk.
Unborn children cannot articulate their right to life; theirs are
vulnerable lives and as such must be protected. Many laws have
difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish
the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other
people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not
follow that you shouldn’t legislate against it. Even though the
Netherlands had more liberal drugs’ laws than in England, this did
not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalisation here.
Whether we should actively restrain would-be ‘abortion tourists’
from travelling is a separate question, but one which can be
answered in the affirmative given what is at stake. In ordinary
circumstances such a move would indeed be draconian, but where
a restriction in someone’s freedom is the price to pay for protecting
an innocent life, then so be it.
Are we really talking about a ‘life?’ At what point does a life begin?
Is terminating a foetus, which can neither feel nor think and is not
conscious of its own ‘existence,’ really commensurable with the
killing of a ‘person?’ There rightly are restrictions on the time,
within which a termination can take place, before a foetus does
develop these defining, human characteristics. If you affirm that
human life is a quality independent of, and prior to thought and
feeling, then you leave yourself the awkward task of explaining
what truly ‘human’ life is.
The question of what life is can certainly be answered: it is sacred,
inviolable and absolute. It is unquestionable that the foetus, at
whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the traits to
which you refer. The unborn child will have every ability, and every
opportunity that you yourself have, if you give him the opportunity.
The time-restrictions on termination had to be changed once,
when it was discovered that feeling developed earlier than first
thought, so they are hardly impeccable safe-guards behind which
to hide.
There are cases in which it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy,
lest the mother and/or the child die. In such cases of medical
emergency and in the interest of saving life, surely it is permissible
to abort the foetus.
Whilst these are different circumstances, and such medical
emergencies are tragic, it is by no means obvious that the abortion
is to be performed. The ‘mother vs. child’ dilemma is one which
defies solution, and aborting to preserve one of the lives sets a
dangerous precedent that it is acceptable to kill a person in order
to save another. This is a clear, and unpalatable, case of treating a
human-being as a means to an end.
3
It is not just medical emergency that presents compelling grounds
for termination. Woman, and in some cases girls, who have been
raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being
pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to
produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both
mother and child.
Whilst an appalling crime has been committed, is it the fault of the
unborn child? The answer is, of course, no. Denying someone life,
because of the circumstances of their conception is as unfair as
anything else imaginable.
Finally, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to
determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In
cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very
short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of
action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids
both the suffering of the parents and of the child.
What right does anyone have to deprive another of life on the
grounds that he deems that life as not worth living? This arrogant
and sinister presumption is impossible to justify, given that many
people with disabilities lead fulfilling lives. What disabilities would
be regarded as the water-shed between life and termination? The
practise of eugenics is roundly condemned by all civilised
countries.
Motions
This House Would Allow Abortion on Demand
This House Believes in the Woman’s Right to Choose
4
Adoption by Same Sex Couples
2/4/10
Context
At present, the world and individual countries are as divided with regard to adoption as to other area of gay rights. As of 2000,
four states in the USA (Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi and Utah) have specifically outlawed gay adoption, as have some
Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, and Iceland) that show an otherwise lenient attitude to same-sex relationships. By
contrast, the National Adoption Week in the UK in October 2000 saw a drive to encourage gay couples to adopt, in order to find
homes for the thousands of children seeking parents. The 2002 Adoption and Children Act allowed unmarried couples in
England and Wales, including same sex partners to apply for adoption jointly.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Society is changing, and the traditional idea of the nuclear family
with married mother and father is no longer the only acceptable
alternative. The reason that many countries are beginning to
award legal rights to gay couples is because the stability of such
relationships is now recognised. There is no reason, therefore,
why such couples cannot provide a stable and loving upbringing
for children.
The traditional nuclear family is still an ideal that should be clung
to. Where its breakdown is inevitable, a close substitute, with
maternal and paternal influences, is the only alternative. Evolution
and nature has shown that the natural development of the young is
aided by both these influences. Research in the US (Univ. of
Illinois Law Review, 1997) finds that children raised in homosexual
househoulds are significantly more likely to be gay themselves.
Nature has shown in many species that, when one or both parents
die, an uncle or aunt frequently takes on the child-rearing role.
While exceptions occur, the norm in nature is that offspring are
nurtured by mother and father. To legally allow adoption by gay
couples is to encourage what is an unnatural upbringing.
Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both
human and in other races), and their upbringing will not be affect
their sexuality. Attempting to suppress this genetic predisposition
has resulted in great misery for many people. Rather, we should
accept this and look to embrace all gay people fully – which must
include celebrating gay role models, especially as responsible
parents.
A child’s primary role models are his or her parents. Bringing a
heterosexual child up in a gay household gives them a distorted
view of a minority sexuality, just as a girl brought up by two men
would fail to benefit from a feminine influence.
In many cases, children are currently being responsibly reared by
gay couples, where one of the partners is a biological parent.
Allowing adoption by the other merely confers legal rights on an
already successful, if informal, family model.
While the law should not penalise gay relationships, it also exists
to encourage the nuclear family as the ideal for child-raising. Just
as married couples receive tax benefits and unmarried mothers
may suffer cuts in welfare, legal prohibition of adoption by gays is
a natural step towards this ideal.
The homophobia in some sections of society is wrong, and must
be fought however possible. Couples from ethnic minorities are not
barred from adoption even in racist areas. Only through the full
inclusion of gays in society and all its institutions can we hope to
overcome prejudice.
Homophobic language and behaviour is still common in society.
Placing a child too young to have an opinion of their own in the
care of a gay couple exposes them to this prejudice, and subjects
them to ridicule or violence. Whatever ideal we might have, the
psychological and physical welfare of the child must come first.
Motions
This House would allow gay couples to adopt children
This House would explode the nuclear family
That homosexuality should be no bar to adoption
5
6
Advertisements pro con
2/4/10
Context
Advertising has grown to be an industry worth many billions of dollars across the world. Almost all public space has some
advertisements in sight and all forms of media, from newspapers to the internet, are also filled with adverts. Whilst this helps
companies sell their produces, and helps consumers to learn what is on offer, many believe that this huge amount of
advertising can be harmful. It may make people want too much, or things that they cannot have, or it might make them feel
inadequate when they don't have something. Research shows that children can be particularly open to these kinds of risk.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The levels of advertising are just too much these days. You cannot
walk down the street, ride on a bus, watch television or read your
email without seeing advertisements. People shouldn't have to
have their lives attacked by a huge quantity of information they
might not want.
No-one is forced to put advertising on their property - for many
companies it is an important part of their income. Football teams
would have much less money if they were not sponsored. And noone is forced to look at advertising - you can turn the TV off
between shows, or just flick past adverts in newspapers. If you
don't want to see the adverts, then just ignore them.
Advertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the
endless need to decide between competing demands on their
attention – this is known as the tyranny of choice or choice
overload. Recent research suggests that people are on average
less happy than they were 30 years ago - despite being better off
and having much more choice of things to spend their money on.
The claims of adverts crowd in on people, raising expectations
about a product and leading to inevitable disappointment after it is
bought. Shoppers feel that a poor purchase is their fault for not
choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else
instead. Some people are so overwhelmed that they cannot
choose at all.
Advertising has a positive role to play in modern society, helping
us choose between competing goods. Many adverts are drawing
our attention to products with new features, for example more
powerful computers, telephones which are also cameras and
music players, or foods with added vitamins. Other adverts try to
compete on price, helping us seek out the cheapest or best value
products. In most cases advertising does not make us go shopping
– we would be planning to buy food, clothes, gifts and
entertainment anyway. What advertising does is to help us make
better decisions about how to spend our money, by giving us more
information about the choices available.
People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because
advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message
across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative
pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem
like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they
are being marketed to. By targeting people’s unconscious thoughts
adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's
freedoms to make choices.
Adverts which use very sly methods like subliminal images
(images which are shown so quickly the viewer doesn't
consciously realise they saw them) are already banned. The other
forms of advertising are just companies being creative. There is no
difference from supermarkets being painted bright colours to make
their food seem more appetising or even people wearing make-up
to improve their image. People make unconscious judgements all
the time, and we frequently try to influence these choices by the
way we present ourselves. This isn't brainwashing, so neither is
advertising.
Many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to
make people feel inferior if they don't have the product, or if they
have something which the product would change. Perceptions of
beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many
young people have low-self esteem, and lead unhealthy lifestyles
because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like
the models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like
eating-disorders and self-harm.
The media and celebrity magazines do much more harm, by
mocking unattractive or overweight people, and glorifying models
who are often dangerously thin. Adverts never criticise people that would be terrible for the companies behind them. Their aim is
to understand and provide what people want, and so their adverts
only ever reflect what people think. If people's perceptions are
wrong, then it not the advertisers' job to put them right, but
politicians, the media and schools.
Advertising gives the impression, especially to children, that they
can and should have everything they want. This makes people too
interested in material things. People are becoming more selfish
and obsessed with their possessions, and losing their values of
patience, hard work, moderation and the importance of nonmaterial things like family and friends. This harms their
relationships and their personal development, which has serious
effects for society as a whole.
Our society is build around the idea that companies produce things
that people want, and this is what makes us prosperous. If
consumers suddenly stopped wanting to buy so many products
then what happens to the people whose job it is to make them?
The economy will suffer terribly. Of course some people take
materialism too far, but most people buy just what they need and
then a little extra when they treat themselves. This is a much
better situation than one in which people can only afford to buy the
things they need - that would be a step backwards.
Advertisers don't have the good of society in mind when they do
their work - they only care about making profit. This means that
Adverts which promote seriously unhealthy things are becoming
very rare. Cigarette advertising is all but extinct, and alcohol
7
they regularly advertise unhealthy or harmful things. Fast food
adverts are a large part of the reason so many children are obese.
The adverts just try to make children eat as much food as possible
without any concern for the health costs.
adverts are being more restricted. With adverts such as fast food
we see as well that companies are changing their message to
promote healthier options. This is because it is bad for businesses
to be viewed as harming children. Public pressure and successful
regulation will always bring any advertising problems back under
control.
Advertising gives an unfair advantage to big businesses. Small
companies might have much better products, but they cannot
afford to advertise them as well and so people don't find out about
them. This restricts the quality of products for consumers, and
places a huge roadblock to the success of small businesses.
If there wasn't advertising then small businesses would have no
chance at all to make their product well known. Adverts can
actually level the playing field - if you have a good new product,
and market it in a clever way then it doesn't matter how small your
company is, you can still make consumers interested. The more
you restrict the freedom of information, the more this helps the
large companies who everyone already knows about.
Motions
This House would ban all advertising aimed at children
This House believes that advertising is harmful
That advertising is harmful and should be restricted
This House would ban the advertising of unhealthy goods
This House would not allow advertising in schools
This House would require customers to give consent before they are shown any advertising
8
Affirmative Action in Education
Context
Affirmative action (or positive discrimination) is the use of different standards for assessing different groups of people, so as to
help a group that has historically been at a disadvantage (for example, African-Americans in the USA). In an education context,
the relevant type of affirmative action is that used for admission to universities. In particular, universities may wish to use
affirmative action to raise the presence of poor students or students from ethnic minorities. Such discrimination is a
controversial issue, notably in the United States, although a 2003 Supreme Court decision ruled that universities are allowed to
use the practice. Debates may either be about permitting universities to use positive discrimination (where it is currently illegal),
or about the state requiring them to do so. The mechanism could be one of two types: either using quotas to determine the
outcome of the admissions process (e.g. requiring universities to admit a certain percentage of students from minority groups,
deprived areas, or non-private schools), or by using different admissions criteria that take race, poverty or school-background
into account.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Affirmative action is required for equality of opportunity. Under the
status quo, it is easier for students who go to better schools to get
into university. This is reflected in data from the UK - Oxford and
Cambridge universities (the top academic institutions) take more
than 50% of their students from private schools, despite private
schools educating only around 7% of children. A similar story is
evident with regards to ethnic minorities - white high school
graduates are more than 10% likelier to go to college than black
ones in the USA. This is because of the opportunities granted to
wealthier children, whose superior education and less disruptive
home lives give them a leg-up. It is unfair that such random
aspects, which have nothing to do with talent or hard work, have
such a determining influence on one’s life chances. Moreover, it
undermines meritocracy – by allowing the rich to be advantaged,
we create a society in which wealth, rather than ability, is
rewarded.
Positive discrimination is unfair on talented students who lose their
places, and on talented students from the disadvantaged group.
The whole point of affirmative action is to promote a less able
applicant ahead of a more able one, measured by their test
scores. It undermines the fairness of the system if reasonable
objective measures of a person’s ability, such as exam
performance and aptitude testing, are overlooked. Under a system
of positive discrimination, able students from the majority group or
who went to private school are required to achieve more than
others to get the same reward. Furthermore, positive
discrimination is bad for the talented students from the target
group who would get into university even without affirmative
action: the policy will undermine their achievement, making their
peers (and even them) believe that they only got to where they
were because of different standards. It would create a two-tiered
university system, in which the achievements of one group were
elevated above the achievements of another.
Affirmative action is required to overcome existing prejudice in
universities’ admissions procedures. Admissions departments in
top universities are likely to be discriminating against applicants
from minority backgrounds, even if this process is not deliberate. A
senior academic will look to see in applicants qualities they see in
themselves, so, given the overwhelmingly white, affluent, male
makeup of the academic community, minorities are at a
disadvantage even if the admissions officer is not intending to
discriminate against them. Prejudice towards certain types of
applicants is blatantly unfair, and also undermines meritocracy (as
explained above). Since we do not expect applicants from minority
backgrounds to actually be worse applicants, it makes sense to
require universities to take more of them, so as to protect the
system from any bias that may exist.
There is little or no evidence of bias in universities admissions
procedures. Universities admissions departments go to great
lengths to ensure fairness, not least because it is in their own selfinterest to take only the best applicants, to maintain the intellectual
credibility of their institution. Any overt or explicit discrimination
would be illegal, and should be guarded against by using a wide
range of admissions procedures and interview (where applicable)
by more than one academic. Any charge of prejudice would be an
argument for ‘colour-blind’ (or school-blind) admissions, in which
the background of the applicant is hidden from the admissions
officer, so as to prevent any possibility of discrimination,
subconscious or otherwise. The presence of positive
discrimination would, if anything, raise the incidence of racism and
prejudice on university campuses, with lecturers and fellow
students resentful of members of the university perceived to have
been given a helping hand.
Affirmative action is required to change negative perceptions of
university life. In the status quo, many talented potential students
are put off applying for top universities (or university at all)
because of their negative perceptions of elite institutions. This
perception exists in part because of the makeup of the student
population – black high school students may see a university filled
overwhelmingly with white lecturers and students as not being a
welcoming environment for them, and may even perceive it as
racist. The only way to overcome this unfortunate stereotype of
university is to change the student population, but this is
impossible to do ‘organically’ while so few people from minority
Positive discrimination will increase negative perceptions of
university. Far from changing attitudes about campus life among
disadvantaged groups, positive discrimination is likely to be seen
as patronising, and belittling of the achievements of ethnic
minorities and the working class. By making the statement that
disadvantaged groups are so far behind the rest that they need
discrimination in their favour and quotas, universities will alienate
themselves from the group they are seeking to help, and will come
over as elitist. Survey evidence suggests that affirmative action is
usually opposed by the target group, affirming the view that people
wish to achieve things for themselves, without being given a ‘leg-
9
backgrounds apply. Therefore, it is necessary to use quotas and
other forms of affirmative action, to change the student body in the
short term, and encourage applications from more disadvantaged
students in the long term.
up’ by the state. Moreover, positive discrimination devalues the
achievements of those who would have been accepted into
university even without the assistance, and these people are likely
to be deterred from applying.
Affirmative action is required to redress social imbalance, by
raising the aspirations of the disadvantaged. By having more
students from disadvantaged backgrounds, affirmative action will
generate more role models for the poor and ethnic minorities. This
is because university graduates have more access to top
professions, and are more likely to enter politics, law, or become
the heads of major corporations. As a consequence, the
aspirations of disadvantaged youths will change – it will become
more realistic for them to see themselves in public life, and will
thus have a better incentive to work hard at school. Not only is this
good for their own development, but it will also help wider society
by tackling social problems such as petty crime and truancy.
Moreover, by having more politicians and businesspeople from
humbler backgrounds, there is a chance that the political and
economic structure of society will be changed to further assist the
less well-off, for example by expanding welfare systems and
ensuring greater equality of opportunities, or through different
hiring practices.
Beneficiaries of positive discrimination won’t be good role models.
A role model is someone others can look up to and admire for the
things they achieved through hard work and talent – by
parachuting people into university, their ability to act as a role
model is undermined. It is also patronising to assume that young
people from ethnic minorities can only look up to people who have
the same colour skin, or went to the same type of school – in a
society that admires diversity and cosmopolitanism, we should
surely accept that anyone can act as a role model. Under this
policy, however, there is a real danger that the government
favours some minority groups over others, thereby inflaming social
tensions. For example, positive discrimination in California has
benefited one minority group, African-Americans, at the expense
of another, Asian-Americans.
There is a benefit to students of all backgrounds from a policy of
affirmative action in university admissions. College is not just
about attending lectures and taking exams, it is also about the
development of character and the broadening of the mind. If a
university is overwhelmingly white and privileged, students are not
exposed to different cultures, viewpoints and social experiences.
By ensuring a diverse social mix on campus, universities
strengthen the educational experience they provide.
It is wishful thinking to believe that this policy will overcome such
embedded social problems as youth crime and truancy – this
policy merely papers over the cracks by masking the fact that the
failures of state-funded schooling and attempts at integration have
led to a situation in which ethnic minorities and the poor are so
vastly underrepresented in universities. The state should do more
to address these underlying problems, rather than covering up its
failures with a tokenistic policy. Better funding of state schools,
real parental choice in education, and accountability through the
publication of comparable examination data would all drive up
standards and allow more underprivileged children to fulfil their
potential.
This House would set quotas for the admission of ethnic minorities to university places
This House would set quotas for the admission of socially disadvantaged groups to university places
That we should force universities to lower admissions criteria when assessing applicants from socially disadvantaged groups
This House believes that universities should use affirmative action/positive discrimination in their admissions procedures
10
Afghanistan, Invasion of
Context
Even before the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11th 2001, Afghanistan was probably
the most isolated country in the world. Only three other states recognised its Taliban rulers, who in the mid-1990s had swept
across the country to impose a very strict and distinctive form of Islamic law upon the Afghan people, ending nearly 20 years
of civil war in the 90% or so of the country which they control. Osama Bin Laden, an exiled Saudi Arabian who is the USA’s
prime suspect for the World Trade Centre atrocity and other terrorist attacks in the 1990s, had based his Al-Qa'ida
organisation in Afghanistan since 1996. The Taliban said that Bin Laden was a “guest of the Afghan people” and refused to
give him up, prompting calls for military action to be taken against the regime.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
After the September 11th attacks, the USA was fully justified in
waging war to punish those responsible and to prevent future
attacks. The Taliban were not a passive host for Bin Laden but
were closely associated with him ideologically, and in his debt for
the crucial support he has lent them in their own civil war. By
sheltering him and his terrorist network, and by refusing to give
him up, the Taliban are his accomplices in the September 11th
atrocities and should be overthrown in the interests of justice and
global peace.
Even assuming that Bin Laden was guilty of masterminding the
September 11th atrocities, that is no reason for a war on
Afghanistan. Given the fragmentary nature of government in the
country, even if the Taliban had wished to hand over Bin Laden,
they were probably not capable of seizing him in order to do so.
The invasion of Afghanistan was aimed directly at capturing Bin
Laden and overthrowing the Taliban regime that has harboured
him, rather than being a war against the entire Afghan people. The
Afghan people have suffered greatly under Taliban rule, especially
women and ethnic and religious minority groups, and they deserve
a different and better government. In the past few years the
Taliban have made it very difficult for the UN and other aid
agencies to deliver humanitarian relief in Afghanistan, so in the
medium-term an invasion would improve matters.
Even if the Taliban were judged to be equally guilty with Bin
Laden, the Afghan people are not; the Taliban conquered the
country with the help of Bin Laden and thousands of other foreign,
mostly Arab, fighters, and their rule is heavily oppressive. The
invasion of Afghanistan is still likely in the long run to lead to a
prolonged power struggle or civil war between different ethnic
groups or local warlords, as before 1996. This will lead to many
innocent lives being lost in the crossfire, prevent humanitarian aid
that is desperately needed after three years of drought reaching
millions of starving Afghans, and create a terrible refugee crisis.
Invasion was the only way to try to capture or destroy Bin Laden
and his terrorist organisation. Bombing on its own can prepare the
way for a ground invasion, guaranteeing air supremacy and
disrupting the enemy’s command and control systems, but without
the eventual commitment of land forces the USA’s global coalition
could not hope to achieve its objectives. Conversely, the isolation
of the Taliban regime before September 2001 means that there
are no meaningful diplomatic sanctions that could be applied in an
attempt to achieve these aims peacefully.
There are great dangers involved in fighting a ground war in
Afghanistan, as the British discovered in the nineteenth century
and the USSR found in the 1980s. The mountainous terrain and
hostile weather conditions make a normal land campaign
impossible, negate the USA’s technological advantages, and make
it ideal for guerrilla warfare. Nor did invading Afghanistan
guarantee the capture of Osama Bin Laden; his familiarity with the
hostile terrain offered him plenty of hiding places. The failure of US
forces to apprehend warlords in Somalia ten years ago showed
how hard it was to target particular individuals, even in more
promising circumstances.
Invasion was the only way to prevent future terrorists using
Afghanistan as a base. The Taliban have provided a supportive
base for a range of terrorist groups seeking to overthrow regimes
in former-Soviet Central Asia, China and Kashmir, as well as for
the global terrorist campaign of Al-Qa'ida. The stability of the
whole Central Asian region pivots upon the installation of a new
government in Afghanistan dedicated to peaceful coexistence with
is neighbours, and this can only be achieved through an invasion.
An invasion using conventional military tactics and techniques will
never be an effective measure against an elusive, diffuse, highly
secretive international network such as Al-Qa'ida. If they are driven
out of one country, they will always be able to find somewhere else
to base their activities. To make the whole population of
Afghanistan suffer in the vain hope of damaging such an elusive
organisation was unacceptable.
Swift and decisive action against Afghanistan was necessary as a
deterrent to other regimes thinking of supporting terrorism. If it is
clear that allowing attacks upon other countries will result in
massive retaliation and the swift overthrow of the sponsoring
regime, then the world will have become a safer place and some
good will have come out of the tragedy of September 11th.
Ill-considered action against Afghanistan has made the USA in
particular, and the West in general more widely feared and hated.
A brutal campaign increased sympathy for the Afghan people, the
Taliban and Bin Laden, especially in Islamic countries. This in itself
seriously increases the risk of future terrorist attacks, but it also
threatens moderate and pro-western regimes throughout the
Islamic world. In particular, it could seriously destabilise nucleararmed Pakistan where the pro-USA stance of the military
government had caused widespread and sometimes violent
11
protest.
12
African Affairs, Intervention In
RESOLUTION: African Conflicts need African Solutions. African Union better than United Nations at solving African problems.
The African continent has been the location of some of the bloodiest and violent conflicts of recent decades. In Rwanda, for example,
there was genocide on an unprecedented scale. In Europe and the USA there has been strong criticism of international organisations
such as the United Nations for their slowness in reacting to crises in Rwanda and Somalia. However, from another point of view it could
be argued that non-African organisations and former colonial powers (such as France and Britain) have no legitimate role to play in
African politics and African conflicts. In this debate the proposition side are putting forward this view – that African conflicts need African
solutions, not artificial resolutions imposed by non-African nations and organisations.
Pros
Cons
Quick Response Time
Often, only neighbouring countries in Africa are able to respond to
crises in time to sort them out before they can become
international incidents. A case in point was during an uprising in
the kingdom of Lesotho (Southern Africa), where South Africa sent
in troops and was able to stabilise the country and restore the
rightful ruler, thus preventing what could have degenerated into
the civil wars we see elsewhere on the continent.
African Governments Increase Conflicts
The question should be asked, however, whether the involvement
of African countries is really this philanthropic. We have seen in
places such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, that many
countries, such as Zimbabwe are involved in the war to procure
the diamond mines and other resources in the warzones, and thus
have a greater vested interest in fuelling the wars, over resolving
them.
Long- Term Commitment
Regional intervention is often more effective at producing change.
Whilst groups such as the UN may be successful in keeping the
peace in the countries they are involved in (questionable in itself),
once the soldiers leave, their philosophy leaves too. By having
regional groups intervene, we can be sure that the influences they
have in the country will not leave once the troops have, as regional
politics will ensure that progress after peacekeeping is continued.
Dictators Ignore Neighbors
The effects - even of regional blocs – on many despots in Africa
has been shown to be nil. As evidenced in Zimbabwe, the
president Robert Mugabe has consistently thumbed condemnation
from those neighbours who have voiced disapproval at his regime.
The influence works both ways as well, and many politically
powerful - if corrupt and warring – countries force their neighbours
to condone their acts. An example is how cronyism in SADEC, as
well as Zimbabwe’s powerful role in the organisation, has led to
many African nations condoning the human rights abuses in the
country.
Africans Understand Africa
The unique situations and power organisations present in many of
the African conflicts are only well understood by the countries
involved and their immediate neighbours. A one-size-fits-all
international response fails to take notice of these circumstances,
meaning that diplomatic negotiations or mediation by these
international countries often disintegrate. African leaders also tend
to have greater credentials when dealing with each others’ affairs
through forums such as SADEC, whereas foreign intervention
cannot expect the same levels of trust and co-operation from
African countries.
Dictators Support Each Other
The “unique understandings” of African politics is often no more
than cronyism, or dictators ensuring each others' continued power.
In these cases, an impartial international intervention is far
preferable. In other cases, this “unique understanding” means that
in places such as the DRC, the surrounding countries have aligned
themselves to different sides in the war, escalating it, rather than
solving the problem.
Develops Democracy
It is important for the development of democracy in Africa, that
African countries be seen to be successfully pursuing and
encouraging it themselves. Many African leaders still carry colonial
resentments that make foreign intervention difficult or impossible –
A case in point being president Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
Leaders such as this will be willing to listen to African approaches
to a problem, whilst foreign ones, however well – intentioned, will
be automatically distrusted.
UN is Impartial, African Neighbors Aren’t
We need to be careful that the “intervention” is justified. Whilst
many countries may be democratic only in name, it is generally the
role of the international community to determine whether violating
the sovereignty of another country is justified. It would be a big
mistake to assume that this could be determined by the countries
closest to the “despots”, as they would probably be the least
impartial people in determining whether a country is in need of
“intervention”. Many conflicts that are ongoing have been started
or sustained on the belief of neighbours that it was the “moral”
thing to do.
UN won’t Commit Troops Needed
Most of the powerful international countries and organisations (US
and UN) are loath to become involved in the sort of “peacemaking”
(instead of peacekeeping) that is needed in African countries. It
will require the active and direct participation of infantry and other
elements of armies to fight the sorts of guerrilla wars going on in
the DRC. The current trend away from this sort of military action
(As in Kosovo), is ill suited to dealing with the African problems.
Infantry Commitment Increases Deaths, Not Success
Just because the intervening country used infantry or tanks
instead of negotiation or aerial bombardment (Kosovo), doesn’t
make it any more likely to restore peace. On a global scale,
Vietnam is the classic example of how using infantry to intervene
in a guerrilla war is a futile exercise. On an African stage, the
infantry intervention by neighbouring countries has only increased
the death toll, not the success at ending the war.
13
African countries, by contrast, have already illustrated that they are
willing and able to become involved in this capacity, as evidenced
in the DRC.
14
AIDS Drugs for Developing Countries
Summary: Should AIDS drugs be made cheaper for developing countries?
Context
With the vast majority of the world’s HIV/AIDS cases being in Africa, and more specifically, sub-Saharan Africa, the issue of
the affordability of AIDS drugs in these typically poor and developing countries is coming to the fore. Some African countries
have threatened to ignore drug companies’ intellectual property rights and produce drugs such as AZT cheaply in a generic
form, unless the companies agree to lower the price of their products to the poorer markets.Key issues in this debate are
whether the drug companies are simply making a profit in the markets that need their product most (and are thus immoral),
whether the poorer nations really can’t afford to pay and whether it is at all in the interests of the developing countries to
threaten the companies’ intellectual rights and propose to make generic medicines.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Without a doubt, many of the world’s drug companies are making
large profits by selling drugs to the poorer nations that have
massive HIV/AIDS problems. This is an immoral exploitation of
those AIDS sufferers who can least afford to pay the huge sums of
money for treatment, but who have the least power internationally
to negotiate for cheaper prices.
Just like any business, the pharmaceutical companies need to
recoup huge financial investments in research and development.
In the case of AIDS drugs, the mechanisms that many of them
employ to work are highly technical and a huge return on the initial
financial investment is needed if drug companies are to have any
reason to pursue the next generation of AIDS drugs.
The countries with the biggest AIDS problems are held as a
captive market and are forced essentially to pay whatever the drug
companies demand for their products. These poor nations are thus
justified in using the threat of generic drugs to force the companies
to lower their prices.
Drug companies are by no means omnipotent, they are as much
subject to the forces of the free market as any other business. If
anything, the nations in Southern Africa have the largest market
for the drugs in the world, so the drug companies would not be
supplying the drugs at the current price, if people were not buying
them. The threat of generic drugs only further serves to discourage
drug companies from creating new and more effective medicines,
as the developing nations have shown them that their patent rights
will not be respected.
Generic drugs would be far cheaper to produce, and without the
shipping costs from factories in Europe. The generic drugs would
also have no research and development costs to create, so they
could be sold for a far reduced price from what the drug
companies are charging. The average cost for keeping a person
on a course of AZT and other drug cocktails whilst they have HIV
is exorbitant, a cost which would be hugely reduced through the
use of generic substitutes.
Because most of the drug companies are based in richer, first
world nations, they have both the technology to produce effective
medicines, and the funding to ensure that no corners are cut in the
process. The poorer nations would almost certainly cut certain
chemical corners in their manufacture of generic drugs, should the
technology for their large-scale manufacture even be available. In
addition, by contravening international intellectual property rights
treaties, they would be alienating themselves from the rest of the
world and will not benefit from the next generation of AIDS drugs,
as companies will be reluctant to supply a country that will just
steal the drug formula and make cheap generic substitutes.
The suffering of millions of people is ongoing, for as long as the
drug companies refuse to make AIDS medication available to the
poorer nations at a price they can afford. Are they trying to use the
millions of HIV sufferers as hostages in their battle to get the
prices they want?
Is it right that third world sufferers should get huge discounts,
whilst first world sufferers pay the full price? First world nations
may even have to pay more, if the drug companies decide to
subsidise their “charity sales” by charging the developed countries
more. Are the poorer countries not using the sufferers as hostages
themselves? Many of the developing nations would in fact make
huge long term savings by buying and using preventive medicines
to stop mother to child transmission, etc.
The drug companies will not end up making a loss by reducing the
medicine prices anyway. Basic laws of the market should tell you
that the reduced profit for drugs like AZT and Nevirapine will be
recouped from the fact that the drugs will suddenly become
affordable to a market of millions of sufferers, many of whom will
be using products like AZT for the duration of the disease, so it
would not be a case of the companies losing money in making the
drugs cheaper after all.
Even at the bare minimum price at which the drug companies
would break even, the majority of the third world would be unable
to afford the drugs. One-off treatments to prevent mother to child
transmission and for rape victims, etc. would be expensive
enough. The cost prices for complex drug cocktails would still be
exorbitant, and way out of the budget of the developing nations, so
no matter how much the drug companies sell, they would still be
making a loss.
By buying the medicines now, especially for preventative
purposes, the developing nations can succeed in reducing their
HIV positive population and thus not have to worry about buying
the next generation of (inevitably more expensive) drugs. They are
No matter how low they drug companies can sell their product, it is
unlikely to ever be cheap enough, as the number of HIV infected
people in Africa grows, the strain on the national health spending
of governments will become unbearable. These countries are
15
as cheap as they can go at the moment, so instead of threatening
and insisting on cheaper prices, the developing nations should
invest now, so that they do not need to buy more expensive drugs
in bigger quantities for the larger amounts of sufferers they will
otherwise have to deal with later.
better off pursuing preventative measures and education with the
money they have to spend for health. Because of this, they will
need to save money in other areas of healthcare, and the greatest
savings can still be made by producing cheap, generic medicines.
Motions
This house would insist on cheaper drugs
This house believes that capitalism lets the sick suffer
This house wants the first world to help
This house needs help with AIDS
This house would fight AIDS
16
American way of life, rejection of
Send to Printer
Summary: Should we reject the American way of life?
Introduction
Author: Adam Goldenberg ( Canada )
Adam Goldenberg is a social studies concentrator at Harvard University. He debated at the World Schools Debating Championships in
2003, and was captain of the Canadian team in 2004
Created: Monday, December 12, 2005
Last Modified: Thursday, January 05, 2006
Context
With its rise to the position of “hyperpower,” the global reach of the United States of America has become beyond doubt.
Everywhere you look, from global politics and trade to local entertainment, cuisine and lifestyle choices, the mark of the United
States is evident. But as globalization has hastened the spread of the American way of life, with its particular eating habits,
popular culture, lifestyle, system of government, and values, many have begun to question the “cultural imperialism” that has
spread “the American way” across the globe.
Since 2000 globalisation has been gathering pace, and the Bush administration has made spreading American values and
democracy a specific foreign policy aim. This has led many to wonder whether or not the American way of life is the right model
towards which the countries and cultures of the world ought to move. As increased communication between people across the
globe hurries the evolution of cultures into a uniform whole, the question remains: should the American way of life be embraced
as a grand template for the world’s globalizing cultures, or should it be rejected as a harmful and even dangerous influence?
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Moving towards the American way of life necessarily means the
slow decay of individual national cultural identities. As these
valuable and historically significant cultures vanish, the world will
lose cultural diversity - such as in art, music, and literature - that
has so enriched humanity’s history. In a world where the borders
between states are becoming increasingly symbolic, the loss of
diversity between countries will also mean a loss of choice for
human beings with the desire to settle in a country that suits their
tastes. As America’s culture becomes universal, Americans and
others lose their ability to choose, even in the context of that great
patriotic American slogan: “America: love it or leave it!”
No culture in the world can survive in unchanging. In order to
survive, the cultures of the world have always - and must always adapted to new conditions and realities. As America’s global
authority increasingly becomes a reality, cultures will begin to
slowly move towards the American way of life not as a product of
force, but rather as a natural consequence of increased contact
with America’s dominant culture. Some cultural institutions will be
lost, others will survive, and still others will become altered in
reaction to it. Resisting the evolutionary impact of the American
way of life would only serve to counteract an extremely important
process in the histories of the world’s cultures.
Differences in ways of life between countries can have positive
economic consequences. The economic theory of comparative
advantage states that efficiency is maximized when those
countries that can produce goods or services at the lowest cost do
so. The entire concept of comparative advantage depends on
major differences between countries and their respective ways of
life. Convergence to the American way of life will mean the loss of
some of the distinctive differences that are fundamental to
maintaining countries’ comparative advantage in the supply of
particular goods and services. For example, French culture is
closely tied up with the idea of “terroir” - the special qualities of the
land in particular regions, and this contributes strongly to its
production of speciality foods and drinks - many of which are major
exports.
Rejecting the American way of life denies the world’s people
important economic advantages, especially in terms of mobility.
The more similar countries’ cultures are, the more likely one is to
be able to move between them, seeking economic opportunity and
advantage. Many economists believe that mobility of labour (that
is, the ability of workers to move across international frontiers) is
an important ingredient of economic growth. As cultures move
towards the American way of life, they will be better able to make
easy the free movement of people to fill specific demand for their
labour or skills, because many of the most difficult barriers to
movement, in particular those that deal with adjustment to new
cultural surroundings, would dissolve.
The American way of life is itself unhealthy for people everywhere.
Defined by a taste for salty and greasy fast foods, an overloaded
work schedule, and a inactive lifestyle, the American way of life is
one of the most important reasons that the American population is
among the world’s most unhealthy, in terms of stress, fitness, and
body weight. By soundly rejecting this unhealthy way of life in
favour of more sensible and healthy routines, the world does a
credit to its collective health and wellbeing.
The American way of life may well be unhealthy, but it is also
delicious. Americans are not the only people who flock to the
purveyors of freeze-dried, deep-fried, sugary, salty, and greasy
foods. The reason that so many indulge this way is that fast food,
for all its faults, is tasty. If we are to accept the virtues of an
individual’s choice, the American way of life must not be rejected.
The American way of life is naturally un-diplomatic. Lacking trust in Sparks only ever fly between countries when their foreign policies
17
other countries and certain of its own rightness, the United States
swings between isolationism and outbursts of violence, rather than
consistently engaging with the rest of the world on equal terms.
This arrogant impatience has historically made it a difficult ally and
an intractable foe. The American way of life is marked by a strong
belief in the superiority of American institutions and values, and an
intolerance of alternatives. This intolerance is what has lead the
United States to boldly accept the title of “world policeman,” much
to the discomfort of other nations, while at the same time refusing
to be bound by international agreements (e.g. on nuclear testing,
climate change or the International Criminal Court). The American
way of life should be rejected because the attitudes that define it
make diplomacy difficult or impossible.
are at odds. These potentially dangerous foreign policy differences
reflect deeper differences between the cultures of the countries
concerned. As countries move toward the American way of life the
differences that would otherwise increase the potential for foreign
policy conflict will diminish. Values will become shared, institutions
will become similar, and ideas will become consistent, leading to
an increase in harmony between peoples and countries. It has
been said that no two countries both possessing branches of
MacDonalds have ever gone to war!
America has developed its unique set of cultural institutions during
its more than 200 years of nationhood. As the world’s oldest
democratic epublic, the United States has the advantage of having
developed its culture along with its own history. Like all cultures,
America’s culture is tailor-made. It addresses the particular needs
- present and historic - of its home country. As such, the American
way of life cannot be assumed to be transferable to other parts of
the world, with different histories and realities. As experiences in
Vietnam in the 1970s and Iraq in the 2000s demonstrate, attempts
to spread the most basic constituent of the American way of life democracy - often end in failure. If the desirable elements of the
American way of life, such as democracy, are to be adopted by
people in other parts of the world, the necessary foundation must
be laid organically by the country’s own experience. That is, the
country must become democratic not by adopting the American
way of life, but rather by proceeding through national experiences
of the sort that shifted America’s own political culture toward
democracy in the late 1700s.
As far as ways of life are concerned, the American is a pretty
strong choice. The American way of life boasts an emphasis on
hard work, self-sacrifice, equality, and democracy. Cultures
converge toward this particular set of traits because they are
uniquely desirable as a way of life. Convergence between cultures
is a necessary consequence of an increasingly interconnected and
globalized world. And if cultures are to converge, then the
American way of life, with its admirable values and great
institutions, is a strong option. In other words, when it comes to
cultural evolution and diffusion, one could do a lot worse than to
converge towards the American way of life.
America’s culture should be rejected because it is inferior to those
of many other nations. In film, music, art, sport and many other
aspects of life, the American way is childish and simplistic.
Hollywood only makes movies which appeal to the lowest instincts
of the mass audience, delivering violence, dazzling special effects
and simplistic story lines. Popular music is loud, aggressive and
unsophisticated. Sports are designed for showy spectacle and
constant celebration of frequent scoring, rather than as a
prolonged examination of skill and strategy. Even clothing is garish
and utilitarian. Such a culture has nothing to offer the rest of the
world.
It is a mistake to see American culture as all of a piece - there are
many different aspects to US popular entertainment, including
jazz, blues, indie film-making, experimental art, cutting-edge
architecture, demanding literature, etc. Most Americans enjoy the
diversity of cultural options available to them, and it is this, as well
as the individual art forms, which the rest of the world can learn
from. But at its best, all American culture is possessed of a
democratic spirit and accessibility, which marks it out from the
elitism of art, music, etc. in much of the rest of the world.
Motions
This house rejects the American way of life
This house lacks confidence in the American way
This house would not become “one of the gang”
This house regrets American hegemony
This house would resist cultural homogeneity
This house does not think “Yankee Doodle” dandy
This house would resist American cultural imperialism
This house would keep Uncle Sam out of the driver’s seat
This house would protect national cultures
18
Animal Rights
Send to Printer
Summary: Do non-human animals have rights?
Context
The claim that animals have ‘rights’ was first put forward by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in the 1970s and has
been the subject of heated and emotional debates ever since. There are many contexts in which the question of ‘animal rights’
comes up. Should we farm animals? If so by what techniques? Should we eat animals? Should we hunt and fish them? Is it
morally acceptable to use animals as sources of entertainment in the context of zoos, circuses, horse racing etc.? Often the
same organisations that campaign on environmental issues (e.g. Greenpeace) are also concerned for the welfare of animals:
both sets of concerns derive from a commitment to the value of Nature and the Earth. The question of animal rights might well
come up in a debate on biodiversity, and is one with so many political and social implications that it is also worth having in its
own right. This debate is about the ethical principles at issue; the separate debates on biodiversity, vegetarianism, zoos, blood
sports, and animal experimentation deal with more of the concrete details.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Human beings are complex evolved creatures who are accorded
rights on the basis that they are able to think and to feel pain.
Many other animals are also able to think (to some extent) and are
certainly able to feel pain. Therefore non-human animals should
also be accorded rights, e.g. to a free and healthy life.
Human beings are infinitely more complex than any other living
creatures. Their abilities to think and talk, to form social systems
with rights and responsibilities, and to feel emotions are uniquely
developed well beyond any other animals. It is reasonable to try to
prevent the most obvious cases of gratuitous suffering or torture of
animals, but beyond that, non-human animals do not deserve to
be given ‘rights’.
Ever since the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species in
1859 we have known that human beings are related by common
descent to all other animals. We owe a duty of care to our animal
cousins.
The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals
does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having
‘rights’. This sort of thinking would have absurd consequences:
e.g. saying that we should respect the ‘right’ to life of bacteria, or
the ‘right’ of the AIDS virus to move freely and without restriction,
and to associate freely with other living organisms. We might wish
to reduce unnecessary animal suffering, but not because all
creatures to which we are distantly related have rights.
We should err on the side of caution in ascribing rights to human
or non-human creatures. If we place high standards (such as the
ability to think, speak, or even to enter into a social contract) on
the ascription of rights there is a danger than not only animals, but
also human infants and mentally handicapped adults will be
excluded from basic rights.
Only human beings who are members of society have ‘rights’.
Rights are privileges that come with certain social duties and moral
responsibilities. Animals are not capable of entering into this sort
of ‘social contract’ – they are neither moral nor immoral creatures,
they are amoral. They do not respect our ‘rights’, and they are
irrational and entirely instinctual. Amoral and irrational creatures
have neither rights nor duties – they are more like robots than
people. All human beings or potential human beings (e.g. unborn
children) can potentially be given rights, but o non-human animals
fall into that category.
Cruelty to animals (e.g. bull fighting, fox hunting, battery hen
farming) is the sign of an uncivilised society – it encourages
violence and barbarism in society more generally. A society that
respects animals and restrains base and violent instincts is a more
civilised one.
It is perfectly natural to use animals for our own nutrition and
pleasure – in the wild there is much suffering as animals struggle
to survive, are hunted by predators, and compete for food and
resources. Human beings have been successful in this struggle for
existence and do not need to feel ashamed of exploiting their
position as a successful species in the evolutionary process.
The basic cause of preventing exploitation of animals is not
undermined by the fact that a small number of extremists and
criminals attach themselves to it. And it is not reasonable to expect
AR campaigners not to take medicine – they must look after their
own health whatever way they can until a more humane sort of
medicine is developed.
Animal Rights activists are hypocrites, extremists, and terrorists
who don’t even care about human life. Organisations such as the
Animal Liberation Front (ALF) use terrorist tactics and deaththreats; PETA are also an extremist organisation. These AR
extremists still avail themselves of modern medicine, however,
which could not have been developed without experiments and
tests on animals. Animal welfare is a reasonable concern, but
talking of animal ‘rights’ is a sign of extremism and irrationality.
Motions
This House Believes that Animals Have Rights Too
This House Would Respect Animals’ Rights
This House Condemns the Exploitation of Animals
19
20
Antarctic Exploitation
Send to Printer
Summary: Should the present ban on exploiting the resources of the Antarctic be maintained?
Introduction
Author: Alastair Endersby ( United Kingdom )
Alastair learnt to debate at the Cambridge Union but discovered his real talents lay in coaching when he started teaching. He has
twice coached England teams in the World Schools Debating Championships. Alastair currently teaches History and Politics at Bishop
Wordsworth's School in Salisbury, England. He is the Editor of Debatabase.
Created: Sunday, February 01, 2004
Last Modified: Monday, July 24, 2006
Context
It is little more than one hundred years since humans first set foot on Antarctica and even today few people have visited the
frozen and hostile southern continent. Although nine countries have territorial claims on the continent, several of them
overlapping, these political disagreements were suspended in The Antarctic Treaty of 1959. In the Treaty (covering all areas
south of 60 degrees South Latitude), it was agreed that Antarctica should be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and that
military activities would be prohibited. It also guaranteed continued freedom for scientific research and promoted international
scientific cooperation.
Successive treaties have built upon this foundation, providing strong protection for the Antarctic environment and strictly
regulating fishing, for example. These have culminated in the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic
Treaty (which entered fully into operation in 1998), which designates Antarctica as a "natural reserve, devoted to peace and
science" and establishes environmental principles to govern the conduct of all activities. It also prohibits mining, arguments
over which caused the failure of a proposed Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA)
in the late 1980s. CRAMRA would have potentially allowed future exploitation of Antarctic resources, subject to the agreement
of all treaty signatories, but it ran into strong opposition from the international environmental movement, which convinced
several of the treaty nations to refuse to sign it.
This topic considers whether it is right to maintain Antarctica purely as a "natural reserve, devoted to peace and science".
Should some exploitation of its resources be allowed, or should the general ban on economic activity be extended to areas
such as fishing and tourism?
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Antarctica is a pristine and unspoilt continent of great scientific
value. In particular, it has a critical impact on the world's
environment and ocean systems. This means that it must be left
undisturbed, in order to allow further study of such critical
international issues as climate change, ozone depletion, longrange weather forecasting and the operation of marine ecosystems (crucial to sustainable fishing). It is also essential to
ensure that a polluted Antarctica does not undergo changes (e.g.
melting of its ice caps, a break-up of its ice sheets) with a
potentially disastrous global impact.
Antarctica is huge and almost completely unpopulated - only the
coastal fringes have any animals or plants. Well-regulated
economic exploitation of its resources need not ruin it and could
provide valuable raw materials and a boost to the world economy.
In any case, by far the greatest impacts on the Antarctic are
external, e.g. the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer over the
south pole, global warming, the effects of whaling and pollution on
the marine environment. Compared to these global influences,
limited exploitation of Antarctic resources under strict
environmental regulation will not make a significant difference.
Antarctica presents an alternative to a world dominated by political
disputes, economic exploitation and environmental destruction.
Placing the southern continent in the care of scientists and out of
reach of both politicians and multinational corporations has
ensured it can be preserved unchanged for future generations.
This provides a model and a precedent for future international
cooperation and global efforts to save the planet.
There is a danger in allowing a scientific elite to set the global
agenda, without regard to either economic logic or democratic
accountability. If the Antarctic can help to provide additional
resources for a rapidly growing world population, then we should
be able to have an intelligent debate about the costs and benefits
involved. In any case, scientific research does leave a footprint in
Antarctica, for example the ice road the Americans are planning to
blast and bulldoze through the continent to the bases at the South
Pole, or the waste products of the many scientific bases on the
continent.
There are many reasons why oil and gas exploration should not be
allowed in the Antarctic. Firstly, proven and probable reserves of
oil and gas are still rising faster than global consumption, so there
is no economic need to exploit any hypothetical Antarctic sources.
Secondly, as the continent is already suffering as a result of global
warming, our priority should be to find renewable alternatives to
Oil and gas exploration should be allowed, both on the Antarctic
continent and in the southern ocean surrounding it. Although
current technology would not enable exploitation of any reserves
at economic prices, future technological advances and rises in the
price of fossil fuels may change this equation. Once, deep water
extraction from the hostile North Sea or Arctic Oceans seemed
21
fossil fuels rather than to continue our dependence upon them. At
a practical level, the cost of exploration and production would be
completely uneconomic, especially given the hostile climate and
the serious iceberg threats to offshore rigs, tankers and pipelines,
as well as the very deep continental shelf. There would also be a
serious danger of pollution, both from the increased human
presence in this fragile environment, and from oil spills.
impossible, but now these are taken for granted. Our prosperity
depends upon cheap energy from fossil fuels, and it would be
wrong to risk this by an arbitrary decision to declare the Antarctic
off-limits to exploration, especially given the continuing scepticism
of many about claims of global warming.
Antarctica must be protected from mineral exploitation and the
1991 Protocol upheld. There are no known mineral deposits on the
continent, so the argument for exploitation is highly speculative,
but it is nonetheless dangerous. Even just exploration would
greatly damage the delicate environment, both physically and by
greatly increasing the number of people disturbing the landscape
and eco-system. Actual mineral extraction, with its spoil heaps,
pollution, processing facilities and transport infrastructure would be
hugely destructive. Politically, placing an economic value upon
Antarctic claims would renew dangers of territorial conflict that
have been frozen since the 1961 Treaty, and risk the whole
system of international cooperation falling apart.
The Antarctic Protocol of 1991 should be amended to allow for the
possibility of mineral prospecting. The failed CRAMRA Convention
of the late 1980s would have allowed for this possibility subject to
strict regulation and the agreement of all treaty nations;
reasonable conditions which were rejected by environmental
purists. Geological analogies with other continents suggest that
several very valuable minerals may be present in Antarctica. If
multinational companies are prepared to pay high prices to treaty
governments for concessions, why should we turn down this
source of revenue? Almost all mining activity would be
underground, so it would be little affected by the harsh
environment and likely to have little adverse impact upon it.
Fishing is at present allowed under the 1991 Protocol, and has
been increasing in recent years as overfishing is exhausting other
global fisheries. Although much about the marine eco-system of
the southern ocean is still unknown, it is clear that overfishing
could quickly damage it, and that any recovery could take
decades. At present limits are set according to our current
understanding of fish stocks, but there is a great deal of illegal
activity by boats from a variety of nations, so the situation is not
under control. Even legal fishing can do great damage - thousands
of seabirds die each year as a result of longline fishing. Not only
should we not relax the Antarctic fishing regime, we should
probably seek to tighten it further; the less legal fishing is allowed,
the easier it will be to spot unlicensed activity.
Fishing provides a crucial source of protein, especially for the
relatively poor, and the Antarctic oceans are underexploited
compared to all other fisheries. Quotas for different species are set
very low by scientists sticking to very conservative precautionary
principles, and could in most cases be greatly expanded without
risk of overfishing. Indeed, increased catch limits would remove
much of the incentive for illegal fishing, and might reduce the
pressure on other, less well-protected fisheries elsewhere. If fish
stocks are found to be under pressure, then quotas can be
reduced once again.
Access to Antarctica should be restricted to those with a serious
scientific purpose. Perhaps 27000 tourists are expected in 2004,
mostly on cruise ships which call at Antarctic sites for just a few
days, but this number is rising rapidly and some visitors are now
undertaking adventurous activities such as ski-hiking, scubadiving, snowboarding and mountaineering. Unchecked, this influx
of people is greatly increasing the problems of waste management
and their activities are having a negative impact on the coastal
environment and its wildlife. Adventurous tourists will also need to
be rescued by the authorities, diverting resources from science.
The more vessels visiting the continent, the greater the chance of
catastrophic oil spills or for rogue operators to neglect proper
waste management (both already problems in the Alaskan cruise
industry). Overall, tourism will create a precedent for economic
exploitation that may make it harder to defend the unique status of
the continent in the future.
Tourism should be greatly expanded to allow as many people as
possible to visit this unique environment. Antarctica should be for
all of humanity, not just for an elite few scientists who seek to deny
others access while simultaneously demanding huge sums of
money for their research projects. Revenues from tourism could in
any case be taxed in order to offset the cost of scientific research.
Tourism could also promote environmental aims, as it would
educate visitors about the importance of Antarctica and so help to
influence environmental policy in many countries around the world.
The International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators
operates a strict code of practice to prevent damage to the
environment.
Motions
This House would continue the ban on exploiting Antarctica's resources
This House would hold the Antarctic sacred
This House believes Antarctica belongs only to science
This House believes capitalism stops in the Southern Ocean
This House would save the ice
This House would freeze development
22
Arms Trade, Role of UN and US
Context
This House believes that the US should push the UN to restrict arms sales to rogue states
This House believes that the responsibility to regulate the arms trade should lie with the UN and not with national governments
US security is best served by empowering the UN to control the flow of arms to rogue states
The international trade in weapons is big business. In fact, it is currently worth in excess of $25 billion per year. The United
States is the world's biggest arms exporter (its exports totalled $13.6 billion in 2003), followed by the UK ($4.7 billion), Russia
($3.4 billion), the Ukraine ($1.5 billion), France and Germany (both $1.2 billion). This trade covers all manner of conventional
weapons from small machine guns to tanks, planes and ships. (Note that the trade in nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons is already banned under existing treaties.) The majority of arms are sold to the developing world.
All major arms exporting countries claim they already regulate arms exports tightly (typically by a system of licensing) in order
to ensure that arms do not end up in undesirable hands. Although it is true that the overwhelming majority of arms sales are to
countries which are not considered rogue states, foreign-made arms do seem to have a habit of ending up being used by
brutal regimes to oppressive their own people or attack their neighbours. It is not even unknown for these arms to be used
against the country that supplied them in the first place. This motion calls for the UN, rather than individual member states, to
regulate the arms trade and, in particular, to restrict arms sales to rogue states.
From a technical point of view, it is worth noting that this debate is quite different to the standard debate on whether the arms
trade should be abolished. That debate typically revolves around jobs, government subsidies and the need to stimulate a
national arms industry through foreign sales. Given that arms sales to rogue states are relatively limited at the moment those
issues are not so relevant to this debate. Instead, this debate is about the role that the UN should play in regulating the arms
sales that do go on at the moment. The proposition have two challenges in setting up this debate. First, they must define the
term 'rogue state'. A typical definition (albeit one that would require further elaboration in a debate) is a state that breaks
international norms and thus threatens regional or global security, or a state that is guilty of gross human rights violations on
its own people. Second, they must clarify what they want the UN to do. The UN Security Council currently has the power to
impose an arms embargo – a power which it has used, albeit inconsistently, in the past. Presumably therefore, the proposition
will argue that the UN should go further and, in contrast to the status quo, impose an arms embargo on every rogue state.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Rogue states, by definition, refuse to be bound by international norms and
threaten the stability of their region or even the world as a whole. Denying
them weapons is the most effective way of preventing them from posing a
threat to other states or their own people. By and large, rogue states are
lesser developed countries lacking the capability to produce sophisticated
weapons or even basic arms in large numbers. Trade with more developed
nations is therefore their only route to acquiring a significant military
capacity. The United States, for example, was one of the principal
suppliers of arms to Indonesia under Suharto, providing training aircraft,
radar equipment, spare parts and machine guns. The trade in small arms,
in particular, is generally regarded as being a root cause of many of the
conflicts in Africa, which have brought death and poverty to millions. Given
that an AK47 can be bought for as little as $6 in some countries, it is no
surprise that the civil war in Sudan lasted 21 years and cost almost 2
million lives. Furthermore, when military intervention is required (as is
sometimes the case with a rogue state) Western powers often find
themselves on the receiving end of weapons they made in the first place
(as France, Russia, the UK and the US found out during the first Gulf War).
Furthermore, a rogue nation may use arms against its own population.
Typically rogue states have poor human rights records and are willing to
commit atrocities against their own citizens. Supplying them with arms
gives rogue states the tools to do the job. Saddam Hussein, for example,
used Soviet and western-made arms in his slaughter of the Kurds in 1991.
Similarly, US M16 machine guns were used to slaughter peaceful
demonstrators in East Timor in 1991. In light of this, it is vital that the UN
takes a lead in stamping out arms sales to rogue nations – after all
ensuring global security is its primary purpose. The USA has a major
interest in promoting world peace and security, and it has been forced to
take action against rogue states in Afghanistan and Iraq (and may in future
have to confront countries like Syria, North Korea and Iran); for both these
reasons it should support UN efforts to control the arms trade in this way.
Many of the weapons which rogue states have used to threaten their
neighbours or oppress their own people were sold to them before they
were regarded as rogue states. For example, the weapons which Iraq used
to invade Kuwait (and which were subsequently used against allied forces
and the Kurds) were sold to Iraq before Saddam Hussein was considered a
threat to international peace and security. Looking back, that judgement
was very wrong but it demonstrates that the proposition's proposal would
have done nothing to prevent Saddam getting hold of arms. The fact is that
very few arms are sold to rogue states at the moment. The Federation of
American Scientists claims that eight states to which the US currently
supplies arms are troubling: Brazil, Columbia, India, Indonesia, Israel,
Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey. None of those states is widely regarded as
rogue. It is extremely unfortunate when a state to which arms have been
sold later becomes rogue and misuses those arms, but the proposition's
proposal will do nothing to prevent it.
Similarly, blocks on the export of small arms will do nothing to stop war.
The small, cheap weapons that the proposition talks about are usually
made and sold illegally. Attempts are currently afoot to stamp out that
trade. An additional order from the UN would hardly make any difference.
Furthermore, wars are not caused by the existence of cheap arms. The
African wars that the proposition refers to are usually a result of ethnic
divisions. Even if the availability of sophisticated weapons were reduced,
the wars would still be fought, and just as brutally, with whatever arms
were available.
The arms trade is a global problem which, by definition, crosses national
borders and continental boundaries. To soften its impact will require more
than just the piecemeal action of isolated governments. Broad international
co-operation is necessary and as such the UN is the ideal forum to pursue
an end to arms sales to rogue nations. Because of its global membership
the UN is the only forum which can bring together the required global
The proposition's view that the UN is a truly global forum capable of
marshalling enough support to restrict arms sales to rogue states is at odds
with reality. Given that member states set the agenda for the UN, the
commitment to control the arms trade must ultimately come from within
member states themselves. It cannot be successfully imposed from above
precisely because, as the proposition point out, national governments do
23
coalition. Furthermore, national governments are notoriously bad at
obeying their own rules on the arms trade. In order to secure lucrative
contracts, national governments regularly bend their rules to permit the
export of arms to rogue states. Russia and the Ukraine, for example, were
supplying weapons (including anti-tank missiles) to Iraq right up until the
second Gulf War. Since national governments are unlikely to make ending
the arms trade to rogue nations a long term priority, UN regulation is
required. Unlike any national government, the UN is able to take the long
view and end this appalling trade.
have a vested interest in maintaining regulatory control over the arms
trade. This matters since it is the member states that will have to enforce
any restrictions. The UN itself has no mechanism for ensuring that its rules
are enforced. Furthermore, were the UN to try to restrict the arms trade
and fail, this failure would damage the UN by discrediting it further. At a
time when the UN is attacked for being incompetent (following its failures
over the Iraq War, the Oil for Food programme and the Asian Tsunami
relief operation) it would be foolhardy for it to undertake a project that is
doomed to failure.
The opposition claim that it will be impossible for the UN to agree on a list
of rogue states. Historically, the UN has regularly imposed sanctions; on 16
different countries, in fact, including Afghanistan, Iraq and South Africa. In
these cases agreement was possible in the face of a rogue state which
presented a real threat to international security or to the human rights of its
own people. Using these precedents, it should be possible to find a
definition for a rogue state. The opposition point out that it is rare for the
UN to agree on the imposition of an arms embargo at the moment. In part
this is because no definition of a rogue state exists and embargoes must
be considered on a case by case basis. If the US suggests putting
sanctions on Iran, for example, other countries respond by saying that
sanctions should be placed on Israel. On the other hand, once a definition
of a rogue state had been agreed upon, it could be applied fairly across the
board, making agreement more likely than under the status quo. Given the
USA's commitment to both international stability and human rights, it must
be in its interests to support UN efforts in this area.
It is inconceivable that the UN could ever agree on definition of a rogue
state. The UN can rarely agree, for example, on the imposition of
sanctions. At the moment the UN does not even impose sanctions on
North Korea (because of the Chinese veto.) The chance of the UN drawing
up a list of rogue states and taking decisive action to stop them acquiring
arms is therefore very slim. In her confirmation hearing Condoleezza Rice
named six outposts of tyranny: Belarus, Burma, Cuba, Iran, North Korea,
and Zimbabwe. However, each of these states would gather enough
support in the UN to derail an attempt to classify it as a rogue state.
Similarly the United States would strongly resist any attempt to have Israel
or Uzbekistan classified as rogue states. It is therefore highly unlikely that
the UN could ever agree on the need for an arms embargo. However, in
the unlikely event that the UN did manage to agree on a definition of a
rogue state and then actually enforced an arms embargo, allies of the
United States (like Israel and Uzbekistan) would end up being sanctioned.
This would be a huge own goal for American foreign policy.
The right for a state to have arms is dependent upon those arms
being used in accordance with international law. The opposition's
idea that some arms can only be used for defensive, legitimate
purposes is nonsense. Almost any type of weapon can be used by
a rogue state to threaten other countries or oppress its own
people. Rogue states must therefore be denied every type of
weapon. However, even if the opposition are right and weapons
which can be used only for legitimate purposes do exist, national
governments cannot be trusted to ensure that only these weapons
are sold to rogue states. National governments have regularly
broken their own rules concerning arms exports in the past (under
pressure from arms companies) and cannot be trusted to
implement them in future. The British government, for example,
has permitted the sale of Hawk jets to Indonesia, the Democratic
Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe in spite of promising that such
sales would stop. In Indonesia, British-made Hawk jets were used
to oppress separatists in Aceh.
Every state, even a rogue state, has the right to arms. In particular,
every state has the right to use force for self-defence. For this
reason even rogue states have the right to buy some types of
weapon. The opposition do not propose selling every type of
weapon to rogue states; specifically, it is right that through a
system of export licences implemented by national governments
the sale of weapons with no defensive purpose is tightly controlled.
However, it would be a step too far for the UN to ban the sale of all
weapons to rogue states. Indeed, Article 2.7 of the Charter of the
UN forbids it from intervening in matters of domestic jurisdiction,
which includes the provision of arms for self-defence. It would be
against long-term US interests to extend the United Nations'
powers in any way that increased its ability to override national
sovereignty and US independence of action. Nor do Americans
want to encourage the UN in its pretensions to become a world
government.
The arms trade is one of the principal sources of poverty in the
world, as states spend limited resources paying for arms rather
than improving the welfare of their people. This problem is
particularly severe with rogue states, which typically have more
enemies (both inside and outside their borders) and place less of a
priority on welfare. In fact, the developing world spends about $20
billion a year on arms. Given that a fundamental part of the UN's
mission is to improve the lives of ordinary people, it is right that it
should make ending the arms trade to rogue states a priority.
Campaigners may want to believe that the arms trade is a major
cause of poverty in rogue states, but the reality is that arms sales
to rogue states are highly limited at the moment and the amounts
of money involved are small on the scale of a government's
budget. The major causes of poverty are history, bad government
and debt. The $20 billion spent on arms each year by developing
countries may seem a considerable sum but (apart from the fact
that only a fraction of this is spent by rogue states) it is dwarfed in
comparison to the size of debt owed by developing countries: $550
billion. Claiming that the arms trade causes poverty merely diverts
attention from the real problems.
States do not supply arms to other nations in order to buy some
kind of political leverage, as the opposition claims. They export
arms because it is in their interests to do so. There is, therefore,
rarely any political will to use the withdrawal of arms sales as a
stick, or extra arms sales as a carrot. The US supports Israel
because a strong Israel is in the US's long-term strategic interest.
Israel is not swayed by the threat of removing those sales since
Israel knows it is a bluff.
Supplying arms to a rogue state is a good way of gaining leverage
over that state. Obviously there are limits to this (the USA is not
about to supply arms to Iran) but carefully controlled arms sales to
selected states can buy the US influence in domestic politics. In
return for signing the Wye River accords with Jordan, for example,
Israel received $1.2 billion in military aid. The US is likely to make
similar offers to prompt Israel to sign peace treaties with Syria and
the Palestinians. Similarly, the threat of withdrawing arms sales is
a stick that the US can use to shape Israeli policy.
Motions
24
Assisted Suicide/Voluntary Euthanasia
Send to Printer
Summary: Should assisted suicide be legalised?
Introduction
Author: Bobby Webster ( United Kingdom )
Bobby Webster is a former World Schools Debating champion, and has taught debating on five continents. Currently working for
Demos, the UK's leading independent think-tank, he is also a film-maker in his spare time.
Created: Wednesday, November 01, 2000
Last Modified: Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Context
Assisted Suicide, also called Voluntary Euthanasia, is currently a contentious issue in many countries. The question in the
debate is this: if a terminally ill person decides that they wish to end their life, is it acceptable for others to assist them? This
would normally take the form of a doctor administering a lethal injection, which would end their life painlessly. A clear
distinction must be made with involuntary euthanasia, by which someone is ‘put down’ against their wishes, and which is
simply murder by another name. In the United States, Dr Jack Kervorkian – nicknamed ‘Doctor Death’ for his actions beliefs –
has been campaigning for a change in the law for many years, and has assisted in the suicide of at least 45 people; he was
recently found guilty of second degree murder and imprisoned after a widely publicised trial. In the Netherlands, on the other
hand, voluntary euthanasia has been legal since 1983, with some 3,000 people requesting it each year. In Australia, assisted
suicide was legalised in the Northern Territories with the backing of a substantial majority of the local population, but was then
overthrown by the Federal Senate before anyone could actually use the new law. In Switzerland the Dignitas Clinic assists a
great many people to kill themselves each year, including many who travel for that specific purpose from countries where
assisted suicide is illegal.
As a great deal hinges on the practicalities of this debate, it is imperative that the proposition provide a fairly specific set of
criteria to explain when assisted suicide would be legal and when it would not. It is worth looking at the legal procedures
proposed in Australia and those in use in the Netherlands, as examples of the kind of safeguards which may be needed.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Every human being has a right to life, perhaps the most basic and
fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a
choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain
silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the
same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life.
There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights.
When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a
later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second
chance. Participating in someone’s death is also to participate in
depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is
therefore immoral.
Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a
horrific future ahead of them: the gradual decline of their body, the
failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some
cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of
themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of
medication required to ‘control’ their pain will often leave them in a
delirious and incapable state. Faced with this, it is surely more
humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of
their own end, and die with dignity.
Modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and
helps to preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There is no
need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very
end of the course of their illness. It is always wrong to give up on
life. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of course
terrifying, but society’s role is to help them live their lives as well as
they can. This can take place through counselling, helping patients
to come to terms with their condition.
Society recognises that suicide is unfortunate but acceptable in
some circumstances – those who end their own lives are not seen
as evil, nor is it a crime to attempt suicide. The illegality of assisted
suicide is therefore particularly cruel for those who are disabled by
their disease, and are unable to die without assistance.
Those who commit suicide are not evil, and those who attempt to
take their own lives are not prosecuted. However, if someone is
threatening to kill themselves it is your moral duty to try to stop
them. You would not, for example, simply ignore a man standing
on a ledge and threatening to jump simply because it is his choice;
and you would definitely not assist in his suicide by pushing him. In
the same way, you should try to help a person with a terminal
illness, not help them to die.
Suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often
as a cry for help. The impact on the family who remain can be
catastrophic. By legalising assisted suicide, the process can be
Demanding that family take part in such a decision can be an
unbearable burden: many may resent a loved one’s decision to
die, and would be either emotionally scared or estranged by the
25
brought out into the open. In some cases, families might have
been unaware of the true feelings of their loved one; being forced
to confront the issue of their illness may do great good, perhaps
even allowing them to persuade the patient not to end their life. In
other cases, it makes them part of the process: they can
understand the reasons behind their decision without feelings of
guilt and recrimination, and the terminally ill patient can speak
openly to them about their feelings before their death.
prospect of being in any way involved with their death. Assisted
suicide also introduces a new danger, that the terminally ill may be
pressured into ending their lives by others who are not prepared to
support them through their illness. Even the most well regulated
system would have no real way to ensure that this did not happen.
At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A
good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want
to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a
patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and
expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help.
To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic
over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be
alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the
loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A
doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it
physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help
their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does
take place. It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the
process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of
the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary
euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit.
It is vital that a doctor’s role not be confused. The guiding principle
of medical ethics is to do no harm: a physician must not be
involved in deliberately harming their patient. Without this principle,
the medical profession would lose a great deal of trust; and
admitting that killing is an acceptable part of a doctor’s role would
likely increase the danger of involuntary euthanasia, not reduce it.
Legalising assisted suicide also places an unreasonable burden
on doctors. The daily decisions made in order to preserve life can
be difficult enough; to require them to also carry the immense
moral responsibility of deciding who can and cannot die, and the
further responsibility of actually killing patients, is unacceptable.
This is why the vast majority of medical professionals oppose the
legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the life of a patient goes
against all they stand for.
Motions
This House would legalise assisted suicide
This House would die with dignity
26
Asylum seekers, welcome for
Send to Printer
Summary: What obligations should nation-states have to those seeking asylum?
Introduction
Author: Richard Penny ( Finland )
Richard is a former Baltic Debate Champion, finalist in a numerous British IV's, and broke as 25th best speaker at Worlds 2007. He is
active in coaching university and high-school debating in Finland.
Created: Saturday, December 29, 2007
Last Modified:
Context
Asylum is the provision of a refugee for foreign citizens fleeing persecution in their own countries. Asylum-seekers, or refugees,
are like other international migrants in seeking a new home in another country, but differ from economic migrants in their
motivation. While economic migrants travel in the hope of building a better life for themselves overseas, asylum seekers are
fleeing their home countries in fear of the authorities there. They may fear arrest, torture, death or other forms of oppression
because of their membership of a victimised group (e.g. an ethnic or religious minority), or because they have been active in
political opposition to a dictatorial regime. They may also be fleeing civil conflict.
Under the 1951 International Convention on Refugees, signatory states have a legal responsibility to provide asylum to foreign
citizens who arrive on their shores with a genuine fear of persecution. Most people now think of refugees as being citizens of
developing world dictatorships fleeing to asylum in developed countries like the UK, Australia, Germany or the USA, but in
practice many developing countries have hosted large numbers of asylum-seekers (e.g. in the 1990s Tanzania played host to
hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Rwandan genocide).
For several decades after it was first signed the International Convention on Refugees was relatively uncontroversial, perhaps
because most people in developed countries remembered the Nazi Holocaust and were ashamed of the way in which their
own states had refused to take Jewish refugees in the 1930s. And because international travel between countries remained
expensive and difficult, asylum-seekers remained relatively few in number. However, since the early 1990s asylum has risen to
become a major political issue in many developed countries, often bound up with wider issues of immigration and integration
along the way. Conflicts in places such as Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Kosovo, and dictatorships in countries like
Zimbabwe and Iraq resulted in large numbers of asylum-seekers arriving in developed countries. At the same time, the greater
ease of global travel accelerated the number of economic migrants seeking a better life abroad, often as illegal immigrants. In
many places the suspicion grew that many of those claiming asylum were really economic migrants seeking to gain
fraudulently the advantages of refugee status. In Europe in particular the rise of a 'new-right' politics motivated by such issues
has been profound and many mainstream parties have hardened their stances towards asylum accordingly. At the same time,
however, political, ethnic and religious persecution remains widespread across the globe and the moral questions about the
duty of states to give sanctuary to those in need retain huge emotive force.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
There have been no serious links between terrorism and the
asylum system. The 9/11 hijackers all had visas and recent terror
cells in Europe have all been 'home grown'. If anything an asylum
system provides more security and border control for states. Even
if there was no asylum system, people would still flee persecution
but instead they would be forced to turn to people traffickers to
circumvent all border controls, and thus never be documented or
assessed at all. This would also increase the already huge
numbers of migrants, especially women, who are exploited by
traffickers in sex and underground industries, and also the sheer
number of people present in a country of which the authorities
have no knowledge.
There will always be trafficking as long as there aren't open
borders. And we should maintain strict controls on both
immigration and asylum. States must focus on the needs of their
people first, and the reaction of citizens in accepting countries is
quite rightly the feeling that their hospitality and good intentions
are being abused at the moment. The social harms that these
feelings cause - suspicion, xenophobia, racism and disruption of
social harmony and tolerance - are too large and too damaging to
the actual citizens of states to justify the maintenance of a failing
system that may help some few outsiders. The responsibilities of
governments to their own citizens must be greatest.
Much of the fear of the asylum system being used by economic
migrants is simply media hysteria and xenophobia. The vast
majority of asylum claims (around 75%) are still rejected, which
shows the system works. Also it is not being abused in the way
many people believe. Very few people are willing to leave their
family and community, pay to travel thousands of miles to new
country, in risky circumstances, with only a small chance of being
accepted there, unless they have real reason to fear for their
safety. The numbers of people seeking asylum are not historically
It is not clear that the system works at all. The majority of those
who apply for asylum are working-age males, which implies that
there is a strong economic angle. And worse still, even if countries
decide that an applicant has no basis to their claim they are
frequently unable to deport them because they often go missing,
or because, perversely, they may be punished on return to their
country for having sought refuge. So essentially the asylum
system provides a loophole for unrestricted immigration, which is
both expensive, and dangerous for states. In the age of global
27
unprecedented either, and most applicants still come from
countries we recognise as dangerous, such as Iraq, Iran and
Afghanistan. Compared to other forms of immigration the numbers
who are accepted via the asylum regime are negligible.
terrorism it is a huge risk to allow undocumented individuals to
enter and roam freely within any country.
Democratic nations preach the language of freedom, human rights
and justice. They encourage those who live under oppression to
oppose their rulers and work towards these goals. This is all
rendered hollow, and hypocritical if they then refuse to protect
individuals who are persecuted for taking the brave and noble step
of working to improve their societies. Not only is this a moral failing
but practically very harmful too. It is in the interests of democratic
nations to spread democracy and peaceful forms of government. If
the people of authoritarian nations don't feel they have the support
of other, then the incentive for them to risk everything and stand
up in the name of freedom is diminished, and so too the best
chance of change in such oppressive regimes.
Democratic nations can support like-minded groups in all manner
of other ways, such as funding and training opposition groups,
giving them international representation, and by applying pressure
to oppressive governments. With individual asylum applicants they
are still faced with the same problem of assessing who has
genuinely taken a “brave and noble” step, which is very hard.
Furthermore it is not at all clear that the hope of asylum is a
motivator towards political action. Revolutions and resistance
forces existed long before the creation of any formal asylum
regime, and continue in the contemporary absence of any access
to them. Often by harbouring those who have opposed oppressive
regimes, perhaps in a similarly violent manner, states drastically
reduce their ability to negotiate with and apply leverage to the
authoritarian governments that are the problem in the first place.
The principles which underlie the asylum regime are as valid as
ever. Millions still face persecution, death and torture globally
because of who they are or because of their convictions.
Democratic countries still have a moral obligation to offer
protection to these people. We all recognise it as a horrendous
failing by the countries who turned away Jewish refugees in the
early days of Nazism. This should never happen again. Developed
nations have both the wealth and security to make them the best
destinations for those seeking refuge.
It would be nice to offer safety to everyone who genuinely
deserved it, but practically it is almost impossible to tell who is
genuinely fleeing persecution, and who is simply seeking
economic benefit. Tracking down the histories of applicants to
verify their claim is frequently impossible, and enormously
expensive. The point of moral obligations as opposed to legal
obligations is that it is the donor who decides how great their
sacrifice should be. States may perfectly fairly decide to try to
protect refugees in more affordable and uncontroversial ways,
such as providing aid to refugee camps and foreign governments
who work nearer crisis areas. Accepting refugees is not obligatory.
Signatories of The 1951 Convention on Refugees have a legal
responsibility to offer asylum to any foreign national who has a well
founded fear of persecution, for political, religious, ethnic or social
reasons, and who is unwilling to return home. This treaty is one of
the cornerstones of international human rights law, and as such
states should uphold it to the letter.
The Convention on Refugeehood was written in, and for, a totally
different world. Its framers would never have anticipated the ease
with which global travel is now possible, allowing huge numbers
both legitimate and illegitimate to apply for asylum. Migrants can
now move between countries with ease, 'shopping' for the place
they see as being softest. If democracies feel these numbers are
too great they should always put restricting them ahead of out of
date laws.
Motions
This House would end the granting of asylum
This House would re-negotiate treaties on refugees
This House believes the right to asylum should not be absolute
That the 1951 Convention on Refugees should be re-negotiated
28
Bailouts of Corporations
Summary: Should governments ever bail out private corporations facing bankruptcy?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Ina Subulica ( Romania )
Ina Subulica is a Romanian student, reading for an MSc. in Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Oxford. She holds a
Bachelor’s degree in Politics and International Law from the University of Helsinki, Finland. She started debating as an
undergraduate for the University of Helsinki Debating Society. She is a quarterfinalist in the main break of the European and W orld
University Debating Championships.
Created: Saturday, January 09, 2010
Last Modified:
Context
Free market capitalism has been beset by cyclical crises that frequently prompt fears of a worldwide economic meltdown – the
most recent examples being the Asian financial crisis (1997) and the current so-called ‘sub-prime’ crisis (2008-). Even when
the entire economic system is not engulfed by the treat of a worldwide recession, as in these cases, entire industries fail and
companies go under in times of relative stability and prosperity. Economic science is often in disagreement as to what should
be done in such cases. Is the free market the universal remedy that will fix all of the problems within the system? Or does the
magnitude of the threat warrant government intervention in the economy? While conservatives and economic liberals may
argue that such intervention is practically the same as socialism, more centrist and leftist politicians claim that some of these
companies are too big to be allowed to fail, and that market failure requires the state to step in.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
In capitalist states with free market economies, the private sector
is the biggest employer as opposed to the civil service or state
owned companies. Therefore, when a large company fails, such
as a big steel-maker or the mining industry in a certain area of the
country, it can lead to the loss of thousands of jobs in direct layoffs
and thousands more indirect ones throughout the supply and
distribution chains of these companies. Often the entire local
economy of a city or region can revolve around such a big
corporation (like the car manufacturing industry for Detroit in the
U.S.), and a bankruptcy can push that whole area into years of
poverty. In such circumstances, government intervention is
necessary to support vulnerable companies and protect jobs.
Bankruptcies are the free market's self regulating mechanisms.
Through supply and demand, the market will eventually reward
companies that display specialism, innovation, long-term
investment and bright ideas, and punish companies that are
wasteful and badly managed. That is important because keeping
failing companies on “life-support” holds back healthier firms and
harms the economy overall. By allowing bad companies to survive
using public money, they will continue to keep trapped important
market resources (such as labour force) which could be better
utilised by new, more innovative companies. Government support
may also allow them to undercut their competitors in the market
place, and so prevent the growth of smaller and more innovative
companies as well. These would otherwise eventually fill in the
gap in terms of employment and bring in government revenue
through taxes.
Some sectors of the economy have an inherent risk attached to
them, such as banks, who lend more money than they have cash
in hand. But banks play a key role in “oiling” the economy; they
provide the credit that lets the rest of the economic sectors do
business. If the financial sector was overcautious when they lent
money because they constantly feared bankruptcy due to bad
loans, then that would lead to significant capital liquidity issues and
ultimately hurt the economy more, because it would stifle growth
and innovation. For these reasons the government should provide
key firms with guarantees of support that will encourage them to
lend the money that our economy needs to maintain economic
growth.
The market already has reward mechanisms to encourage banks
and other companies to not be overcautious when lending or
investing. Usually, the riskier the investment, the higher the return
in profit for the investor. Therefore there will always be banks and
companies willing to “oil” the economy, by not being overcautious
when it comes to investment. While some risk is good, having
bailouts as a “safety net” encourages recklessness and excessive
risk taking in the quest for profit.
If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of
government support, companies will be unable to raise new money
and this can have a “domino effect” on the whole economy.
Corporate bankruptcies will soar. Consumers will also find it
difficult, or expensive, to borrow money for household loans – such
as a new house or a new car. The result will be a sharp downturn
in demand that will push the economy into a deep recession.
If companies know that they can count on the government to bail
them out when they are in danger of bankruptcy, then they will act
differently. This is known as “moral hazard”; being reckless in your
lending or your investments, because such a venture is risk free. If
it succeeds you are likely to make a massive profit. If it fails, then
the government will cover the costs of the failure and the company
won't bear any of the responsibility of their behaviour.
29
Some businesses/ industries are of a strategic importance for their
countries. States need to be self reliant and be able to provide for
themselves in case of an international conflict or be protected by
the fluctuations on the international financial markets. For
example, being able to provide food for your population is crucial
in the case of an international conflict. Therefore subsidies for
farmers who would go bankrupt without them can be crucial for a
country's survival.
Such an attitude is isolationist and it stifles international stability
and cooperation. Countries do better if they specialise in producing
goods that are best suited for the type of natural resources they
posess. Trading with each other means the chances of conflict go
down because every country will have a stake in international
trade. And goods will be cheaper for everyone because they will
be produced in the most efficient manner possible.
Companies that are doing badly for the moment can be salvaged
by better management. They are sometimes very important for the
overall health of the economy – like the banks. They would do
better under new, more competent management. Bailouts mean
the government can have a saying in the future management of
the company, as the government now essentially becomes a major
investor.
Governments make very bad players on the private market.
Centralised bureaucracies which allow the government to choose
the terms of the bailout may lead to even less efficient
management teams than the ones that drove the companies into
bankruptcy to begin with.
Motions
This house would bail out private corporations to save the economy
This house believes the market won’t fix itself
That in cases of market failure, the government should intervene to save companies from bankruptcy
30
Bailouts of Banks
Summary: Should the government bailout banks and financial institutions?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Steven Kryger ( Canada )
Steven is a senior at Yale University, and the Director of Membership for the Yale Debate Association. Steven attended St. John’sRavenscourt School in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada and was the Canadian High School Debate champion, along with the World
Extemporaneous Speaking Champion. In college, he has reached elimination rounds at the North American Debate Championships
and the World Debate Championships.
Created: Friday, June 12, 2009
Last Modified:
Context
A decline in house prices that began in 2007 ballooned into the biggest global economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Consumer spending has fallen, banks have severely restricted money lending, currencies are fluctuating wildly, and several
large corporations teeter on the brink of bankruptcy, including insurance company AIG and several banks (Citigroup, Bank of
America, HBOS, RBS, etc.).
Governments around the world have instituted or are considering bailouts of financial institutions – giving or lending
corporations large amounts of money to prevent bankruptcy and to keep the company afloat. Often the government comes to
own a large portion of the company as part of the terms of the bailout. These bailouts are huge in scope. In 2008 AIG, an
insurance company, was given $40 billion dollars by the US federal government. The total cost of the largest US bailout, the
Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), is $700 billion dollars. The 2008 Bank Rescue Package from the UK Government
cost £500 billion.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The government holds significant responsibility for the credit crisis.
Firstly, the US government distorted the market to encourage
poorer individuals to take out large mortgages and buy houses.
When a few of these people (predictably) failed to pay off the
mortgage, this began the chain of events that led to the crisis.
Furthermore, governments around the world failed in their duty to
regulate and oversee the banking industry. Since the government
has responsibility for the crisis, the government should pay to
support the companies affected by it.
Corporations are mostly responsible for the crisis. The decision to
make risky investments came from the top of the company. While
some governments did not sufficiently regulate those corporations,
businesses are ultimately the decision makers and ultimately
should pay for poor decisions they made, instead of having the
government pay the price when those risky investments fail.
Supporting the banks helps the rest of the economy. Financial
institutions provide the loans that businesses need to open up,
innovate, and invest. With the banks afraid of risk and lacking
cash, banks have little capacity to loan. Without those loans, the
pace of growth in the global economy slows substantially, and may
even go into reverse. Furthermore, economic growth requires
businesses and individuals to be confident enough in the economy
to make investments. When the government shows that it is willing
to support the economy, investors will have more confidence and
economic growth increases.
There are long term economic consequences to the bailout.
Financial institutions, recognizing that the government will support
them if an investment loses money, will continue to make risky
investments. This will lead to future crises and future bailouts. Only
if the government allows companies to face the full cost of bad
investments will companies in the future allocate their money in a
smarter, more conservative way.
Banks collapsing also hurts individual citizens. Many pension
plans and retirement savings have money invested in financial
stocks. Bankruptcy destroys those investments, meaning less
money for pensioners and retirees. In such circumstances, the
government should step in to ensure the survival of major financial
institutions.
A natural part of the economy is the flow of money from
unsuccessful companies to more successful companies. By taxing
successful companies to pay for bailing out others that clearly do
not have a good business model, the government is punishing
those companies that made smart investment and good business
decisions. Such signals discourage prudent business decisions in
the future, and will result in the misallocation of capital within the
economy, reducing future economic growth.
The global economy is at risk of a much more severe collapse
without an injection of government money. Without bailouts,
bankruptcy of these institutions is likely, and that has the direct
The cost of the bailout is too high. $700 billion dollars is equivalent
to about $2000 debt per American citizen. The cost per citizen in
other parts of the world is even higher. All of this money is
31
effect of putting at risk those assets that the bank manages.
Mortgages, investments and savings that are insured and
managed by banks are at risk of losing a substantial portion of
their value, which would destroy significant amounts of global
wealth.
borrowed by the government, and for years to come, this
generation and the next will be paying off that debt and its interest.
This money could be otherwise used for programs that make a
real, tangible difference on people’s lives, such as healthcare and
education.
Governments are not just giving financial institutions the money.
Instead, they are generally exchanging the money for shares in the
company. This has two positive effects. Firstly, the government as
a shareholder and partial-owner can direct the company to act in
the interests of the nation, and to avoid overly risky investments.
Secondly, in future the government can sell those shares and
recover some (potentially all) of the costs of the bailout.
Government owning large parts of businesses is bad for the
economy. By adopting socialist economic policies, the government
will be tempted to force the company to make decisions that might
please voters in the short run, but in the long run are inefficient
and bad for the economy (for example, subsidising uneconomic
industries). It also centralizes greater economic power in the
government that can later be abused by corrupt or inept
government officials.
Motions
This house would bailout banks
This house believes that TARP was a good use of government resources
This house supports government intervention to support failing financial institutions
This house would prop up banks
32
Biodiversity and Endangered Species
Summary: Should we be trying to prevent species becoming extinct? If so, why?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Created: Friday, June 30, 2000
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Context
'Biodiversity' means the variety of bacteria, plants, and animals that live on our planet. This includes the unique behavioural
patterns and activities of each species. Biodiversity is an ecological concept discussed in many scientific circles. Many debates
about biodiversity will ultimately boil down to how important this diversity is, either for its own sake, or for some specific human
benefits. International agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) aim to protect biodiversity. Issues linked to this debate about biodiversity will also arise in debates on genetically
modified food and on animal welfare.
Pros
Cons
The species Homo sapiens is unprecedented and unique among
all life on earth. Human sentience and intelligence far surpass
those of other creatures. These gifts have allowed human beings
to populate the earth, construct industry, and affect the
environment in a way that no other species can. This great power
comes with great responsibility, and we should avoid abusing the
earth, lest we cause irreparable damage - damage like the
extinction of species and the consequent reduction in biodiversity
cause by deforestation, over-fishing, hunting, the illegal trade in
ivory and other species etc.
The idea that extinctions will lead to ecological disaster is an
exaggeration. Fossil evidence shows that mass extinctions have
occurred many times throughout the history of life on earth, one of
the most recent being the mass demise of the dinosaurs. After
every collapse of biodiversity, it subsequently rebounded, with the
earth coming to no lasting harm. Extinctions are simply part of the
natural evolutionary process.
Protecting endangered species is an extension of our existing
system of ethics. Just as modern civilisation protects its weaker
and less able members, so humanity should safeguard the welfare
of other less privileged species. Animals are sentient creatures
whose welfare we should protect (even if they may not have the
same full 'rights' that we accord to human beings).
No species on earth would put the interest of another species
above its own, so why should human beings be any different?
Furthermore, since the very beginnings of life, Nature has
operated by the Darwinian principle of "survival of the fittest". Life
forms that cannot keep up with the newest species on the block
will always risk extinction, unless they adapt to the new challenge.
Man has no obligation to save the weaker species; if they cannot
match our pace, they deserve to die out and be supplanted by
others.
The most successful pharmaceuticals have often used Nature as a
starting point. Antibiotics were first discovered through the study of
fungi, and many anticancer drugs are derived from the bark of
exotic Amazon trees. Every time a species becomes extinct,
scientists forever lose an opportunity to make a new discovery.
Modern science has advanced to the point where inspiration from
Nature is no longer required. Today, medicines derived from
natural products are in the minority. In any case, the upcoming era
of genetic engineering will allow mankind to rid himself of disease
without resorting to medicines.
As occupants of this planet, we must have respect for other life
forms, especially since life on Earth may be the only life in the
universe. We can show this respect by taking every effort we can
to prevent the extinction of existing species, thereby preserving
biodiversity.
Even if this respect was justified, its expression comes at a
significant cost. Biodiversity policies are financially costly and
spend taxpayers' money that could be better used on healthcare
and social services. It does not make sense for us to concentrate
on other species when humanity has not yet sorted its own welfare
out.
Biodiversity is a global problem and demands a global solution.
The developed world should apply pressure on the developing
world to adopt more environmentally friendly policies.
Environmental protection and the protection of biodiversity are
very much a luxury of developed nations. Many of these policies
are beyond the financial means of developing nations, and
implementing them would stunt their economic growth and
disenfranchise the population. It is hypocritical for the West to
criticise the lack of environmental protection in the developing,
considering that the West got to its current position through an
industrial revolution that paid no heed to biodiversity and other
such concerns.
Motions
33
This House believes in biodiversity
This House fears the way of the dodo
34
Campaign Finance Reform
Summary: Should limits or regulations be placed on how candidates raise funds, and/or spend
them, during political campaigns?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Dr. Kevin J. Minch ( United States )
Assistant Professor of Communication and Director of Forensics, Truman State University, Kirksville, Missouri.
Created: Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Context
The notion that money influences the political process is not, nor could it ever be, exclusively associated with contemporary
politics. It has long been asserted that money drives politics and that graft is often a by-product of holding political office.
Different nations have different traditions with regard to campaign finance - some regulating contributions and spending
practices, others allowing candidates to collect and use money as they see fit. While the potential to debate the various
nuances of campaign finance law exists in every country, such a broad discussion cannot be completed in these few
paragraphs. Instead, because changes in campaign finance laws have been salient in elections for well over two decades in
the United States, this summary will focus on the debate over those changes. It should be noted, however, that many of the
ideological principles that drive the debate in the United States would be common to a debate over campaign finance reform in
another country aiming to uphold similar political values.
Generally speaking, elections are expensive. This is particularly true in countries, such as the United States, with long
campaigns. Money is needed to pay staff, buy advertising on radio, television and other media, and even to raise more money.
Presidential campaigns often cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Senate and congressional campaigns can cost several
million. In parliamentary democracies, with smaller districts and shorter election cycles (or more random election cycles) the
costs can be different and less significant.
Campaign finance reform began in earnest in the post-Watergate era in the United States with the passage of the Federal
Election Campaign Act which created the Federal Election Commission, implemented disclosure requirements, donation limits,
and federal financing of Presidential elections. The landmark Supreme Court decision of Buckley v. Valeo (1976) struck down
the more controversial provision of
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Reform has the effect of levelling the playing field for candidates.
Candidates of enormous leadership potential but small wallets
have failed due to the lack of resources. Under a reformed
campaign finance system it will be more difficult for well-financed
candidates to win purely because of the money they have.
Incumbent candidates have a unique advantage over challengers
in the present system because of their direct connections to
important sources of money.
. Even under the most radical proposals for reform, loopholes exist
that enable candidates to spend more or reach their audiences
through alternative means. This was precisely the kind of
development that led reformers to want to close the soft-money
loophole. As with the tax system, the more elaborate the
regulation, the more obscure and distorting the ways that are
adopted to get around it.
Campaign finance reform advances the goal of a broader
marketplace of ideas, advancing the objectives of free speech,
assembly, and thought. Under the present system, minor party
candidates voices are trampled by the booming voice of large,
well-funded campaign operations. The heavy cost of campaigning
discourages many potential candidates from entering contests.
Most campaign finance reform proposals actually have the effect
of limiting speech. By limiting the amount of money a candidate
can spend, what they can spend it on, and the time and nature of
the message they can send, candidates’ speech is limited. This is
particularly true if the money being spent is the candidate’s own.
Attempts to limit the ability of political parties and special interest
groups to run so-called "issue ads" during certain segments of
campaigns have a similar effect. While one effect of reform might
be to increase the number of viable candidates, tangible limits are
placed on the speech of all candidates.
Campaign finance reform gives the individual donor a voice more
comparable to other interests. At present, the enormous amount of
money channelled into campaigns by large corporations, unions,
and special interest groups (Political Action Committees)
overwhelm the smaller, limited contributions of individual donors.
Under many campaign finance proposals, limits are suggested for
Even the most radical campaign finance reform proposals have yet
to eliminate corporate or union contributions. Short of such bans,
the potential for large organizations to swamp the donations of
individual voters still exists. Additionally, limitations on the voice of
unions, businesses and special interest groups are another
potential infringement on the rights of free speech and assembly.
35
these large group donations. Such limits increase the significance
of donations by individual voters, likely increasing the
responsiveness of candidates to voters/donors and accountability.
Additionally, the increased significance of individual contributions
encourages voter participation and activism.
Who is to say that a union member’s contribution to their
organization’s political action committee isn’t significant speech
comparable to the individual gesture they make when they donate
to a candidate themselves? It is reasonable that union members or
shareholders choose to trust their leaders to use their money in
order to best advance their interests.
Campaign finance reform will make elections more competitive,
thus resulting in more turnover or "fresh blood" in politics. This is
valuable in challenging old orthodoxies and bringing in new ideas.
It will also make it easier for members of ethnic minorities and the
working class to seek office - such groups are disproportionately
deterred from candidacy by the current need to raise huge sums of
money.
There is actually more turnover in public office than some critics of
the present campaign finance systems would like to admit.
Retirements, scandals, and careful allocation of party resources
make turnover possible under a variety of scenarios. Turnover also
has significant negative effects, as critics of term limits have
pointed-out. The more often new officeholders begin their jobs the
steeper the "learning curve" for a new Congress, or other
legislative body becomes.
Campaign finance reform will reduce corruption in government by
discouraging candidates from "selling themselves" to special
interests bidding for their votes. Candidates will be less beholden
to special interests, and thus, more amenable to listening to good
reasons when making decisions about public policy.
Even after the complete elimination of contributions by groups, the
temptation to bow to the wishes of special interests may remain.
Additionally, pressure from within one’s own party, personal
ideological commitments, and a candidate’s sense of the majority’s
opinion in their district will still hold enormous influence on their
voting record - regardless of whether the politician feels they
should vote differently. The desire of many candidates to move on
to higher and higher office also potentially exerts pressure on
voting choices.
Motions
This house would harden soft money
This house would increase government financial support for political candidates
This house believes the activities of political action committees should be more closely regulated
This house believes that on balance, a more competitive electoral system is more desirable than unencumbered free speech
36
Cannabis, Legalisation of
Summary: Should Cannabis/Marijuana be legalised?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Jern-Fei Ng ( Singapore )
Jern-Fei was a former Octo-Finalist at the World Universities' Debating Championships and the former Director of Debating of the
Cambridge Union Society. He is presently studying on the Bar Vocational Course in London.
Created: Tuesday, November 07, 2000
Last Modified: Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Context
The debate regarding the legalisation of drugs, particularly that of soft drugs like cannabis (or marijuana) is capable of being
characterised as one which pits the concept of freedom of the individual against the concept of a paternalistic State. Advocates
of legalisation argue, amongst other things, that cannabis is not only less harmful than legal substances like alcohol and
tobacco, but as a matter of fact has been proven to possess certain medicinal properties. In stark contrast, those opposed to
legalisation argue that the legalisation of cannabis will act as a precursor to increased addiction to hard drugs, and will
necessarily lead to an increase in the crime rate itself.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Although cannabis does indeed have some harmful effects, it is no
more harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. As a
matter of fact, research by the British Medical Association shows
that nicotine is far more addictive than cannabis. Furthermore, the
consumption of alcohol and the smoking of cigarettes cause more
deaths per year than does the use of cannabis (e.g. through lung
cancer, stomach ulcers, accidents caused by drink driving etc.).
The legalisation of cannabis will remove an anomaly in the law
whereby substances that are more dangerous than cannabis are
legal whilst the possession and use of cannabis remains unlawful.
Unlike alcohol and tobacco, cannabis has a hallucinatory effect on
the mind. This is inherently dangerous in itself. Furthermore, just
like other drugs, there are many individuals addicted to cannabis
who will resort to crime in order to fund their addiction. The
legalisation of cannabis will lead to the drug becoming more
readily available, which in turn will mean that many more people
will gain access to it. This will subsequently lead to an increase in
the crime rate. Initial statistics from the Netherlands shows that the
decriminalisation and eventual legalisation of cannabis did led to
an increase in crime in Dutch society.
In recent years, scientists and medical researchers have
discovered that cannabis possesses certain medicinal qualities
that are beneficial. For instance, it is now acknowledged that the
use of cannabis helps to relieve the suffering of patients afflicted
with multiple sclerosis (MS). The latest research that was
conducted by the Complutense University in Madrid indicates that
cannabis has the potential to kill cancerous ‘glioma’ cells.
Governments should acknowledge such findings and legalise
cannabis in order to alleviate the pain of patients who are afflicted
with such diseases.
The US and the UK governments have been at the forefront in
supporting scientific researches into the utility of cannabis as a
medical product. However, even though evidence may show that
the legalisation of cannabis will bring about relief for sufferers of,
amongst others, MS, we should exercise caution against legalising
it because the use of cannabis itself also brings about harmful
side-effects. More importantly, it is submitted that the legalisation
of cannabis will give rise to a host of social problems. The
detriments of legalisation far outweighs its benefits. We can thus
safely say that the present approach represents the most
proportionate response to the issue at hand.
Individuals should be given the freedom to lead their lives as they
choose. Of course, such freedom is not absolute and laws should
intervene to limit this freedom, especially when the rights of others
are infringed. In the case of the use of cannabis, it is a victimless
crime, insofar as nobody other than the user him/herself
experiences the effects of the use of the substance. Hence, the
State should not act in a paternalistic fashion by legislating against
something which harms only the actual user.
The State is justified in introducing legislation to prevent
individuals from causing harm to themselves. For instance, in
many countries, there are laws requiring the wearing of seatbelts
in cars. Moreover, as this has article has pointed out, the use of
cannabis does lead to medically and socially harmful effects which
affect the other members of society.
There is no empirical evidence to suggest that the use of cannabis
will necessarily lead users onto more dangerous narcotic
substances. It is undeniable that there are a large number of
people who use the drug despite it being unlawful to do so. Rather
than turn away from this problem, the government should instead
face up to reality. The legalisation of cannabis will enable the
government to regulate its use thereby protecting its many users
from harmful abuse of the substance.
The legalisation of cannabis will lead to users moving on to using
harder drugs like morphine and cocaine. This would ultimately lead
to an increase in social ills in the community as well as the need to
spend more State funds on rehabilitation programmes.
37
Presently, cannabis is sold by dealers who have connections with
the underworld. The legalisation of cannabis will help facilitate the
sale of the drug in establishments like Amsterdam’s "coffee
houses". This will shift the sale of cannabis away from the criminal
underworld. The severance of this ‘criminal link’ will ensure that
the users of the drug no longer need to come into contact with
organised crime.
It is not inconceivable that the same criminal elements who now
sell cannabis will, when the drug is legalised, diversify its business
and set up "coffee houses" themselves. In effect this will do
nothing to separate the sale of cannabis from the criminal
underworld. Conversely, it will give them a legitimate base from
which to operate their activities.
Motions
This house believes that cannabis should be legalised
This house supports the legalisation of drugs
This house advocates change in our present drugs policy
38
Capital Punishment
Summary: Is it ever justifiable to execute criminals?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Created: Monday, November 13, 2000
Last Modified: Saturday, August 22, 2009
Context
Close to 90 countries have the death penalty, but nowhere is it debated so often as in the United States where each state can
formulate its own policy according to the Constitution. 38 of the 50 states allow the death penalty as a sentence although
some, such as Illinois, have recently imposed a moratorium while they study the arguments for and against.
Pros
Cons
The principle of capital punishment is that certain murderers
deserve nothing less than death as a just, proportionate and
effective punishment. There are problems with the death penalty,
but these are with its implementation rather than its principle.
Murderers forgo their rights as humans at the moment when they
take away the rights of another human. By wielding such a
powerful punishment as the response to murder, society is
affirming the value that is placed upon the right to life of the
innocent person. Many more innocent people have been killed by
released, paroled or escaped murderers than innocent people
executed.
Execution is, in simplest terms, state-sanctioned killing, and it
devalues the respect we place on human life; how can we say that
killing is wrong if we sanction killing criminals? More importantly,
the whole principle is outweighed by the proven risk of executing
innocent people. 23 innocent people were executed in the USA in
the 20th century. The avoidable killing of an innocent person can
never be justified, in any circumstances.
Capital punishment is 100% effective as a deterrent to the criminal
being executed; that killer cannot commit any more crimes. As a
deterrent to others, it depends on how effectively the death penalty
is applied; in the USA where less than 1% of murderers are
executed, it is difficult to assess the true effect of deterrence. But
for example, a 1985 study (Stephen K. Layson, University of North
Carolina) showed that 1 execution deterred 18 murders.
Higher execution rates can actually increase violent crime rates.
California averaged 6 executions a year from 1952 to 1967, and
had twice the murder rate than the period from 1968 until 1991
when there were no executions. In New York, from 1907 to 1964,
months immediately following an execution showed a net increase
of two murders - an average over a 57-year period.
If and when discrimination occurs, it should be corrected.
Consistent application of the death penalty against murderers of all
races, and in cases where the victims were of all races, would
abolish the idea that it can be a racist tool. This could be done by
making it mandatory in all capital cases.
Implementation of the death penalty, particularly in America, can
suffer from social or racial bias and in fact be used as a weapon
against a certain section of society. In the USA nearly 90% of
those executed were convicted of killing whites, despite the fact
that non-whites make up more than 50% of all murder victims.
Opponents of the death penalty prefer to ignore the fact that they
themselves are responsible for its high costs, by causing a neverending succession of appeals. Prisons in many countries are overcrowded and under-funded, and this problem is made worse by life
sentences or delayed death sentences for murderers. Why should
the taxpayer bear the cost of supporting a murderer for an entire
lifetime?
Capital punishment costs more than life without parole. Studies in
the US show that capital cases, from arrest to execution, cost
between $1 million and $7 million. A case resulting in life
imprisonment costs around $500,000.
Different countries and societies can have different attitudes
towards the justifiability of executing mentally incompetent or
teenaged murderers. If society is against such executions, then in
cases where they happen it is a problem with the implementation
of capital punishment. For opponents to seize on such cases is to
cloud the issue; this is not an argument against the principle.
Defendants who are mentally incompetent will often answer "Yes"
to questions in the desire to please others. This can lead to false
confessions. Over 30 mentally retarded people have been
executed in the USA since 1976.
Some criminals are beyond rehabilitation; it may be that capital
punishment should be reserved for serial killers, terrorists,
murderers of policemen and so on.
By executing criminals you are ruling out the possibility of
rehabilitation - that they may repent of their crime, serve a
sentence as punishment, and emerge as a reformed and useful
member of society.
Motions
39
This House supports the death penalty
This House would take an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life
40
Capitalism vs Socialism
print this page
Discuss topic
Summary: Which is the superior system – capitalism, or socialism?
Introduction
Author: Alex Deane ( United Kingdom )
Alex Deane won the World Universities Debating Championships 2004 in Singapore.
Created: Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Last Modified: Monday, July 24, 2006
Context
Capitalism is the world’s dominant economic system. Within it, the means of production and distribution are owned by
individuals: private ownership and free enterprise are believed to lead to more efficiency, lower prices, better products and
rising prosperity. Socialism advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and industry by the community as
a whole: the community is believed to be both more just and more efficient through central planning. In Marxist theory
Socialism represents the stage following capitalism in a state transforming to communism; for many, however, it is a goal in
itself.
This binary view of potential political and economic systems may be thought simplistic, but it is a debate that is extremely
common. Necessarily, many other systems are not touched upon.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The right to own property is central to man’s existence. Private
ownership of property (including land, businesses and goods)
gives individuals security and a means to control their own affairs.
Ownership brings responsibility and allows individuals to plan for
the future so as to provide for themselves and their families. For
example, owning a house, a business or some land makes it
possible to borrow against that property so that individuals can
invest for the future. The lack of private property rights in much of
Africa makes such borrowing and investment impossible, and is
one reason for the continent's lack of economic growth.
The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none. Under
capitalism, property is concentrated into the hands of relatively few
well-off people, leaving the many with nothing and at the mercy of
the rich for work, charity, etc. This leads to gross inequality,
exploitation and misery. Nor is it economically efficient, as the rich
have so much already they have no incentive to use their land
productively. Socialism seeks to redistribute wealth and to ensure
that the means of production are at the service of the whole of
society, so that all can benefit and none will go without.
The drive to succeed as an individual is the strongest motivating
factor a human being can feel in their work. When work is
uncoupled from reward, or when an artificial safety net provides a
high standard of living for those who don’t work hard, society
suffers. The fact that individuals are driven to succeed is in all our
interests.
Many could be motivated to work by a wish to aid their fellow man.
Over time, as the benefits of this better way of life become
obvious, all will. The impulse to share wealth and material
amongst the community, to support all, leaving none behind, is
one of the purest mankind can experience. It is not merely
possible – it is a demonstration of the progress of our species to a
finer, more humane state of being.
In capitalism, the market determines price, including pay - the
price of labour. If some people are paid huge sums, that is
because other people believe they have unique talents which are
worth paying for. If they fail to perform, then they will stop being
rewarded so highly. This is all part of a dynamic capitalist system
which values individuality and rewards ability and risk-taking.
In any case capitalism isn't a monolithic system - capitalism can
have elements of control in it. After all, taxation is a capitalist
creation and almost all capitalists accept a role for state regulation
to prevent market rigging and to help those in absolute poverty.
Capitalism rewards people in perverse ways. Some footballers or
company chief executives earn a thousand times more than
nurses. Wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few. The rich
get richer, the poor get poorer. The poor are fooled into thinking
that they can gain in capitalism, when really all their wages do is
hold them in place – their savings are swept away in the first
moments of unemployment, a concept central to capitalism but
one that socialism destroys.
The guiding hand of government is too strong in a socialist system;
it means that change is slow – which means that innovation is
missed. This isn’t just pro-business, it has real effects on the lives
of citizens - people are poorer because of it. In a capitalist system,
economies are diverse enough that when problems happen in one
sector, others are often insulated by their differences. In a socialist
system, where everything is centrally controlled and diversity is
non-existent, when government gets things wrong, everyone
suffers. Ultimately, socialist systems are so inefficient and corrupt
Economies in capitalist systems are essentially unplanned, so they
often crash, producing depressions that damage the lives of
millions. Socialist economies are planned, which means that
problems can be foreseen and prevented. Ultimately, socialism
guides with the aim of human happiness in mind, rather than the
glorification or gratification of a particular individual or class. To
gain this for all rather than just for some requires an element of
social control – the excesses of capitalism will forever mean that
too many fall by the wayside as the strong profit, and the weak are
41
that labour has to be forced for the state to continue functioning
(though this may also be a logical outcome of thinking less of the
importance of individual freedoms compared to some abstract
communal good).
The failure of the USSR and other command economies shows
the poverty of socialism and the failure of central planning, as on a
smaller scale does the failure of nationalised industries in many
western countries.
left behind.
Critics who point to the failure of the soviet bloc don't understand
that this was not true socialism, which has never been properly
tried, but a corrupt version of central planning which served selfish
elites rather than the good of the people as a whole. Examples
such as Britain's National Health Service, or the European social
model of welfare provision show the strengths of a socialist
approach.
In capitalist systems, society is ruled by the individual. Who would In socialist systems, society is ruled by the people. Who would
want to live any other way? In socialist systems, society is ruled by want to live any other way? In capitalist systems, society is ruled
the state. Why would one want to live like that?
by money. Why would one want to live like that?
Competition yields better products and more efficient processes in
all fields of man's activity. Whilst it is true that monopolies
sometimes form, these are combated by regulatory methods like
monopolies commissions (witness attempts to break up Microsoft,
or regulators forbidding the merger of some airlines on competition
grounds). So capitalism actively tries to stop monopolies. On the
other hand, monopolies are inevitably a part of every aspect of
activity in socialist systems - the monopoly of the state.
It is false to say that capitalism secures competition automatically.
As everyone knows, monopolies are often formed under capitalist
systems. Capitalist monopolies are pernicious - they mean that
individuals profit obscenely as they can charge exorbitant costs,
since citizens cannot obtain services anywhere else. On the other
hand, socialist monopolies are benign since the state has the
interests of citizens at heart, rather than the enrichment of a
particular person.
Socialism cannot protect human rights because it seeks the good
of
Capitalism may use the language of human rights, but it only really
respects the right of the weak to starve in the gutter, and the right
of the strong to keep them there. Socialism understands rights
more widely and fully, and provides for the right to work, the right
to an education, and to health care free at the point of use. It
cannot be right for a few individuals to block the progress of all
towards these great goals.
Motions
This House believes that capitalism is better than socialism
This House believes in the sanctity of private ownership
This House prefers capitalism
42
Censorship of the Arts
Summary: What is the right balance to strike between freedom of and restrictions upon artistic
expression?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Wu-Meng Tan ( Malaysia )
Wu Meng is a MB/PhD student at Cambridge University, studying fora doctorate in molecular biology. A former president of the
Cambridge Union Society, he was quarter-finalist in the 2001 World Debating Championships and has won three UK intervarsity
debating tournaments.
Created: Thursday, July 20, 2000
Last Modified: Thursday, April 09, 2009
Context
The concept of "censorship" is somewhat ambiguous but a better debate results if the Prop side takes the commonly accepted
definition – that certain texts, images, or films should be banned. If "censorship" is defined as any form of regulation or law,
then it becomes almost truistic as a definition, since the opposition would (if they accepted such a silly definition) have to argue
that Art somehow exists above all laws.The Proposition can also include age restrictions as part of their definition of
censorship. For example, certain texts, images, or films may only be viewable by people of a certain age, or under the grounds
of official academic research.This debate sometimes becomes one about the broader concept of censorship, rather than a
debate specifically about whether the arts should be censored. The debate can also go in other directions – some debates will
instead evolve into a discussion about the nature of art and how we can decide that a work has redeeming artistic value.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
An individual's rights end when they impinge on the safety and
rights of others. By enacting laws against incitement to racial
hatred and similar hate speech, we have accepted that freedom of
expression should have limits. In addition, art, like any other form
of free speech, should be subject to the same restrictions on an
individual's freedom of expression. To create an exception for art
would be hypocritical and create a legal loophole for content such
as hate speech, which could then seek protection on the grounds
that it was a form of art.
Civil rights should not be curtailed in the absence of a clear and
present danger to the safety of others. The Proposition has a duty
to demonstrate this risk is genuine. Furthermore, we would argue
that so long as no illegal acts were committed in the creative
process, the public should have a choice in deciding whether to
view the resulting content. Proposition arguments about child
pornography and bestiality being filmed and then displayed as art
are irrelevant arguments, as these acts are illegal in the first place.
Censorship can also be a finely tuned system of protecting our
children. Just as we recognise that certain content should not be
accessed by society at all, we can also recognise that certain
content (e.g. sexual content) is unsuitable for children, and we can
pass censorship accordingly. For example, certain forms of erotic
artwork might be unsuitable for children, despite their artistic
merits.
Censorship, even when age rating systems are used, is a very
blunt tool. It takes no account of the differing standards of
education or maturity between children and youths, or the varying
attitudes towards parenting in different households. By imposing
an external standard of censorship, the government is depriving
parents of the right to raise their children in a manner that they see
fit. We lose the element of parental discretion, which is arguably
part of the right to lead a private and family life as one sees fit – a
right that is enshrined in many international human rights
conventions. Looking at adults, we see that they have the right to
vote, bear arms, and die for the country. Why should they be
deprived of the ability to decide what they wish to see, or what
their children should be allowed to watch?Lastly, we should note
that people are not being forced to view artwork at gunpoint. Every
member of the public has the right to avert their eyes and not look
at art that offends them. Similarly, they can refrain from entering a
gallery with an exhibition of offensive works.
Censorship may actually help the artistic cause -- e.g. the general
public is far more likely to support and fund erotic art with sexual
content if they do not have to worry about their children seeing it!
Censorship is far more likely to hurt the Arts – if something has
been decreed by the Government to be unsuitable for children, the
odds of the general public wanting to buck the trend and fund it are
somewhat slim.
Many forms of modern art seek to push the boundaries of what is
acceptable, or aim for the lowest denominator in taste. Both
situations can give rise to content that is unacceptable, and which
The risks of stifling free expression far outweigh the potential for
unacceptable material. Content which we consider perfectly
acceptable today would have been regarded as taboo 50 years
43
governments should not permit.
ago – if the Proposition had their way, we would all still be stuck in
the Victorian Era. Besides, if a novel and controversial art form
proved to be completely out of touch with society, then the
individuals in society would reject it rather than be corrupted by it.
Excessive sex and violence in the media can lead to similar
behaviour in viewers (studies in the USA have shown this). There
is a very real risk of copycat crimes inspired by depictions of
criminal activity in the media, even if no criminal act was
committed during the creative process. This alone should be
justification for censorship.
The statistical correlation between watching sex & violence and
committing such acts is dubious. Firstly, these studies are not
exhaustive and are often funding by special interest groups. We
must also realise that correlation is different from causation – an
alternative interpretation is that people with violent tendencies are
more likely to be connoisseurs of violent art, and the same applies
for rapists and pornography.Even if we believe that some people
with weaker morals are likely to be corrupted, why should the rest
of society be penalised for the moral weakness of a few? Why
should innocent people have their civil rights curtailed when the
small minority we are concerned about has not even committed a
crime yet! There are far better ways of reducing the crime rate,
with far less cost in civil liberties, such as better policing, tougher
penalties on actual crimes being committed, CCTV cameras, and
improved street lighting.
Even if some individuals manage to circumvent the censorship
measures, the Government has sent an important message about
what society considers to be acceptable. The role of the state in
sending social messages and setting social standards should not
be underestimated, and censorship (be it through bans or
minimum age requirements) is an important tool in thisprocess.
Censorship is ultimately infeasible. Try censoring art on the
internet, for example! With the advent of modern technology, text,
photography and film can now be distributed on the internet. The
sooner we recognise the reality, the better. In addition, if we
censor art which depicts an unacceptable act or viewpoint, it
merely sends it underground. It might also glamorise the prohibited
artwork and play to the forbidden fruit and counterculture
tendencies inherent in human nature. Far better to keep such art
accessible to the public, where people can see for themselves that
it is “bad”. If the censorship board is truly acting in line with public
morals, it has nothing to fear from transparency and letting the
public decide for themselves that a piece of art is unacceptable.
Motions
This House supports censorship of the arts.
This House believes that nude art is lewd art.
This House fears that artistic license is a license to kill.
This House believes that you are what you see.
This House believes that when you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back into you.
44
Children, Choosing Sex of
Summary: Should parents be allowed to select the gender of their offspring?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Alex Deane ( United Kingdom )
Alex Deane won the World Universities Debating Championships 2004 in Singapore.
Created: Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Last Modified:
Context
Generations of parents-to-be have hoped and prayed for a baby of a particular gender (often in practice, for a boy, as cultural
factors such as restricting inheritance of property and the family name to male heirs, restrictions on female economic activity,
and the heavy cost of dowries when daughters are married have all encouraged male preference throughout history). In some
circumstances gender selection has been practised after birth by the abandonment of unwanted infants, a practice which has
not entirely died out today in some countries. The development of ultrasound scanners which allow the sex of an unborn child
to be determined in the womb has more recently led to selective abortion, especially in China where cultural factors combined
with the single-child policy in the 1980s and 1990s to make many families determined to ensure their only child was male.
Although ultrasound scanning for sexual selection is illegal, it is widespread in China and the 2000 Census revealed that 117
boys are now born for every 100 Chinese girls. Similar figures for India, although less reliable, also indicate widespread use of
(illegal) ultrasound scanning and selective abortion of female foetuses. This topic does not focus upon or attempt to present
arguments for selective abortion, but this does provide the context for a more recent and balanced debate - as to whether new
methods for selecting the gender of a child at the start of a pregnancy should be allowed.
There are two relatively new technological methods of achieving the goal of embryonic gender selection, which has for so long
been the stuff of science fiction. These are genetic diagnosis, in which embryos created in a test-tube are analysed before
being implanted in the womb, and the MicroSort technique, in which sperm is ‘sorted’ to make it much more likely that the egg
is fertilised by a sperm carrying the desired chromosome. Most of the arguments apply to both as they are about whether this
practice should be allowed in principle, but the distinction is touched on.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be
parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by
their decision? Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights states that:
"Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found
a family."
and this right should be understood to cover the right to make
decisions over how that family should be formed.
Freedom of choice is a good principle, but harm is done to others
by the practice of sex selection and so it should not be allowed.
Apart from the danger that serious gender imbalances will result
(covered in point 3 below), making some sort of sexual selection
legal and acceptable will reinforce and legitimise gender
stereotypes. In practice this will inevitably mean more oppression
of women, already seen as less valuable than men in many
cultures. Nor is sex selection supported by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights; its writers did not imagine recent
developments but did include rights for equal treatment and status
for women, which allowing gender selection would undermine.
It is a fact of life that sometimes parents are disappointed with the
gender of their children. This is true, for example, when they
already have six sons but want a daughter. Guaranteeing (or
improving the chances of) a child being of the gender they want
means that the child is more likely to fit into the family’s dreams.
He or she is, bluntly, more likely to be loved.
Talk of designer babies is scaremongering nonsense. All babies
are, to some extent, designed. Individuals do not procreate
randomly: they choose their partners, and often choose the time of
conception according to their own age and prosperity. Parents give
so much to children. They invest years of their lives and a large
amount of their earnings in their upbringing. Isn’t it fair that in
return, they get to decide something like this if they want to? This
is an extension of reproductive rights.
Children are not toys. They are not meant to be designed to
specifications most convenient to the ‘owner’. This is an extension
of the consumer society. If we allow parents to choose gender,
soon some will want to choose eye colour, or hair colour. That is
only the beginning. We are, in allowing this, encouraging false
ideas of ‘perfection’ – damning those that don’t look a certain way.
Furthermore, since of course there’s no justification for allowing
such indulgence at public expense, the divide will grow ever-larger
between rich and poor, as the rich tailor not only their clothes and
belongings to reflect their wealth, but also the bodies of their
children. If a "gay gene" is discovered, would parents be permitted
to weed out embryos with it, using the technology this proposal
would condone? We really should be encouraging the idea that
when it comes to children, you get what you are given – otherwise,
people will demand more and more ability to change their kids,
and be more and more likely to reject their own child when they
don’t get exactly what they want…
45
Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child
of a particular gender. We can help realise this aim. We can
prevent the trauma and stress of not having a child of a particular
gender, which can have negative cultural connotations.
If a state’s population became seriously imbalanced, one might
have to rethink: but given that most countries, including all in the
West, do not, and given that many families in most countries will
choose to have roughly as many of the other sex, this should not
stop this proposal being put into effect in many countries. Even in
China, the problem is largely due to the "one-child" policy which
has been relaxed in many areas since the mid-1990s. Over time, a
scarcity of one gender will in any case produce new pressures to
rebalance the population, e.g the paying of dowries may change,
women will achieve higher status.
This argument veils the likely result of the policy: reinforcement of
already unhealthy cultural practices. Selective abortion has meant
that gender imbalance in China and India is already very, very high
– 1.3 boys to each girl in some regions – demonstrating the likely
result of such policies in some countries. Even in western
countries some minority groups' gender preferences may result in
serious imbalances in some communities. These imbalances are
socially harmful because in time many young men will be unable to
find a partner; in China this is already linked to a rise in sexual
violence, kidnapping and forced marriage, and prostitution.
It is hardly shattering the mystery of childbirth, given how common
ultrasound scans are. Knowing what gender a child will be is
tremendously helpful for parents in planning for the future (picking
clothes, colour schemes, toys, names etc). Why not extend that
ability to plan?
Having a child is a process of wonder and awe. These proposals
make having children to something more like pre-ordering a car.
To many people the moment of conception is the start of life,
touched by God and not to be interfered with or abused out of
selfish human motives.
The trauma and grief of having lost a child might be more easily
relieved by allowing the couple to have another child of the same
gender.
Children are not replacements. They are individuals, unique in
themselves. How will a child feel if they know that their primary
purpose for being on this earth is to serve as a fill-in for a dead
sibling?
Some parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is
obviously in the child’s interests that they don’t have such a
condition. Determining its gender can ensure that. Many families
have predispositions towards certain common conditions that are
more likely in one gender in another, and these can be avoided
too. Nearly all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more
common in one gender or more severe among one gender.
Arthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also seem to be
influenced by a person's gender. Males disproportionately suffer
from X chromosome problems because their body has no copy to
‘fall back on.’ These range in nature from baldness and color
blindness to muscular dystrophy and hemophilia. Women are
disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system.
Genetic modification is not the only technology available. The
MicroSort technique uses a ‘sperm-sifting’ machine to detect the
minute difference between y and double x chromosome-carrying
sperm: no genetic harm results from its use. Over 200 babies have
been born using the technology without problems.
Medical benefits are outweighed by medical costs. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis involves the development of
embryos outside the womb, which are then tested for gender. One
or two of the desired gender are then implanted in the womb.
Those that are not of the desired gender, or are surplus to
requirements are destroyed (typically, over a dozen embryos are
used to select a single one to be implanted). A human life has
been created with the express purpose of being destroyed. This is
another form of abortion – only the conception is deliberate.
Ultimately, it will be these technologies and not MicroSort that is
used, since whilst the latter has a 92% accuracy rate if a girl is
desired (itself a lower result than genetic diagnosis), its accuracy
falls to 72% for boys, and the vast majority of selections will
inevitably be for males. Thus, given that they are so keen to have
a child of a particular gender and so unwilling to risk having one of
the other gender, parents will not risk using MicroSort. Even if they
do choose it, whilst there have not been overt problems thus far,
scientific experts like Lord Winston express the fear that the
process damages sperm, making genetic mutation much more
likely. Both techniques are therefore to be condemned.
In many countries and cultures gender selection happens already,
usually by selective abortion or abandonment of unwanted babies.
Everyone can agree that this is a terrible waste of life and
potentially very dangerous for the mother concerned, and of
course many people object strongly to abortion on moral grounds.
The use of new technologies to allow gender selection at the start
of pregnancy will reduce and hopefully eventually end the use of
selective abortion.
In the view of many, the new technologies are not morally different
from abortion - in all cases a potential life is taken. In any case, the
cost of these new methods is so high, and likely to remain so, that
the proposition argument is irrelevant - the use of ultrasound
scanning leading to selective abortion is so much cheaper that this
great evil will not be reduced. Instead, these new technologies are
likely to make selective abortion more common, as if they are
legalised they will appear to legitimise throwing away a human life
simply because the parents would prefer, e.g a boy rather than a
girl.
Motions
This House would allow parents to choose the sex of their children
This House would not leave it to chance
This House believes in the parents' right to choose
This House would choose a boy
46
China, Fear of
Summary: Does China give the rest of the world reasons for fear, in political, economic or
social terms? Or is the ‘Terror from the East’ merely a myth ?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Rob Weekes ( United Kingdom )
Rob won the World Universities Debating Championships in 2002.
Created: Wednesday, November 01, 2000
Last Modified: Sunday, July 12, 2009
Context
China has always featured prominently in the Western imagination. In early history, the threat purportedly posed by China can
be linked to two factors ; the huge size of the State both in land and population, and the fact that China did not engage in
dynamic relations with other nations. In the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, China was characterised by
increasing poverty and political instability. The Boxer Rebellion, the Opium Wars, and conflicts between regional warlords
suggested that China suffered from internal disarray and any contact with foreign powers was predominantly hostile. However,
the actual threat of China to the West stems largely from the 1949 Communist Revolution. The inhumanity of the regime of
Mao Zedong, in particular the supposed ‘Cultural Revolution’ and the disastrous economic policy of the ‘Great Leap Forward’
brought Western opprobrium, indicated by their refusal to recognize China within the United Nations organization. The
aggressive foreign policy of the Cold War years, apparent in intervention in Korea, and more significantly, in the provision of
arms to various Communist nations, created an image of an Eastern warmonger and powerbroker. Recently, the admission of
China into the World Trading Organization, the return of Hong Kong and Macao to mainland rule, and the efforts to made by
Jiang Zemin, the Chinese premier, have done much to improve relations with the West. However, the fear of China continues
to haunt the minds of the Western leaders. The decisive power of a regime prepared to send tanks against demonstrators in
Tiannemen Square will not be easily forgotten. The ‘Cox Report’ revealed that China had acquired American nuclear weapon
technology, and China remains the only known nation to target its missiles at the USA. It would seem no surprise that Bill
Clinton should have announced, in the twilight of his presidency, policies of ‘nuclear missile defence’ and ‘theater missile
defence’ specifically to cou
Arguments
Pros
Cons
China is an economic powerhouse, that could dwarf Western
nations. The biggest marketplace on Earth, China already
dominates certain markets, producing one third of the world’s toys
and one eighth of its textiles. Between 1951 and 1980, the
economy of China grew at a rate of 12.5%, which is greater even
than the archetypal ‘Tiger’ economy, that of Japan. The strenuous
opposition mounted by the Republicans in the US Congress to the
annual grant of ‘most favoured nation status’ to China was based
partly on the economic threat posed by China to the US, which
itself is the strongest economy in the world. The huge imbalance
between exports to the US and the imports that China receives in
return, which currently amounts to a $57 billion deficit, suggests
that China could dominate the conventional trading relationships,
and suck in most Western economies.
China’s economic growth is unremarkable. In 1997 it accounted for
merely 3.5% of world GDP, as opposed to the leading economy,
the USA, representing 25.6%. In terms of GDP per capita, China
ranks 81st, just ahead of Georgia, and behind Papua New Guinea.
In terms of international trade, China is equivalent to South Korea
and does not even match the Netherlands. In China’s peak year
for the receipt of ‘foreign direct investment’ it did receive $45
billion. However, this was accompanied by record capital flight, in
which $35 billion left the country. Of course China is a huge
market. The comment of General Charles De Gaulle on Brazil
seems appropriate ; it could be said that China “has great
potential, and always will”. Anyway, if a country is economically
strong, the best approach for the West is to take advantage as a
trading partner. This liberalization of trade is being achieved
through accession of China to the WTO. One of the conditions
imposed upon membership was that China allow Western
telecommunications organizations and banking corporations to
operate on the mainland. China is a place for profit, not fear.
From the middle of the twentieth century, China has presented a
formidable military threat. Aside from the largest standing army in
the world, China poses a threat both in terms of technology and
regional ambition. The ‘Cox Report’ revealed that Chinese
espionage resulted in the acquisition of information about military
guidance systems and modern nuclear warheads. Chinese military
exercises regularly simulate attacks on US troops that are situated
in South Korea and the Japanese island of Okinawa. China
presents an unacceptable military threat both directly and
People wrongly associate a military threat with the Communist
political regime, rather than the pacific attitudes of its leaders. In
terms of defence spending, China is insignificant, accounting for
only 4.5% of the global total, as opposed to 33.9% generated by
the US. Similarly, the amount of arms dealing is also no cause for
concern. China transferred $1 billion of weapons, constituting
2.2% of the global total. The United States, by contrast, traded
45% of the world’s weapons, and Britain, 18%. Moreover, it could
hardly be claimed that these powers themselves have an ethical
47
indirectly. Chinese arms deals buy hefty influence with various
rogue states of international politics, and equip these nations to
harm their civilians and threaten other states. The transfer of
weapons to Pakistan, Sudan, Sri Lanka and Burma has
precipitated an arms race with India and conflict in Kashmir,
allowed two civil wars to be fought, and bolstered a brutal military
junta. We no longer have to fear only terror from the East, but
terror from around the world, that flows from China.
record for the manufacture and sale of weapons. British fighter
planes have been used in the suppression of civil unrest in
Indonesia and East Timor, whilst American weapons have
equipped the Taleban in Afghanistan and the Khmer Rouge in
Cambodia. The US has refused even to sign up to the convention
prohibiting the use of landmines. Evidently, Britain and the United
States also have nuclear weapons arsenals, probably in excess of
the number of warheads held by China. China is a signatory to the
Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty. China has never detonated a nuclear weapon in conflict,
nor shown any willingness to do so. The United States however
did use two nuclear devices in East Asia in 1945. Perhaps it is no
surprise that China decided therefore it needed nuclear weapons
for its own defence.
China acts as a destabilising influence in the East Asian region.
The clear threat posed to Taiwan is apparent, not only in the
aggressive statements made by Zhu Ronghji, but palpably in the
manoeuvres of the navy in June 1999 to intimidate Taiwanese
voters in the presidential election. In 1997, China went so far as to
launch missiles over Taipei. The threat that China poses to Taiwan
is keenly appreciated by the US, the Seventh Fleet patrolling the
Taiwanese Straits precisely to counter any Chinese hostility.
China actually acts as a crucial binding force within a turbulent
theater. China’s clear influence over North Korea was apparent in
1994, when negotiations in Pyongyang resulted in China bringing
the pariah state into line with its Non-Proliferation Treaty
obligations. China is a crucial emissary of the West in this regard.
The meeting between the US Secretary of State Madeline Allbright
and the North Korean premier was partly borne of Chinese
diplomacy. No one would deny that China has a right to practise
military manoeuvres. Moreover, it is by no means certain that
China is exerting an unfair influence over Taiwan. It should be
noted that both the Taiwanese and the Chinese national
constitutions state that Taiwan is a part of mainland China.
China threatens the Western powers even in the cradle of world
democracy, the United Nations. As a permanent member of the
Security Council, China has repeatedly vetoed Western proposals,
often for petty political objectives, such as denying peacekeeping
operations for Guatemala and Macedonia on the ground that these
nations trade with Taiwan. Recently, the necessity for NATO
intervention in Kosovo was partly because China refused to
authorise a UN operation in the region. The NATO powers are
currently being proceeded against in the International Court of
Justice for acting without UN support. However, the crucial support
they lacked was that of one obstreperous nation, China.
China actually has a much better Security Council record than
either Russia or France.It is not shocking that China offered little
support for the NATO campaign in Kosovo, the Chinese embassy
having been destroyed by a misdirected NATO missile. However,
the reaction of China even in this circumstance was more
theatrical than substantive. Having threatened to demand the
redrafting of the mandate for intervention, China merely and
meekly abstained. The lack of authorisation for NATO which has
resulted in international legal proceedings is the fault of all fifteen
members of the Security Council in failing to reach agreement on a
definite role for NATO in Kosovo. Disagreements that divide the
globe should not be laid at China’s door. China has made many
efforts to promote international peace both within and outside the
UN. Notably, when NATO attacked Serbia, the Russian Prime
Minister, in mid-flight to the US, had the plane fly back to Moscow.
However, the Chinese premier duly arrived in the US two weeks
later. The strength of relations between the West and China are
ably demonstrated in the successful return of Hong Kong, from
British rule, and Macao, from Portugese control, to China in 1997
and 1999.
Just as in the days of the Cold War, China exerts a huge political
pull that could allow it to form a dangerous powerblock threatening
Western interests. China remains close to many states that lack
the support of Western powers. Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, and
North Korea are states which give Western military thinkers great
cause for concern. These states are backed both politically and
economically by China. The Communist Bloc is still a real threat,
the only difference being that it now obtains in East Asia rather
than Eastern Europe.
For such a large country, the influence that China exerts over
other nations is astonishingly small. As the largest recipient of
international aid and a very reluctant donor, China is certainly not
buying herself any allies. China is not even a cultural leader for
ethnic Chinese populations, exemplified in its failure to demand
UN or ASEAN intervention in Indonesia in 1998-99 during the
persecution of the ethnic Chinese sector of society. For two
thousand years, China abhorred the notion of international
interdependence, and believed that she was big enough merely to
learn from the outside world whilst controlling her own destiny.
Although economic globalization has modified this approach, there
is no evidence that it has evolved into an aggressive or
expansionist philosophy.
Motions
48
Coal, use of
Summary: Should the US Rely More Heavily on Coal Energy?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Alaina van Horn ( United States )
Alaina van Horn received her Juris Doctor and Master of Arts in philosophy from the Catholic University of America and now works
as a contractor to the US Department of Justice in the Tribal Trust Division, dealing with Native America issues.
Created: Friday, September 08, 2006
Last Modified: Sunday, October 29, 2006
Context
Coal is a fossil fuel extracted from the ground by underground or surface mining. Coal is used throughout the developed world
to fuel transportation, electricity generation, industrial power needs, and household heating. Coal is the largest single source of
electricity consumed world-wide. In the United States approximately 50% of electricity is produced by coal power plants.
Environmentalists around the world are concerned with the burdens imposed on the earth by an increasing population,
demands for a higher standard of living, rising pollution and increased dependence on fossil fuels. There is a finite amount of
coal reserves, estimated at being able to supply the world for somewhere between 200 and 300 more years at current rates of
consumption (although this is far longer than oil or natural gas reserves are likely to last). This presents a major problem, as
populations are increasing, people are becoming more dependent on power-hungry technology, and business, industry and
agriculture are booming.
Some argue that the United States is not making enough of an effort to investigate and utilize alternative sources of energy,
while other similarly situated industrialized countries have. For example, since the 1980s the UK has been decreasing its
reliance on coal. Coal now supplies only 28% of its electricity production, with natural gas replacing coal as the primary
electricity generating fuel. The US nuclear power industry has been required to invest in expensive measures to greatly reduce
releases of radioactivity from nuclear fuel and fission products into the environment, but equivalent environmental measures do
not currently apply to coal-fired power plants.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
American has abundant domestic reserves of coal. Historically,
access to a ready supply of coal has allowed the American
economy to grow and has improved the quality of life in the United
States. In the future, other sources of energy such as oil and gas
will be limited and coal will become an even more important
resource.
Although the current amount of known coal reserves could sustain
the world for 200-300 more years, scientists estimate that the
amount of coal extracted from the ground could peak in the US as
early as 2046. “Peak” defines the time after which no matter what
efforts are expended, coal production will begin to decline in
quality, quantity and energy content.
Increasing our use of coal fuel would allow the USA to become
more independent from oil-rich countries in the Middle East. As oil
and gas become scarce and prices soar, coal will become the
fossil fuel of last resort for many countries. As well as being
burned for power, coal can also be turned into petroleum products,
gas, etc for use in transport and the home. Investment now in coal
mining, in coal-fuelled power plants, and in substitution of coal for
oil and gas will make the transition smoother and cheaper.
Despite its abundance, coal will eventually run out and be replaced
by alternative energy. It makes more sense to move directly to
sustainable energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind power
than to invest in coal now, only to have to invest more later in
alternative energy.
Since 1970, energy from coal has become increasingly clean, and
technologies are currently developing to make coal energy even
cleaner. The U.S. Department of Energy entered into a partnership
with the coal industry to improve the efficiency of electricity
generation from coal energy, while reducing carbon emissions and
other pollutants. The Department of Energy estimates that new
clean-coal based power plants should be ready between 2010 and
2020. The USA leads the world in this area of technology, and
should continue to pursue it as advances can be shared with other
countries, to the benefit of the global environment. Much of the
developing world will depend on burning coal for its future power
needs, regardless of its polluting effect, so if the USA can pioneer
clean technology they can adopt it will make a big difference.
Substances such as fly ash, bottom ash and flue gas
desulfurization are produced from coal waste. These all contain
heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, copper, zinc
and radium, as well as low levels of uranium, thorium and other
naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes. Although these harmful
waste products are released only in trace amounts, so much coal
in burned in the US that it may lead to radioactive contamination.
This actually results in more radioactive waste than nuclear power
plants.
Although technology is being developed to burn coal more cleanly
and efficiently, these new methods are mainly designed to keep
emissions below (generous) federal limits. They do not remove
significant environmentally damaging emissions.
To eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants, carbon
Emissions from coal fired power plants represent the largest
49
capture and storage has been proposed in the United States, but
has yet to be used. Currently, there is no known limit to the
amount of carbon dioxide and other green house gas emissions
that can be injected into the ground or into the ocean, to prevent
their escape into the atmosphere. Modern power plants already
utilize a variety of techniques to limit the harmfulness of their
waste products and boost the efficiency of coal burning.
source of carbon dioxide emissions, the primary cause of global
warming. The combustion of coal also produces chemicals that
reach with oxygen and water to produce acid rain. Since the
carbon content of coal is much higher than oil, burning coal is a
more serious threat to global temperatures. Although carbon
capture is being proposed, it is largely untried and unproven. Many
experts regard it as being likely to offer little environmental benefit,
with carbon dioxide likely to escape from any storage medium over
the longer term.
Relying on coal fuel is an economically sound policy. Coal ash is
rich in minerals, such as aluminum and iron. Such products are of
great commercial value and can be extracted and further utilized to
boost the US economy. Coal-fired plants are also cheaper to
construct than nuclear power plants, mainly because of the
absence of regulations necessary to prevent catastrophic
accidents.
Burning coal is dirty and the costs for companies to do it cleanly
and to comply with government regulations are prohibitively high.
Future regulations are likely to become even more burdensome
and expensive as environmental concerns become more important
to policy-makers, so investment in such plants makes little
business sense.
The nuclear fuel potential of the fertile isotopes released from coal
combustion is not being utilized. As well as using coal for power
generation, isotopes released from the process of coal combustion
can be converted in reactors to fissionable elements by breeding.
This would yield a virtually unlimited source of nuclear energy that
is frequently overlooked as a natural resource.
Coal combustion raises significant national security concerns. The
uranium residue from coal combustion can, over a few years, be
accumulated as fissionable material to provide the equivalent of
several World War II-type uranium-fuelled weapons. Such
fissionable material is accessible to any country that buys coal
from the US or has its own reserves. Promoting this technology
may therefore help hostile regimes equip themselves with
weapons of mass destruction.
Motions
This house believes it is in the US’s best interest to continue its current level of reliance on coal energy.
This house believe the US should increase its dependence on coal energy.
This House would invest in coal
50
Corruption, Benefits of
print this page
Discuss topic
Summary: Should public corruption be accepted as a normal state of affairs in countries at a
certain stage of development?
Introduction
Author: The Debatabase Book ( United States )
Topic written specially for The Debatabase Book, 2003. Updated by The Editor of Debatabase.
Created: Monday, June 12, 2006
Last Modified:
Context
Public corruption is generally viewed as an obstacle to the development of a country. Many governments, international
organisations and aid agencies, as well as donor-states have special agendas to fight the problem. Yet in the countries with
high levels of corruption, arguments have been made that because corruption is pervasive it has to have some benefit. While
definitely not something to be proud of, public corruption is seen as an unavoidable side effect of development.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Corruption reduces bureaucracy and speeds the implementation of
administrative practices governing economic forces of the market.
Corrupt public officials acquire incentives to create a developmentfriendly system for the economy. As a result, corruption starts a
chain of benefits for all the economic actors, making overregulated
obstructive bureaucracies much more efficient.
Countries with lower levels of corruption still have efficient
bureaucracies and enjoy better economic well-being. Corruption in
the public sector is the biggest obstacle to investment, causing
misallocation of valuable resources and subversion of public
policies. It is also an invisible tax on the poor. GDP levels for
deeply corrupted states could be much higher without corruption.
Corruption is a Western concept and is not applicable to traditional
societies, where corruption does not have such a negative
meaning. Many traditional societies with a “gift culture” have a
different understanding of civil responsibilities and etiquette. The
social structure and political traditions of many countries are based
on the beneficial exchange of rewards for services rendered, and
cannot survive in its absence.
The very idea of corruption is unethical, regardless of one’s
tradition. Cultural relativism is just an attempt to legitimise
corruption by the corrupted. Not enough evidence has been
presented to support the suggestion that corruption is required by
certain socio-cultural practices. Moreover, regarding corruption as
an innate quality of human culture undermines the hope for any
improvement and is inherently fatalistic, serving as an excuse for
creating cultures of corruption and fear.
Corruption is a condition of developing states, and should be seen
as a childhood disease. Western countries themselves were once
the most corrupted societies of the world. Not only is corruption
endemic in under-developed nations, it is also an evolutionary
level that precedes development and industrialisation. Corruption
is a side effect of emerging capitalism and a free market.
Underdeveloped countries cannot combat corruption without
having achieved the level of economic development necessary to
fight it.
Corruption is universal, and the fact that a nation is economically
developed does not mean that it has less corruption. Some First
World countries have high rates of public corruption. Having a low
level of corruption, however, gives a unique advantage to any
developing nation. Appropriate policies can substitute for any
positive effects of corruption.
In many countries corruption can be seen as a natural response to
shortages. Often in developing countries the demand for a service
such as access to the courts, education, healthcare, or the
attention of civil servants and politicians far outstrips the ability of
public officials to cope. To prevent the system from grinding to a
complete halt, a way of rationing has to be found and corruption
provides such a system. In effect it places a price upon a service
and enables officials to prioritise and go at least some way
towards dealing with all the demands upon their time and
resources.
Corruption may be a response to supply and demand, but it is still
not beneficial. By rationing goods which should be freely available
to the whole population, such as healthcare, justice and fair
treatment from those in authority, corruption ensures that these
public goods are available only to the rich. Where corruption is
widespread, the poor always lose out and society becomes ever
more divided.
It is also bad for society as a whole when corruption provides
incentives for bright young people to get jobs as unproductive
public officials, because of the financial rewards available for “rentseekers”. The private sector, already struggling from the added
costs of corruption, suffers even more by its inability to recruit the
brightest and most ambitious young people, and levels of
entrepreneurship and economic growth suffer as a result.
Corruption is not a problem in its own right, but rather a symptom
Corruption is very bad for democracy as it can lead to the capture
51
of wider problems of governance in some states. Misguided
socialist principles have left many developing countries (and some
developed ones) with complex and burdensome tangles of rules
and regulations administered by huge state machines. Often there
is a lack of property rights, meaning the poor are not safe in the
possession of the land they farm, and cannot borrow money
against it in order to invest for the future. The poor pay of public
officials is also common. These problems make ordinary people
highly dependent upon the actions of individual officials and give
the officials every incentive to exploit their power. Crackdowns on
corruption will achieve nothing until these underlying problems are
addressed first.
of the state by special interests. In corrupt societies even free and
fair election results count for little. Once in power politicians of all
parties are likely to concentrate on enriching themselves, taking
money from individuals and companies in order to promote their
own interests rather than those of their voters or the country as a
whole. Sometimes politicians can be bought outright, as when they
are persuaded to change political party for financial reward. To
avoid accountability to the electorate, such corrupt politicians then
have an incentive to corrupt elections, by bribing the electorate
with their own money and/or plotting to make the electoral process
unfair. Not only is this unjust, it also creates contempt for
democracy and makes military coups and other forms of
dictatorship more attractive to many people. Finally, it is
economically disastrous as it gives those in power the incentive
and ability to continually create new laws and regulations which
they can then exploit in order to extract bribes.
Motions
This House declares that anticorruption efforts do more harm than good
This House is not worried by corruption
This House would pay a bribe
That western countries should not impose their own ethical standards on other people
52
Democracy Promotion
Summary: Should the United States promote democracy internationally?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Nathan Ketsdever ( United States )
Nathan Ketsdever is a debate coach at the Catholic University of America in Washington D.C.
Created: Monday, April 02, 2007
Last Modified:
Context
The role that the United States should play on the international stage has been a constant battle throughout it’s 200 plus year
history between those that favor isolationism and those that favor a more engaged policy overseas. Theodore Roosevelt’s Big
Stick “New imperialism” following his election in 1904 was an important turning point in the mission to ‘Americanize’ the globe.
Later, Roosevelt’s legacy continued during the Carter and Reagan Administrations, and was primarily played out in South and
Central America.
In the new millennium however, what democracy promotion means and implies is a very important issue with many far
reaching consequences. Traditionally the United States has supported democracy promotion through the State Department’s
US AID program of development assistance. However, with the recent war in Iraq, the use of the military to promote
democracy has entered into the debate as well. And as a key stakeholder in multilateral institutions such as the World Bank,
IMF and World Trade Organization, the USA is also in a strong position to attach democratic conditions to aid and trade deals,
should it so wish.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The primary justification for democracy promotion is the
democratic peace theory. The theory of the democratic peace
goes back to Immanuel Kant’s essay Perpetual Peace, which he
published in 1795. Those who favor the theory of democratic
peace suggest that people living in democracies traditionally do
not go to war with one another. The means of the vote ensures
that change takes place peacefully, instead of via violent
interaction. If the USA is to live up to its calling as a “shining
beacon” for all mankind, it should seek to promote democratization
as the best means of improving human well-being around the
world.
Those opposed to democracy promotion often point out that
“democracy” is often a ruse for power politics. In other words,
governments may manipulate “democracy” in order to serve selfish
and ultimately destructive ends. In countries with major tribal or
sectarian divides democracy may involve the majority group
oppressing the minority. And after ten years of democratic reform
in Africa, it is still almost unheard of for incumbent regimes to lose
power through the ballot box. Instead “managed democracies”
ensure that the power of the state (e.g, to appoint election officials,
draw electoral boundaries, and manipulate the media) is employed
to achieve a favorable result. Russia under President Putin seems
to be heading the same way.
Democracy is a universal value which knows no cultural
boundaries. There is nothing in any religion, including Islam, which
condemns the idea of allowing people a fair say in the way they
are ruled. Individual regimes may use and pervert religion for their
own ends, in order to bolster their authority, but their strongest
opposition is often from within the religious establishment itself.
Americans should not apologize for their belief in freedom and
democracy, nor for their conviction that all peoples deserve a
chance to enjoy the liberties and rights with which US citizens are
blessed.
Those that reject democracy promotion often do so in the name of
rejecting US imperialism. These theorists suggest that the US
democracy experiment is a unique one, which reflects uniquely
western and European values. To force those values on other
countries is ultimately to interfere with their ability for selfdetermination and self-government. Therefore, expansive
democracy promotion is a direct affront to these peoples’ cultures
and will never succeed in the long run. The current problems in
Iraq suggest that culturally democracy may not work in the Middle
East given its cultural experience with more unitary leadership
systems.
Democracies are more responsive to what the public needs, so
there is no need for them to resort to violence as means of
symbolic expression. Free speech provides another avenue
through which to address the government and ease tensions that
could potentially turn violent. For these reasons, democracies tend
not to suppress non-violence with the end of gun or tank, as in the
case of the Tiananmen Square incident in China or with the “Tulip
Revolution” in Uzbekistan. In fact, democracies tend to have
Constitutions, which ensure the government cannot violently
suppress peaceful dissent. Because such values are written deep
within the heart of the United States, its government should seek
Authoritarian governments can become democracies overnight but
this can foster violence rather than do away with it. As
democracies move from authoritarian governments to democratic
ones, previously-suppressed ethnic and nationalist sentiment is
released and can be manipulated by those running for office. This
questionable use of nationalism by candidates is historically
connected to violent uprisings, as in the case of Eastern Europe in
its transition toward democracy during the early 1990’s, but can
also be seen in Sunni-Shia relations in newly-democratic but
unhappy Iraq. Peaceful protest is not a cure all and does not make
anger go away. Also, peaceful protest can turn violent as the anti-
53
to export them wherever possible abroad.
globalization marches demonstrate.
Democracies tend not to go to war because the people do not
want to send their sons into harm’s way, and because their military
is under civilian control. For these reasons there is no valid
example of two clearly democratic countries going to war with
each other. Authoritarian governments, by contrast, may have no
such barriers to whimsical invasions of other countries. Indeed,
autocracies often use adventures abroad to divert attention from
the corruption, oppression and economic failings of their domestic
rule. Problems can then be blamed on foreign adversaries in order
to rally support. Examples of this include Germany in 1914, the
Argentine Junta’s seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1982, and
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Given the peaceful nature of
democratic states, it is clearly in the interest of the USA to promote
democratic change worldwide.
A governments using military force to change other governments
is in itself violent and risks devaluing the democracy it seeks to
achieve by making it look like an alien imposition. Furthermore,
democracy promotion risks the United States military being
embroiled in conflicts all over the globe. In essence, democracy
promotion risks multiple Vietnam-like quagmires on a global scale.
Doing the messy work of nation building once one has disposed of
authoritarian leaders can severely deplete national treasuries and
resources, in addition to risking the lives of thousands of young
military men and women.
Nor is the argument that democratic countries never go to war
impressive. It may be true of a few mature western democracies,
but there are many examples of countries with developing
democracies adopting aggressive policies and going to war with
each other - for example states within the former Yugoslavia, India
and Pakistan, and European countries in the build up to World War
I.
Democracy is good for the economy, as its values of openness
and accountability promote the rule of law and good governance in
the people’s interest. The threat that the electorate will not re-elect
them at the next election concentrates politicians’ minds
wonderfully, and forces them to adopt policies which will make
their citizens richer and more secure. In practice this means
creating open markets friendly to inward investment and eager for
trade, while reining in military spending and aggressive foreign
policies. Because encouraging such policies is clearly in the
United States’ own economic interest, the US administration
should actively seek to promote democracy abroad as the best
way to foster these values.
The economic benefits of democracy are dubious, despite the
attractiveness of the theoretical links between free elections and
prosperity. Many would argue that the causation runs the other
way, arguing that as an economy develops the rising middle
classes seek to protect their property and business investments by
pushing for accountable government which will abide by the rule of
law. Others do not see any clear link, pointing out that China has
successfully maintained undemocratic one-party rule as it has
grown increasingly rich, while democratic India trails in its
economic wake. Finally, while integration into the global trading
community might make countries less inclined to violence for fear
of the economic damage they might do to themselves, there are
plenty of examples of relatively prosperous countries using their
wealth to fund military expansion and often war. Britain and
Germany in the years before 1914 spring to mind here, as does
Iraq in 1990. None of this suggests that the USA would be wise to
prioritize democratization in its foreign policy.
Finally, the issue of terrorism is incredibly important to
contemporary discussions of democracy promotion. Those in favor
of democracy promotion say that terrorism is a direct result of
authoritarian governments. Democracy alleviates the anger,
misery, and poverty that lies at the root cause of terrorism.
Those who are against democracy promotion frame the discussion
differently; pointing out that democracy brings liberalization, which
directly fuels the anger of the terrorists. Also, imposing a
democracy risks allowing leaders who favor terrorists into power,
as appears to have happened with Hamas in the Palestinian
territories. Consequently it is sometimes in the US national interest
to support favorable regimes who share our commitment to the
war against terror (e.g. Pakistan or Ethiopia), even if these are less
than fully democratic.
Motions
That the United States should promote democracy worldwide
This House would promote democratization
This House believes that democracy is so good that everyone should be made to choose it
That US interests are best served by an active campaign of democracy promotion
54
Debt Relief for Developing Countries
Summary: Should developed countries cancel the debts of the poorest nations?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Bobby Webster ( United Kingdom )
Bobby Webster is a former World Schools Debating champion, and has taught debating on five continents. Currently working for
Demos, the UK's leading independent think-tank, he is also a film-maker in his spare time.
Created: Tuesday, October 03, 2000
Last Modified: Friday, April 17, 2009
Context
The roots of Developing World Debt extend back to the 1970s. During this period, the price of oil rapidly increased; oilproducing countries then deposited their new wealth – so-called ‘petro-dollars’ - in Western banks in order to earn interest. In
turn, the banks had to invest this money in order to make profits and pay interest to their investors. Much of the money was
loaned to countries in the developing world, many of which had only recently become independent and were seeking backing
for large infrastructure and prestige projects. Loans were made at very low interest rates, and with little scrutiny as to the
viability of the projects they were to support. In the 1980s, the economic situation worsened in many of the developed
countries, and interest rates – including those on loans to developing nations – rose sharply. At the same time, the economies
of the debtor nations were under-performing, with the benefits which were supposed to emerge from the major projects of the
1970s often failing to materialise due to poor planning or mismanagement. Developing countries suddenly found themselves
earning less than before, and yet having to pay more interest. This situation has now reached crisis point in some countries.
Every year, developing nations pay nine times more in debt repayment than they receive from developed countries in aid. Latin
America owes £365 billion (around $530 billion) in debt, some 36% of its total GNP; Sub-Saharan Africa owes £140 billion
(around $200 billion), 83% of its GNP. Groups such as the IMF and the World Bank, with their HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries) initiative, are working towards a partial reduction or rescheduling of this debt, but demand obedience to strict
economic reforms. Others, such as Jubilee 2000, are pressing for more immediate and more substantial action. The main
thrust of the proposition in this debate is that the burdens of debt are unfair, and that the human cost in debtor countries is too
high; the debt of
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The burden of debt costs lives. Some of the most heavily indebted
poor countries are struggling to pay even the interest on their
loans, let alone the actual capital. This massively distorts their
economies and their spending priorities. African nations currently
spend four times as much on debt repayments as they do on
health. The Structural Readjustment Programmes demanded by
the IMF (International Monetary Fund) in return for rescheduled
debt make this problem even worse. Since the SAP began in
Zimbabwe, healthcare spending has dropped by a third; in
Tanzania, school fees have been introduced to raise more money.
Progress made in health and education over the past 50 years is
in some countries actually being reversed. It is obscene that
governments are cutting spending in these vital areas to pay back
debts: the debts must be cancelled now.
There are many reasons for the current problems in the world’s
poorest nations; often they also have heavy debt burdens, but the
debt is not necessarily the cause of the problems. Many countries
spend huge amounts of money on weapons in order to fight local
wars, instead of investing in their people. Many are led by
dictators, or other corrupt governments, whose incompetence or
greed are killing their own population. The money to pay for
healthcare and social programmes at the same time as repaying
debt may well exist, but it is instead being wasted in other areas.
In order to raise the cash for debt repayments, poor countries have
to produce goods which they can sell around the world. Often this
means growing so-called ‘cash crops’ such as coffee, instead of
food to support their population. People in fertile countries can find
themselves starving, as they cannot afford to buy the food which
then has to be bought from other countries, while their own fields
produce coffee for the developed world.
Again, there are many potential causes for starvation – famines
are caused by war or by freak weather conditions, not by debt.
While growing cash crops can seem to be counter-intuitive, the
money they bring in helps to boost the country’s economy. The
idea that a nation could and should be self-sufficient is out-dated; if
(for example) a country is well-suited to growing coffee, it should
grow coffee, and buy food crops (for example corn, or wheat) from
other countries suited to growing them.
Debt repayments often punish those who were not responsible for
creating the debt in the first place. In a number of poorer countries
huge debts were amassed by the irresponsible spending of
dictators in the past, who have now been overthrown; yet the new
government and the people of that country have to pay the price
This thinking has dangerous implications on an international level.
Governments are always changing in democracies, but nations are
expected to honour their debts. A crucial element in lending money
is ‘contractor’s promise’ – the promise that the debt will be paid
back. If every new government could decide that it was not
55
for the dictator’s actions. This is clearly unfair.
responsible for its predecessor’s debts then no-one would ever
lend money to a country, as there would be little chance of
repayment. Developing countries in particular still need loans in
order to invest in infrastructure projects. Cancelling debt now
would make lenders far less likely to provide loans on good terms
in the future, and would retard economic growth in the long term.
All poor countries need is the chance to stand on their own two
feet, an opportunity to help themselves. While their economies are
dominated by the need to repay debt, it is impossible for them to
truly invest in infrastructure and education, sowing the seeds for
development in the future. By cancelling debt, we would give them
a fresh start, and the opportunity to build successful economies
which would supply the needs of generations to come.
Reform has to come first. Many poor countries are crippled by
corrupt and incompetent governments and economic systems.
Cancelling debt would therefore make no difference: it would
simply be the equivalent of giving a one-off payment to dictators
and crooks, who would siphon off the extra money and become
rich while the people still suffer. Even worse, there is nothing to
stop them spending more money on weapons and palaces and
building the debt back up to its current level in the hope that it
would be cancelled again.The economy and the government must
therefore be transparent and accountable before debt reduction or
cancellation is even considered.
The developed world has a moral duty to the developing world
because of the historical background of Developing World Debt. In
the rush to invest ‘petro-dollars’ in the 1970s, many banks made
hasty loans, pouring money into pointless projects without properly
examining whether they would ever make a profit. Because of
these bad investments, some of the world’s poorest countries are
so burdened with debts that they can now no longer realistically
expect to pay them off, and are instead simply servicing the
interest. An important parallel may be made with bankruptcy. If an
individual is unable to repay their debts, he or she is declared
bankrupt; they are then allowed to make a fresh start. This means
that banks are also more careful about lending: they know that if
they finance a project which is unlikely to succeed, they may well
not get their money back. The same system should be used with
countries. If they are unable to repay their debts, they should be
given the opportunity to start again: in the long term, it is better for
everyone for that country to be a viable contributor to world
economy than to be a debt-slave. At the same time, banks would
be discouraged from making unethical bad loans as they did in the
1970s.
The parallel with bankruptcy cannot work on a national scale. First
of all, when a person is declared bankrupt, all their assets and
possessions are seized in order to pay back as much of their debts
as is possible – this is why banks find it an acceptable option. In
national terms, this would mean the total loss of sovereignty:
foreign governments and banks would be able to seize control of
the infrastructure or the resources of the country at will. No
government could, or should, ever accept this. Second, the
difference in scale is vitally important. Whereas the bankruptcy of
a single individual within a country is unlikely to cause major
problems for that country’s economy, the bankruptcy of a country
in the world would have a significant effect on the world economy.
The economic plans of banks and nations currently include the
income from Developing World Debt; if this substantial revenue
were suddenly cut off, it could have a catastrophic effect. Even if
this debt relief would be helpful to the ‘bankrupt’ countries in the
short term, a world economy in recession would be in nobody’s
interest.
Motions
This House would end Developing World Debt
This House would kill the debt, not the debtors
This House would break the chains of debt
56
Direct .vs. Indirect Aid
Summary: Should foreign aid donor nations and the World Bank continue to give the majority
of their aid through the direct channel of Official Development Assistance (ODA), or should they
instead give that aid indirectly to Charities, NGO’s, PVO’s and microfinance initiatives? (NB.
See also Bilateral .vs. Multilateral Aid)
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Andrew Goodman ( United Kingdom )
Andrew is a former World Schools’ Grand Finalist and winner of several IVs inside and outside the UK. He is the Chair of the
Debates Selection Committee at the Oxford Union and the co-founder of the Mongolian National Schools’ Debating Team. He is
currently studying PPE at Magdalen College, Oxford and working for a management consultancy in the Middle East.
Created: Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Last Modified: Monday, July 24, 2006
Context
In 2006, nearly $90bn in Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid will be given by the member nations of the UN’s
Development Assistance Committee (DAC). This will go directly from the government of those member states to the
government of the recipient (receiver) country, of which around 70% is ring-fenced (set aside) for development projects. By
2010 the overall ODA figure is estimated to rise to around $130bn. Long-term development aid consists of money, machinery,
food resources and military equipment.
This debate focuses on whether instead of long-term government-to-government aid, World Bank aid and loans should be
supplied to Non-government organisations such as Christian Aid, CARE, Anuragam and Engineers without borders, Private
Voluntary Organisations and microcredit/microfinance institutions. Such aid models could include ring-fencing by nation,
regional/purpose quotas and a need-based or competitive bidding allocation element but the debate is centred around the
effectiveness of aid delivery.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Changing the way money is given will reduce corruption,
embezzlement and manipulation. The centralization of the
governmental structures which control aid distribution in many
recipient countries make embezzlement relatively easy. Even
linking aid to specific projects is ineffective at solving this problem
due to difficulty in tracking individual project accounts within the
recipient nation. Recently the Netherlands has halted its $148m
development aid programme to Kenya in protest at aid
embezzlement in the wake of the ‘graft’ scandal there. Similarly
Sao Tome’s Prime Minister was arrested for aid embezzlement in
2004. Corruption inside government means that aid is also often
directed to supporters of the government when eventually spent.
This is particularly likely to happen in ethnically diverse and tense
nations, as has been observed in Zimbabwe under Mugabe and in
the form of economic discrimination against Arab-Israelis in Israel.
Advocates of government-to-government aid do not have to
defend such an outdated concept of ODA. Since at least 2000,
many DAC member nations have tied their aid entirely or in part to
political, economic environmental reform. The burden is now on
recipient nations to prove that the aid is not being squandered,
creating a political culture that tackles corruption, as has been
seen with the creation of an ‘anti-graft task force’ in Kenya in 2006.
Linked aid promotes political stability, an environmentally
conscious government and a consistent economic framework.
Furthermore, there is no guarantee that charities and NGO’s will
be any less corrupt. Large amounts of money are the corrupting
factor and giving aid to multiple NGOs, many of which may not be
governed by as strict accounting standards as those based in the
UK or USA, creates a system in which it is far harder to monitor
and prevent embezzlement.
Direct aid undermines local markets. Many economists believe
that economic growth needs to occur at a local level, with private
industry driving growth forward. Chile is often given as an example
of a country which has grown in this way. Government aid
frequently results in the growth of large, state-owned corporations
which undercut the creation of local markets, preventing the
development of private enterprise. This is similar to the way longterm food aid has a hysteresis (de-skilling) effect on economies. If
this is the case then giving microbanks the aid instead should
create a large supply of low-cost credit which small firms can
borrow to develop, furthering the creation of local markets and
economic development.
Central spending growth is still very important. Whilst we can
recognise the importance of local markets in development, they
provide only half of the picture. NGO’s serve a different purpose to
governments, developing local projects such as schools and wells.
However, economic growth also requires central spending to
develop infrastructure. Indian well-drilling efficacy has increased
by 70% since the use of the national space programme to find
water pockets. Brazil’s hydroelectric power scheme could never be
achieved by NGOs working together. A national education policy
could not be formulated by NGOs. To reduce government aid
would be to remove the backbone of central spending needed for
national development.
Direct aid creates dependence. ODA is entwined with foreign
policy to the degree where aid is no longer allocated on need but
on politics. The result is that the USA has consistently showed the
For those countries which are aid-dependent, slashing the aid their
governments receive would severely harm the nation’s survival
and service provision. Israel, for instance, would arguably be
57
political will to provide military aid to Israel totalling nearly $3bn a
year, but even in the wake of Live8, real aid (ie. not that distorted
by rescheduling) to the poorest nations in Africa is not as large
proportionately. Not only has ODA increasingly become a carrot in
the war on terror, as shown by the aid provided to Pakistan for its
cooperation in the stationing of US military bases, but ODA has
also created dependent nations such as Micronesia where 4/5 of
the population are employed in ‘aid-created’ jobs and the
government receives 90% of its revenue from the USA. It
encourages a culture of aid-dependency where nations such as
Kenya have come to believe that aid is the only way to lift
themselves out of poverty.
unable to survive without its foreign aid from the USA. Similarly,
those states such as Micronesia or Tokelau which are almost
exclusively aid dependent are essentially protectorates of those
states that aid them, giving them political independence and the
ability to develop. The other incidence to bear in mind is that on
truly developing nations. Between 45-50% of all foreign aid goes to
nations such as Argentina, Botswana and Brazil (in fact we
sanction many poverty-stricken nations such as Angola and
Zimbabwe for political reasons). Reducing aid to these countries
reduces certainty and sustainability in development. We should
deliver the aid which we have promised, the results of which are
now coming to fruition.
Direct Aid creates an international welfare trap. ODA creates an
‘incentive problem’ by making it in recipient government’s interest
to keep their population poor in order to keep receiving aid. This is
made worse by the fact that one of the primary measures of
poverty is income below $1 or $2 a day (depending on the region),
so governments have an incentive to channel aid to the elites
whilst leaving the very poorest members of their population below
this poverty line. Even if no corruption already existed, the nature
of ODA means that it acts as a corrupting influence.
We should respect the sovereignty of these nations, regardless of
their motives, particularly given that many have democratically
elected governments. Reducing government aid prevents recipient
governments from being able to allocate aid in accordance with
their people’s wishes. Instead aid distribution is decided by foreign
charities that may have different motives. NGO’s are, as a general
rule undemocratic, unaccountable interest groups. Not only would
we be unfairly taking control over development out of the hands of
the people and giving it to NGOs who may have worse records
than the government, but we are also sending out a contradictory
message if we are attempting to encourage responsible,
democratic governments in those nations.
Much direct aid is simply recycled as debt servicing. A significant
proportion (over 60%) of aid flowing into the poorest nations flows
straight back out again to service interest (not even capital
repayments) on debts incurred, often by dictatorial governments,
during the 1970s and 80s. Payment of aid to NGOs would shift
priorities, stimulating growth now and hence increasing tax
revenue later. These can then be used to repay debts in the longer
term, whilst allowing the country to develop at a faster rate once
debts have been repaid.
Taking the issue of aid out of a government-government sphere of
dialogue makes a settlement over debt relief such as that
proposed by Jubilee 2000 more difficult. The channel through
which to solve debt issues is through debt cancellation, not aid
redirection. Even if debts are not cancelled, some nations can in
fact pay back their debts centrally: in 2006 Nigeria used oil
revenues to repay most of its outstanding, long-term foreign debts.
However, reducing government aid would have immediate
damaging effects on those countries that currently are paying off
their loans. Debtor countries (in the absence of debt relief) would
be left with the immediate choice of defaulting on their loans as
Mexico did in 1982 and Thailand did in 1997, resulting in a
massive loss of international confidence, or ‘borrowing to repay’
their loans, increasing dependency and poverty.
NGOS are better at delivering aid. Governments in those nations
most in need of aid are often the least able or willing to deliver that
aid. This is particularly true in those states where the line-drawing
of colonialism pitched ethnic groups against one another. For
example, the government in Khartoum would not provide aid to
Southern Sudan, the Somali government is unable to distribute aid
and the Nigerian government has no credibility in the Niger Delta
region. The same is true of African nations experiencing civil wars.
The only option then would be to withdraw ODA from those
nations. In contrast, charities have the credibility of not being
associated with governments; they can cross national borders and
have a presence in rebel controlled areas such as the enclaves of
northern Sri Lanka. NGOs are simply more effective at aid delivery
in many of the poorest nations.
The idea that NGO’s are better able to deliver development aid is
simply a myth. Because charities do not have the political staying
power of governments, they are often the first to pull-out when
dormant war zones turn ‘hot’ because they need to prioritise the
lives of their volunteers. Major faith-based charities such as
Christian Aid or Saudi educational charities, are perceived as
partisan actors in African states which have tensions between
Christian and Muslim populations. Most importantly, whilst groups
such as the Red Cross may be able to deliver emergency aid to
areas where national governments are unwelcome, typically
development aid cannot be delivered to areas of civil war where
projects will quickly be destroyed. Aid deliveries may even be
diverted to rebel forces, and so keep conflicts alive. The kind of
peace that only national governments can impose is needed
before serious development can commence.
Motions
T his House would suspend direct foreign aid
This House would give aid locally rather than nationally
This House believes that development begins at home
That we should stop giving Official Development Assistance to national governments
58
Drinking age, lowering of
Summary: Should the legal age for drinking alcohol be lowered?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Jonathan Bailey ( United Kingdom )
Jonathan Bailey is a management consultant. He read History at the University of Oxford from 2003 to 2006 during which time he
reached the finals of both the World Universities’ Debating Championships (2005) and the European Universities’ Debating
Championships (2004). He also won the UCL President’s Cup, City IV and Stanford IV. He was also the Chair of the Debates
Selection Committee of the Oxford Union Society and toured Japan on the 2005 ESU British Debate Squad. He represented England
at the 2003 World Schools’ Debating Competition in Peru where he reached the semi-finals.
Created: Friday, November 03, 2006
Last Modified:
Context
This is a classic debate about the limits the state should place on a something which could harm people. The proposition does
not have to argue that drinking alcohol is harmless, as to win the debate they only need to show that the way to encourage
limited and responsible alcohol use is to have lower minimum age limits. Current age limits vary across the world. In US states
the limit is 21, in most Canadian states it is 19, in the UK it is 18, but in many other European countries it is 16 and alcohol is
usually allowed with a meal at any age. The opposition should argue that an age limit of 18 or higher ensures an overall lower
level of drinking amongst teenagers and is therefore the more sensible policy.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The British and US limits on drinking alcohol do not stop teenagers
from consuming alcohol, instead it makes underage drinking cool
and so makes teenagers more likely to do it. In Italy, Spain and
France the limit is lower, and a culture of having wine at the table
from a young age encourages a responsible approach where
alcohol is not consumed for its own sake or to excess. With higher
alcohol age limits, young people in the UK and US find it harder to
get alcohol and so binge-drink when they do. This is not only
harmful to them but creates a damaging attitude towards alcohol
which continues into their later lives.
Teenagers will always rebel against whatever limits are put on
their behaviour. If they are allowed alcohol at 16 instead of 18,
some other activity such as soft drug use will quickly replace it in
the cool stakes. The myth of a mature continental drinking culture
may hold true for a small middle class community, but is not
representative of most peoples’ experience. For instance the
Spanish government is looking to crack down on massive outdoor
drinking parties in major cities organised by teenagers. There is
also no reason to think that British adults, many of whom have just
as excessive an approach to alcohol consumption as teenagers,
will suddenly become better role models if the law is changed to fit
this continental image.
Studies have shown that limited alcohol consumption (a couple of
glasses of red wine per week) can actually have positive health
benefits. However this message and those health benefits are lost
in a binge drinking culture. Lowering the age limit would be an
important step in changing drinking habits and would have longterm health benefits.
There are clear harms to young people from drinking too much,
made worse by the fact that they have growing bodies. Research
published in the Journal of Substance Abuse in 1997 showed that
young people in the US who drink before the age of 15 are four
times more likely to become alcoholics than those who begin
drinking at 21. This is partly because they become socialised into
a heavy drinking culture at an impressionable age, and partly
because of the state of their physical development. There is also
evidence from the US Center for Disease Control that underage
drinkers have higher suicide and homicide rates. When drunk,
young people may do things which cause longer term problems,
such as having unprotected sex. UK studies show that a third of
those who lose their virginity before the age of 15 do so under the
influence of alcohol. We should protect young people from these
harms by maintaining a high age limit.
As teenagers are unable to drink legally in pubs or bars, but are
old enough to want to socialise on an evening, they are forced to
do it secretly on streets and in parks. This often creates a
nuisance to the wider public. It also makes it more likely that
younger children will be exposed to alcohol and is often one of the
causes of teenage crime, vandalism and violence.
Even if the drinking age was lowered, there would still be a division
in the marketplace because most twenty-somethings do not want
to drink or socialise with sixteen year olds. Even with an age limit
of 18, chains such as All Bar One have age limits of 21. This
suggests that for teenagers at the bottom of the legal age bracket,
there might only be a limited number of places they might be
allowed to drink in. It is also worth noting that many teenagers buy
alcohol cheaply in a supermarket and then drink it in a park
59
because it is less expensive than going to a pub or bar. This would
not change with a lower age limit.
Fundamentally this is an issue of the freedom to choose. Legally
we accept that at sixteen an individual is old enough to make
rational choices about a whole host of things, from having sex to
fighting for their country. We also allow sixteen year olds to harm
themselves, if they choose to, by smoking and gambling. If sixteen
year olds are thought rational enough to make those choices,
there is no reason to deny them the right to choose whether to
drink alcohol or not.
We do not allow sixteen year olds to do several key things, like
vote or drive so clearly there is no set line of where adulthood
begins. Drinking is also a larger choice than smoking, because
alcohol reduces your ability to make further choices rationally by
intoxicating you. Given that if you get drunk you might then do
something you regret, surely there should be a high barrier (in the
form of a high age limit) before we allow individuals to make that
choice.
Studies show that most people have consumed alcohol in the UK
before they reach their 18th birthday, so clearly the law does not
work. There is further evidence from the US which suggests
increasing the alcohol age limit has no real impact on college
students’ alcohol intake. A study at Arizona State University in the
late 1980s during the time Arizona increased its minimum age
from 19 to 21 showed that only 6% of students reduced their
alcohol intake. Perhaps more worryingly 22% of students reported
that they intended to take more soft drugs as they would be easier
to hide in a college dorm than bottles of alcohol. When laws are
ignored it undermines the wider legal system in the eyes of the
public. The legal system should reflect the reality of drinking
patterns and have a lower minimum age.
Although there are underage drinkers in every country, the
question is whether the law should encourage them or act as a
clear moral standard. It is noticeable that in the US where the limit
is 21 fewer 17 year olds have consumed alcohol than in the UK
where the limit is 18. Clearly, although some people will always
drink underage, a higher age limit leads to underage drinking
beginning later. If age limits were enforced more strongly, perhaps
by standardised ID cards (such as are being proposed in the UK),
this would further reduce underage drinking.
While adverts for alcopops and beer may make underage drinking
seem more attractive, they are not the cause of underage drinking.
The European Council in a 1989 directive placed strict limits on
how alcohol could be advertised - for instance adverts cannot
claim that alcohol leads to sexual success and they cannot criticise
non-drinkers. Yet advertising companies were still able to
glamorise alcopops in the 1990s. In fact even with a complete ban
on tobacco advertising, over 10% of under-16s in the UK still
smoke regularly and that figure has hardly fallen since the ban
came into place. Drinking alcohol is attractive to young people for
much wider reasons than advertising, and the only effective way to
regulate it is to reduce the age limit.
It has been argued that part of the problem with underage drinking
has been created by alcohol companies themselves. They created
and have marketed alcopops (alcohol which tastes like a soft
drink) since the 1990s. Whether these were deliberately designed
for teenagers or not, the fact that they do not taste of alcohol and
can be seen as a step-up from fizzy drinks like lemonade has
made them attractive to teenagers. There have been greater limits
placed on alcohol advertising over the last decade in Britain to
stop adverts being targeted at people who are underage.
However, further measures, perhaps including a complete ban on
alcohol advertising as with tobacco, would help to reduce the cool
factor and accessibility of alcopops thereby helping to tackle
underage alcohol consumption without weakening the law.
Motions
This house would reduce the UK drinking age to 16
This house believes that current drinking laws encourage underage drinking
This house would lower the drinking age limit
That the present drinking age should be lowered
60
Drugs in Sport
Summary: Should the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport be legalised?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Alastair Endersby ( United Kingdom )
Alastair learnt to debate at the Cambridge Union but discovered his real talents lay in coaching when he started teaching. He has
twice coached England teams in the World Schools Debating Championships. Alastair currently teaches History and Politics at
Bishop Wordsworth's School in Salisbury, England. He is the Editor of Debatabase.
Created: Friday, September 29, 2000
Last Modified: Monday, April 13, 2009
Context
The 2000 Olympics have once again focused the attention of the world upon the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs
within sport. Several Olympic champions were stripped of their medals as a result of positive drugs tests, while the withdrawal
of a large number of Chinese competitors on the eve of the games was widely assumed to be linked to failed drugs tests.
Although attention is often focused upon athletics, almost all sports have a “drug problem” and devote considerable energy to
testing competitors regularly, banning those who fail them. Nonetheless, doubts remain as to the effectiveness of these tests
and the fairness of some of the resulting bans, and some argue the whole approach is deeply flawed. Performance-enhancing
drugs include steroids, the male hormone testosterone, Human-growth hormone and other drugs taken to build muscle-bulk
during training, and stimulants or blood-doping taken to improve performance in competition. Most such drugs have some
medical uses and are prescribed legally in certain non-athletic contexts; it is unlikely that a Proposition would also wish to
legalise “recreational” drugs such as cocaine, heroin and amphetamines, although all of these could be regarded as
performance-enhancing in certain sporting contexts.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Freedom of choice. If athletes wish to take drugs in search of
improved performances, let them do so. They harm nobody but
themselves and should be treated as adults, capable of making
rational decisions upon the basis of widely-available information.
Even if there are adverse health effects in the long-term, this is
also true of both tobacco and boxing, which remain legal.
Once some people choose to use drugs to enhance their
performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed
upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes
are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to
achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years time
may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of
their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not
allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs.
Natural/unnatural distinction untenable. Already athletes use all
sorts of dietary supplements, exercises, equipment, clothing,
training regimes, medical treatments, etc. to enhance their
performance. There is nothing ‘natural’ about taking vitamin pills,
wearing whole-body Lycra suits, having surgery on ligaments,
spending every day in a gym pumping weights, running in shoes
with spikes on the bottom, etc. Diet, medicine, technology, and
even just coaching already give an artificial advantage to those
athletes who can afford the best of all these aids. Since there is no
clear way to distinguish from legitimate and illegitimate artificial
aids to performance, they should all be allowed.
It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between
legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we
should continue to draw a line nonetheless. First, to protect
athletes from harmful drugs. Secondly, to preserve the spirit of fair
play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak
of natural fitness. Eating a balanced diet and wearing the best
shoes are clearly in a different category from taking steroids and
growth hormones. We should continue to make this distinction and
aim for genuine drug-free athletic competitions.
Levels the playing field. Currently suspicion over drug use
surrounds every sport and every successful athlete, and those
competitors who don’t take performance-enhancing drugs see
themselves as disadvantaged. Some drugs can’t be tested for, and
in any case, new medical and chemical advances mean that the
cheats will always be ahead of the testers. Legalisation would
remove this uncertainty and allow everyone to compete openly
and fairly.
Very bad for athletes. The use of performance-enhancing drugs
leads to serious health problems, including “steroid rage”, the
development of male characteristics in female athletes, heart
attacks, and greatly reduced life expectancy. Some drugs are also
addictive.
Better spectacle for spectators. Sport has become a branch of the
entertainment business and the public demands “higher, faster,
stronger” from athletes. If drug-use allows world records to be
continually broken, and makes American Football players bigger
Spectators enjoy the competition between athletes rather than
individual performances; a close race is better than a no-contest in
a world record time. Similarly, they enjoy displays of skill, e.g. in
football and other team sports and in gymnastics, more than
61
and more exciting to watch, why deny the public what they want,
especially if the athletes want to give it to them?
simply raw power. In any case, why should we sacrifice the health
of athletes for the sake of public enjoyment?
Current rules are very arbitrary and unfair:e.g. cold remedies
denied to athletes, even in sports where any stimulating effect
these might have is minimal (e.g. Gymnastics in the Sydney
Olympics)e.g. the possibility that some positive tests are simply
the result of using a combination of legal food supplements (e.g.
nandrolone) e.g. creatine is legal despite health riskse.g. cyclists
legally having heart operations to allow increased circulation and
thus improve performance.
What about the children? Even if performance-enhancing drugs
were only legalised for adults, the definition of this varies from
country to country. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones
and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the
temptation and pressure to use drugs if these were widely
available and effectively endorsed by legalisation. Not only are
such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed
choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies
would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a
positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of
“recreational drugs” with all their accompanying evils more
widespread.
Bans increasingly fail to stand up in court. The whole legal basis
for drugs-testing and the subsequent banning of transgressors is
open to challenge, both as restraint of trade and invasion of
privacy, and on scientific and methodological grounds. Sports’
governing bodies fighting, and often losing, such court cases
wastes vast sums of money.
Disadvantages poor nations. Far from creating a level playing field,
legalisation would tilt it in favour of those athletes from wealthy
countries with advanced medical provision and pharmaceutical
industries. Athletes from poorer nations would no longer be able to
compete on talent alone.
If legal then drugs can be controlled and monitored by doctors,
making them much safer. Athletes on drugs today often take far
more than is needed for performance-enhancement, running
needless health risks as a result, simply because of ignorance and
the need for secrecy. Legalisation allows more information to
become available and open medical supervision will avoid many of
the health problems currently associated with performanceenhancing drugs.
Reform is preferable to surrender. The current testing regime is
not perfect but better research, testing and funding, plus sanctions
against uncooperative countries and sports could greatly improve
the fight against drugs in sport.
Motions
This House would legalise the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport
This House would win at all costs
This House believes your chemist is your best friend
62
Drugs, legalisation of
Summary: Should governments legalise all drugs?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Alex Worsnip ( United Kingdom )
Alex Worsnip is in his final year reading Philosophy, Politics & Economics at St Anne's College, Oxford. He is a twice John Smith
Mace finalist, Cambridge IV finalist, was a World Schools finalist, and is currently Chairman of the Debates Selection Committee of
the Oxford Union.
Created: Saturday, December 29, 2007
Last Modified:
Context
Current drugs policy in the UK and many other Western countries is loosely based on the principle that drugs are criminalised
in proportion to their harmfulness. Typically, whilst alcohol and nicotine are legal, a wide variety of other stimulants and
narcotics (e.g. heroin, cocaine, cannabis, ecstasy and amphetamines) are deemed illegal. Usually the penalty attached to
possession of these drugs varies according to their perceived harmfulness – for example, a “hard” drug like heroin attracts
harsher punishment than a “soft” drug like cannabis. Supplying others with a drug also usually attracts a harsher penalty than
possessing a small amount for purely personal use. Some countries, such as the UK, attempt to codify harmfulness by
operating a grading system for illegal drugs (‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’); in others assumptions about harmfulness are expressed through
policing and sentencing policy.
Policy arguments often focus upon how relatively harmful particular drugs are in practice, and what category they should
therefore be placed in. In the UK, for example, there has been controversy recently over the declassification of cannabis from
class ‘B’ to class ‘C’, with some arguing that new varieties of cannabis are so strong, and medical evidence for psychological
damage now so compelling that the tougher classification should be reapplied. In the United States reformers often point out
that possession of crack cocaine attracts much longer prison sentences than cocaine powder, and that different racial
consumption patterns mean that as a result black cocaine users are punished much more severely than white ones.
Advocates of decriminalising drug use step beyond these disputes about matters of degree, arguing that any attempt to
distinguish in law between different types of drugs is doomed to inconsistency. They also claim that the widespread use of
illegal drugs across society makes the law look ineffective and outdated, and has the result of criminalising a large minority of
the population. Taking a libertarian viewpoint, it is argued that the government has no business attempting to regulate private
behaviour, pointing out that in other areas, such as sexuality, the state has been stepping back from intrusions into private life.
Across the world, approaches to drugs vary, from liberal policies in the Netherlands where many “soft” drugs (e.g. cannabis)
are in effect tolerated, to the harsh policies of Singapore which hands out the death penalty for certain drug-related crimes.
However, “hard” drugs such as heroin and cocaine are pretty much universally illegal. In debating this topic, the proposition
needs to be clear about the implications of their case – typically they need to argue for the legalisation of “hard” drugs as well
as “soft” ones. They may also wish to present some kind of model or plan whereby the quality and marketing of drugs is
regulated (for example, in ways similar to controls on tobacco and alcohol in many countries).
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Individuals are sovereign over their own bodies, and should be
free to make choices which affect them and not other individuals.
Since the pleasure gained from drugs and the extent to which this
weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not
up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted
resources into attempting to suppress drug use, the state would be
better off running information campaigns to educate people about
the risks and consequences of taking different types of drugs.
The free availability of drugs will make it far easier for individuals
to buy and use them. This has potentially disastrous health
consequences. The state is justified in preventing individuals doing
harm to themselves if the harm is great enough, especially if they
are not aware of the risks, or are already addicted and thus not
making an informed choice. Furthermore, drugs do not really just
affect individual users but also their families, children, communities
and society at large, and the state must legislate to protect these
wider interests.
Those who want to use drugs will take them whether they are legal
or not. At least when drugs are legalised the state can regulate
their sale to make sure that they are clean and not adulterated
(“cut”) with other dangerous substances. This will minimise the risk
to users. Legalisation will also remove the glamour which
surrounds an underground activity and so make drug use less
attractive to impressionable teenagers. For example, statistics
suggest that cannabis use in the UK has actually declined since its
classification was lowered from ‘B’ to ‘C’.
There is no such thing as a safe form of a drug. In practice this
usually just means making drugs purer, and therefore perhaps
more deadly and addictive. Many illegal drugs are closely related
to potentially dangerous medicines, whose prescription is tightly
restricted to trained professionals, but the proposition would
effectively be allowing anyone to take anything they wished
regardless of the known medical dangers. In addition, the offer of
“purer” drugs will encourage many who are currently put off by the
uncertain risks of drug taking to begin drug abuse. It also
63
implicates governments in drug-taking by making them the
guarantor of purity standards. Furthermore, the state can provide
services like needle exchanges to minimise the secondary risks of
drug use without legalising drugs themselves.
The illegality of drugs fuels a huge amount of crime that could be
eliminated if drugs were legalised. Price controls would mean that
addicts would no longer have to steal to fund their habits, and a
state-provided drug services would put dealers out of business,
starving criminal gangs of their main source of funding. The
hugely-costly but unsuccessful war on drugs could be ended,
starving terrorists of the profits of drug production. As a result
peace and development could be brought to unstable drugproducing states such as Colombia and Afghanistan.
Low prices for drugs will massively increase consumption of drugs,
amongst all groups - addicts, previously casual users, and those
who were not previously users. Addicts will still steal to fund their
habit, because they want all the drugs they can get, and because
addiction means they find it hard to hold down regular jobs. If drug
provision is strictly regulated, an illegal black market may remain.
In the modern world, the reality is that in Western societies drugs
are used by people from all walks of life. It is therefore hypocritical
of the powerful political classes to ban drugs, and a sign of their
paternalist instinct to trust themselves but not others. Furthermore,
cigarettes and alcohol, which arguably have equally devastating
consequences in society, are legal.
However entrenched in modern culture drugs may be, legalising
them will only make them appear more acceptable. The state has
a duty to send out the right message, and its health campaigns will
be fundamentally undermined by the suggestion that drugs are
harmless, which is what will be understood from their legalisation –
just like when cannabis was downgraded in the UK.
If the state legalises drugs it can tax them and use the revenue
from this practise to fund treatment. At the moment such treatment
is difficult to justify as it appears to be spending ordinary
taxpayers’ money on junkies.
If the state is to make money from taxing drugs, this undercuts the
(supposed) advantages of lower-priced drugs and will just
encourage a black market to continue. Furthermore, for the state
to take revenue from this practise is morally wrong, whatever use
the money is put to. The point of drug treatment is to help abusers
off drugs, but under the proposition’s system the state would have
a financial interest in prolonging addiction.
Motions
This House would legalise all drugs
This House believes that what a person puts into their own body is up to them
That we should abandon the war on drugs
This House takes its liberalism seriously
64
Economic Development vs the Environment
print this page
Discuss topic
Debatabase Junior Topic
Summary: Is the economic development of developing countries more important than
protecting the environment?
Introduction
Author: The Debatabase Book ( United States )
Topic written specially for The Debatabase Book, 2003. Updated by The Editor of Debatabase.
Created: Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Last Modified:
Context
The issue of economic growth versus environmental conservation can also be seen as developed countries vs developing
ones. Industrial countries such as the USA and Germany have depended upon polluting industries for their wealth. Now they
fear that uncontrolled economic development in the Third World will lead to environmental disaster. They point out that massive
clearing of tropical rainforest for farming threatens biodiversity and may affect the global climate. At the same time relying upon
heavy industry adds more pollution to the air, soil and water sources, while a richer population demands more energy, often
produced from burning dirty fossil fuels such as coal. Developing countries such as China and Brazil point out that they must
make industrialisation and economic development a priority because they have to support their growing populations.
Developing countries must address current problems; they cannot afford to worry about the distant future. They also point out
that as First World countries are most to blame for current environmental damage, it is unfair to demand that developing
nations limit their own growth to solve these problems.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Taking care of millions of people who are starving is more
important than saving natural resources, most of which are
renewable anyway. We cannot expect developing nations to share
the green concerns of developed countries when they are faced
with dire poverty and a constant battle for survival.
We have already wasted and destroyed vast amounts of natural
resources, and in so doing have put earth at risk. We must
preserve the earth for our children and grandchildren. In any case,
poverty and environmental damage are often linked. Destroying
the rainforest gives native peoples nowhere to go except urban
slums. Polluted water can lead to crop failures. Climate change will
turn fertile fields into desert and flood coastal areas where
hundreds of millions live. Developing countries have to choose
sustainable development if they want a future for their people.
The industrialised world’s emphasis on green issues holds back
developing countries. Because this is seen as interference in their
affairs, it also contributes to a greater divide between the First and
Third worlds. Many also believe it is a deliberate attempt to stop
possible economic competitors. After all, the USA and EU already
put high tariffs (import taxes) on products made cheaply in
developing countries (e.g. canned tomatoes, shoes) which could
be sold in America or Europe. By limiting the development of
profitable but polluting industries like steel or oil refineries we are
forcing nations to remain economically backward.
No one wants to stop economic progress that could give millions
better lives. But we must insist on sustainable development that
combines environmental care, social justice and economic growth.
Earth cannot support unrestricted growth. Companies in
developed countries already have higher costs of production
because of rules to protect the environment. It is unfair if they then
see their prices undercut by goods produced cheaply in
developing countries at the cost of great pollution.
Economic development is vital for meeting the basic needs of the
growing populations of developing countries. If we do not allow
them to industrialise, these nations will have to bring in measures
to limit population growth just to preserve vital resources such as
water.
Unchecked population growth has a negative impact on any
nation, as well as on the whole planet. Both the poverty and the
environmental problems of sub-Saharan Africa are largely the
result of rapid population growth putting pressure on limited
resources. At the same time China has become wealthy while
following a “one-child” per couple policy. Limiting population
growth will result in a higher standard of living and will preserve
the environment.
Obviously the world would be better if all nations stuck to strict
environmental rules. The reality is that for many nations such rules
are not in their interests. For example, closing China’s huge
Capital Iron and Steelworks, a major source of pollution, would
cost 40 000 jobs. The equal application of strict environmental
Nations are losing more from pollution than they are gaining from
industrialisation. China is a perfect example. Twenty years of
uncontrolled economic development have created serious, chronic
air and water pollution. This has increased health problems and
resulted in annual losses to farmers of crops worth billions of
65
policies would create huge barriers to economic progress, at a risk
to political stability.
dollars. So uncontrolled growth is not only bad for the
environment, it is also makes no economic sense.
Rapid industrialisation does not have to put more pressure on the
environment. Scientific advances have made industries much less
polluting. And developing countries can learn from the
environmental mistakes of the developed world’s industrial
revolution, and from more recent disasters in communist countries
such as China and the USSR. For example, efficient new
steelworks use much less water, raw materials and power, while
producing much less pollution than traditional factories. And
nuclear generating plants can provide more energy than coal while
contributing far less to global warming. We are also exploring
alternative, renewable types of energy such as solar, wind and
hydro-power.
Scientific progress has made people too confident in their abilities
to control their environment. In just half a century the world’s
nuclear industry has had at least three serious accidents:
Windscale (UK, 1957), Three Mile Island (USA, 1979), and
Chernobyl (USSR, 1986). In addition, the nuclear power industry
still cannot store its waste safely. Hydro-power sounds great but
damming rivers is itself damaging to the environment. It also
forces huge numbers of people off their land – as in China’s 3
Gorges project.
It is hypocritical (two-faced and unfair) for rich developed countries
to demand that poorer nations make conservation their priority.
After all, they became rich in the first place by destroying their
environment in the industrial revolution. Now that they have cut
down their own trees, polluted their water sources and poured
billions of tons of carbon into the air, they are in no position to tell
others to behave differently. In any case, as countries become
richer they become more concerned about the environment, and
can afford to do something about it. For developing countries
conservation can therefore wait until they are richer.
Looking after our fragile world has to be a partnership. Climate
change will affect the whole planet, not just the developed world.
In fact it is likely to have particularly terrible effects on developing
countries as sea levels rise, deserts advance, and natural
disasters become more common. It is no use Europe trying to cut
its emissions into the atmosphere if unchecked growth in China
and India leads to much greater overall pollution. Instead,
developed countries need to transfer greener technologies to the
developing world, paying for environmental protection and making
sustainability a condition for aid.
The “Green Revolution” has doubled the size of grain harvests.
Thus, cutting down more forests to provide more space for crops is
no longer necessary. We now have the knowledge to feed the
world’s increasing population without harming the environment.
Genetically modified crops can also benefit the developing world
by requiring much less water, fertiliser or pesticide use while giving
better yields. This is another example of economic development
leading to environmental benefits.
The Green Revolution is threatening the biodiversity of the Third
World by replacing native seeds with hybrids. We do not know
what the long-term environmental or economic consequences will
be. We do know that in the short run, such hybrid crops can cause
environmental problems by crowding out native plants and the
wildlife which relies on them. The farmer growing hybrid crops
must buy costly new seed every year because it cannot be saved
to plant the following year’s crops. Farmers using hybrid seeds in
what was the richest part of India went bankrupt. As a result, fertile
lands lay idle and unploughed, resulting in droughts and
desertification.
Motions
This House believes development trumps the environment
This House believes that going green can wait until we can afford it
This House believes that economic development should always take priority over environmental concerns in both the First and
Third Worlds
That economic growth, even at the expense of some environmental damage, is justified by the need to feed the rising world
population
This House believes “to get rich is glorious”
66
Electoral College (US), Abolition of
Summary: Should the US adopt a different method of electing its President?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Niall Kennedy ( United Kingdom )
Niall Kennedy won the World Schools Debating Championships in 1999 for Scotland, and has since been a semi-finalist at the World
Universities Debating Championships. He is studying History and French Literature at Oxford.
Created: Saturday, May 17, 2003
Last Modified: Saturday, May 17, 2003
Context
The Electoral College is the name given to the process by which the American President is elected. Rather than a nationwide
tally of votes being made, votes are counted state by state. States are allotted a certain number of ‘electors’ according to the
size of their population. The candidate who wins the majority of votes in a particular state wins all the electors for that state with
the candidate who has won over the most electors becoming President. This leads to the possibility of a situation arising where
one candidate narrowly wins enough states to have a majority of the electoral college, while his opponent wins a majority of
actual votes nationwide; this has occurred three times in US history. Recently, this system caused controversy in the 2000 US
election, as Al Gore won a majority of votes nationwide, yet his opponent, George W. Bush, won the election.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The electoral college is an undemocratic system. In any proper
democracy, the winner of any election should be the person with
the most votes. The electoral college can permit an alternate
result.
America is not a centralised state but a federation of states. The
current system provides for the protection of the rights of all 50
states, because it forces candidates to appeal to the voters in all
parts of America. A nationwide vote tally could provide an
incentive for a candidate to focus only on the most populous areas
of the country, such as California, New York, or Texas, and ignore
other areas such as Alaska, Rhode Island, or Maine. The electoral
college is a natural consequence of the devolved, state-based
government that Americans have always supported.
The electoral college provides a disincentive for candidates to
focus on appealing to all parts of society. Parties know that certain
states will always vote one way eg Alaska always votes
Republican, Massachusetts usually votes Democrat. Both parties
generally spend less resources on campaigning in these ‘safe’
states, and pay more attention to the needs of electors in ‘swing’
states, such as Michigan and Florida, which determine the
outcome of elections. This can mean that elections become less
competitive as resources are concentrated on a smaller
geographical area and smaller section of society.
All parties tend to focus campaigning on the undecided portion of
the electorate, this occurs in every democracy and is not a direct
consequence of the electoral college system. As America is a
large, diverse country, any system which encourages and rewards
parties who appeal to a broad geographical range of areas is more
likely to lead to a government which is in tune with the needs and
values of most of society, as opposed to the UK, where very often
the concerns of London and South-east England dominate
parliament. The current system has encouraged administrations to
ensure that representatives from many different states are
included in the government. In any case, the shift of southern
voters from the Democratic to the Republican Party in the past
thirty years, and the movement of Californians in the opposite
direction, shows that the system is not static and that states
cannot be taken for granted.
The electoral college traditionally favours the Republican party.
Rural voters are more likely to vote Republican, while urban
voters, obviously all grouped together in a small area are more
likely to vote Democrat. Therefore, the Democrats can lay claim to
fewer ‘safe’ states. This has meant that poor, inner-city electors
are disproportionally disadvantaged.
The electoral college awards states a different number of electors
based on population, so states containing large cities will have
more votes.
The electoral college makes it more difficult for third parties to
grow. As a candidate only becomes important if he can amass
enough votes in a particular state to threaten to win it, attention is
only focused on those parties which have a big enough
organisation to become truly competitive in a given state. This
punishes parties like the Green Party, who have a less well-funded
The electoral college, together with the first-past-the-post system,
favours a two-party system. This is good for the country. A
multiplicity of parties would, like in Italy or The Netherlands, lead to
unstable coalitions and a weak government. America’s important
international role makes it imperative that this not happen.
67
party organisation, and whose support is thinly spread across the
whole country. For this reason, there is no third party in America
comparable to the Liberal Democrats in Britain.
With great movements of people from state to state every year, it
is difficult to readjust the electoral vote totals to keep up with the
changes in population distribution. This can lead to an even more
inaccurate outcome, a problem which is exacerbated by the fact
that allocating vote totals is a highly politicised process.
Redistributing seats, vote totals, and so on is a problem which
occurs in any democracy, and is usually adequately carried out by
impartial bodies. The system could be improved by specific
reforms, but this is not an argument for abolishing the electoral
college.
George Bush’s disputed victory in 2000 was unhealthy for
democracy and for the authority of the President, since many
people said that he had no right to govern, regardless of what the
outcome of the electoral college was. If a President cannot
command the respect and acceptance of his country, he will be a
very ineffective leader.
Americans support the electoral college system because they see
it as a guarantor of their rights. Most Americans were prepared to
accept George Bush as President following the Supreme Court’s
decision on the Florida recount issue. His high levels of support
post-September 11th shows that the country was prepared to rally
around him as a legitimate commander-in-chief in a crisis
Motions
This House would abolish the US electoral college
This House believes in one man, one vote
This House believes that George W. Bush has no right to be President
68
Energy Crisis: Nuclear vs Renewable Sources
Summary: Is nuclear power the best way to meet the ever-increasing energy needs of the
planet, or do alternative energy sources provide a viable alternative?
print this page
Discuss topic
Context
In recent years this has been a hugely contentious debate. There is much public fear about nuclear energy, fuelled by
accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. It is, however, an issue which is becoming more important as we
approach a time when fossil fuel resources may run out, making it necessary to find other power sources. An interesting
recent development in Europe was the German government's announcement in June 2000 that they will be closing down their
19 nuclear power stations by 2020. This debate therefore covers not just nuclear energy but also the alternatives of fossil fuels
and renewable sources. A brief summary of the different energy production methods currently available is listed below.
Nuclear - Nuclear fission is the splitting of large atoms into smaller atoms with the release of energy stored in the original
nucleus. It produces no greenhouse gases or other such pollutants but does produce radioactive waste that must be stored
safely for thousands of years. There is also the risk of a nuclear explosion (due to meltdown) if the reaction gets out of control.
(This is different from nuclear fusion a process by which small atoms are joined to create larger atoms, releasing energy in the
process. This technology is currently some years off.)
Fossil Fuels - Fossil fuels are the remains of prehistoric organisms now in the form of coal, oil and gas. Burning them
releases energy as well as greenhouse gases and acid rain-producing gases.
Alternative Sources - Hydroelectric power, a renewable energy source, which converts water falling through dams into
electric power.
Geothermal energy is another renewable energy source, converting heat in rocks into power.
Wind farms consist of windmill-like structures generating power from the wind; another renewable source.
Solar panels convert solar energy into electricity renewably. Electricity can also be generated renewably from the energy
stored in waves.
The definition for such a debate might be that governments should invest more strongly in nuclear energy now and support it
as the energy source for the future. This is a debate with, to some extent, two strands of opposition. The arguments put
forward by the fossil fuels lobby are distinctly different from those put forward by environmental groups. Both have been
included below but note that some may be contradictory!
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The majority of the world's electricity is currently produced via fossil fuels.
These are a finite resource and will run out shortly. Current (2005) high oil
prices reflect both rapidly rising demand for energy across the globe, and
the limited supply of fossil fuels to meet this need. Although estimates are
very variable as to exactly how long fossil fuels will last it is possible that oil
will be exhausted within 50 years and coal within 25 years. It is therefore a
necessity to find a new source of energy; we must therefore start to convert
to nuclear energy now (so there is not a major crisis when fossil fuels do
run out) and invest in nuclear energy for the future.
It is a curious fact that the number of further years that fossil fuel resources
will last has remained unchanged for the last few decades! It is virtually
impossible to predict how long these resources will last because there are
undiscovered resources and because the rate of use cannot be predicted
accurately. There are still vast unexploited resources in Canada and
Siberia (to name but two). In addition some estimates predict that the
lifetime of natural gas is about 350 years! There is no need at the moment
to search for a new power source. That money would be better spent on
creating technology to clean the output from power stations. We can
explore other sources of energy when it becomes necessary in the future.
When we do so it will be from a much more advanced basis making
development easier.
In many senses nuclear energy is clean. It does not produce gaseous
emissions such as greenhouse gases, which are harmful either to the
population or to the environment. It is true that it does produce radioactive
waste. Since this is in solid form it can be dealt with much more easily and
stored away from centres of population. The damage caused to the
environment and populations due to the burning of fossil fuels is far in
excess of the damage done to the environment due to the nuclear industry
including even the Chernobyl catastrophe. In this sense nuclear energy is
very much preferable to the burning of fossil fuels at the moment.
Furthermore, as new technology becomes available to allow the more
efficient use of nuclear fuel, less nuclear waste will be produced. (A recent
example is the development of the fast breeder reactor, which uses fuel
much more efficiently.) However, this trend will only continue with
investment. Judging from the pace of development of nuclear technology
since its inception it is fair to say that with more investment nuclear energy
will become an even more desirable source of energy with many of its
current drawbacks curtailed. The high price of oil at present looks set to
continue, and makes the economic case for investment in nuclear power
even more attractive.
Even apart from the safety issues, there are a number of problems with
nuclear power. Firstly, it is expensive and relatively inefficient. The cost of
building reactors is enormous and the price of subsequently
decommissioning them also huge. Without massive government subsidy
the nuclear industry cannot make money and building new plants is
uneconomic compared to other methods of power generation.
Then there is also the problem of waste. Nuclear waste can remain
radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away
from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This
is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of
waste discarded even a few decades ago. Governments have frequently
resorted to dumping waste into the sea; an action which it has been shown
has lead to an increase in radioactivity along many coastlines.
It is unfortunately the case that the nuclear industry has had bad reputation
for safety. Not all of this reputation has been deserved. The overwhelming
majority of nuclear reactors have functioned safely and effectively for their
The nuclear industry has a shameful safety record. We can pick out a
number of separate problems. There is always the risk of a meltdown or
explosion. At Three Mile Island we were minutes away from the former and
69
entire lifetimes. The two major nuclear accidents, at Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl, were both in old style reactors, made worse in the latter case
by poor Soviet safety standards. In this debate, the reactors the proposition
are advocating are new reactors built to the highest safety standards (such
as those under construction in Finland at present). Such reactors have a
perfect safety record. Perhaps the best guarantee of safety standards in
the nuclear industry is the increasing transparency with which the industry
is presenting itself. Many of the problems in its early days were caused by
excessive control due to the origin of nuclear energy from military
applications. As the gap between the two separates so the nuclear industry
becomes more accountable.
at Chernobyl the unthinkable actually happened. The fall out from
Chernobyl can still be detected in our atmospheres. The effects on the
local people and the environment were devastating. It is perfectly true that
modern nuclear reactors are safer but they are not perfectly safe. There is
always that chance of a disaster and if we build more reactors then sooner
or later there will be another Chernobyl. It is quite simply not worth the risk.
The dumping of nuclear waste, as explained above, also presents a host of
problems. There have also been a number of 'minor' accidents in nuclear
power stations recently. Reprocessed fuel from the United Kingdom was
recently rejected from Japan after it emerged that test results had been
fabricated. The Nuclear Inspectorate in the UK has also been very critical
of safety standards within the industry. We have been told by the industry
that these are problems are being ironed out and that they will not happen
again. Time and time again, however, these same problems reoccur and
we have to conclude that the industry is not to be trusted. It is too
dominated by the profit motive to really care about safety and too shrouded
in secrecy to be accountable. In addition, the nuclear industry has had a
terrible cost on the lives on those living around power plants. It cannot be a
coincidence that the rate of occurrence of certain types of cancer, such as
leukaemia, is much higher in the population around nuclear plants.
It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form
of energy to invest. For the reasons explained above (diminishing supply,
environmental damage) we can rule fossil fuels out immediately. We also
see enormous problems with every form of alternative energy. The most
efficient source of renewable energy has been hydroelectric power.
However, this usually creates more problems than it solves. Building a
large dam necessarily floods an enormous region behind the dam which in
turn can displace tens of thousands of people. There are also enormous
ecological costs to dam building. A classical example is the Aswan dam in
Egypt along the Nile. Not only did many thousands lose their homes but
the yearly inundation of the Nile, which fertilised the surrounding land for
thousands of year, was also stopped. The subsequent silting up of the river
destroyed much wildlife. A similar story of ecological destruction and
human homelessness surrounded the more recent Three Gorges dam
project in China.
Solar energy has never lived up to expectations since it is hugely
inefficient. A solar panel the size of Europe would be needed to power a
city the size of London! Wind energy is only marginally better with an
unsightly wind farm the size of Texas needed to provide the energy for
Texas alone. The worst performers of all have been geothermal and tidal
energy which have been hopelessly inefficient because no rocks have
been found that are hot enough and no waves have been found that are
strong enough! The great irony is that not only are most renewable sources
inefficient but many are also ecologically unsound! The opposition to the
building wind farms in certain areas has been just as strong as the
opposition to nuclear power because wind farms destroy the scenery,
being so unsightly and large, and may also be bad for wildlife.
The proposition lists a number of problems with alternative energy. It is
perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the
energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all
these methods could be made efficient enough to serve mankind. It is also
true that initiation of alternative energy schemes, such as the Aswan dam,
have caused problems. But the opposition are not advocating a blanket
solution to every problem. Many dam projects, for example, could have
been replaced by solar power had the technology been available, without
the downside to the dams. In addition, there is almost always one
renewable resource that a given country can exploit; tides for islands, the
sun for equatorial countries, hot rocks for volcanic regions etc. and so any
given country can in principle become self-sufficient with renewable
energy. The global distribution of uranium is hugely uneven (much more so
than fossil fuels) and the use of nuclear power therefore gives countries
with uranium deposits disproportionate economic power. It is far from
inconceivable that uranium could be subject to the same kind of monopoly
that the OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) places on
oil. Indeed, if the whole world went over to nuclear power, supplies of
usable uranium ore would run out within a few short decades. This
prevents countries from achieving self-sufficiency in energy production.
The nuclear industry is a major employer. It creates numerous jobs at the
moment and with investment will create even more.
It is entirely fatuous to suggest that nuclear power is the only employment
provider. There will always be roughly the same number of jobs in energy
production. If spending on the nuclear industry were redirected to
renewable energy then jobs would simply move from one to the other.
Spreading the peaceful use of nuclear power brings us important security
benefits. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty the declared nuclear weapons
states (the USA, UK, Russia, France and China) have promised to assist
other countries in gaining access to civilian nuclear power providing that
they in turn do not seek nuclear weapons. This has only happened to a
limited extent but as an increasing number of countries seek to use nuclear
material for military purposes, it is in the interests of the declared nuclear
weapons states to uphold their side of the bargain more vigorously, so that
others can be held to theirs.
This security calculation is strengthened by events since the end of the
Cold War. Many former Soviet nuclear scientists lost their jobs and may be
tempted to sell their skills to the highest foreign bidder, including to rogue
states seeking nuclear weapons. It is in our interest to promote peaceful
use of nuclear technologies, encouraging these scientists to find
employment in an industry which is both peaceful and useful.
Encouraging the further adoption of nuclear power is against our security
interests. The scientific understanding and technology needed to generate
nuclear power is the same as that needed to create nuclear weapons, and
it is all too easy for rogue states to pretend they are only interested in
peaceful uses while secretly pursuing military applications. This is the route
India and Israel have followed, and that Iran may well be following at
present.
Even if the intentions of foreign governments are good, widespread nuclear
power plants are at risk of terrorism. This applies just as much in the USA
or other western countries as it does in the developing world. If a
September 11-style flying bomb was flown into a nuclear power plant, the
potential disaster would be catastrophic. And the more nuclear material is
transported around the world, the easier it will be for terrorists to get hold of
some in order to make their own nuclear weapons. An atomic bomb might
one day be within the reach of some international terrorist groups, but even
today a simple "dirty bomb" (in which highly-radioactive materials is blasted
over an urban area using conventional explosives) could be deadly to
many thousands of people.
Motions
70
Estate Tax
Summary: Should there be a tax on property at the time of death?
print this page
Discuss topic
Context
Often called a “death tax” by its opponents, an estate tax is a tax on a person’s property at the time of death before it is
transferred to anyone else. An estate tax is different from an inheritance tax, which is a tax on property one receives from the
estate of someone who died. The U.S. government has an estate tax but does not impose inheritance taxes, although many
states do. One purpose of an estate tax is to encourage the transfer of property through inheritance or charitable giving.
Although such taxes have been around for a long time, the first estate tax was enacted in the U.S. in 1797 to raise money for
the navy. This tax was repealed in 1802. An estate tax was enacted once again in 1862 to help fund the Civil War. It was
repealed in 1870. A third estate tax was passed in 1898 to pay for the Spanish-Amercan War. It was repealed following the war
in 1902. The current estate tax was first formulated in 1916 to help raise money to pay for World War I. It was reformulated by
the Tax Reform Act of 1976. It is currently part of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC, subtitle B).
In addition to the estate tax, the Tax Reform Act includes two features designed to close tax loopholes: the Gift Tax and the
Generation Skipping Tax (GST). The Gift Tax covers all taxable gifts given to others during the life-time of the deceased. The
GST tries to capture funds that skip a generation, such as a trust set up by a grandparent for a grandchild.
The 1976 Tax Reform act was further amended by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The law provided for a $625,000
exemption, after which a tax rate of 37% was levied. Above $3 million, the tax rate was 55%. This exemption will gradually
increase each year until it reaches $1 million in 2006. In addition to this exemption, the law allows unlimited deduction for
money given to a spouse, credit for state estate taxes, money given to charitable organizations, certain family businesses, and
land set aside for conservation.
In 2001, President Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act,” which, in addition to reducing taxes
overall, would repeal the estate tax entirely on January 1 2010. Prior to this repeal, tax rates will drop to 45%, and the
exemption would increase to $3.5 million. However, the law includes a “sunset clause” that would revoke the repeal of the
estate tax on December 31, 2010 unless the repeal is extended by law. This would mean that over a period of just over a year
(late 2009 to early 2011) estate tax rates would fall from 45% to zero, before shooting back up to 2002 levels again, while
exemption levels would go from $3.5 million back down to $625,000 over the same period.
Because of the uncertainties over the future of the estate tax, it remains a live and very important political issue in the USA.
Everyone expects Congress to legislate again to avoid chaos in the tax system, but the outlines of a deal remain vague (an
attempt failed in June 2006) and may depend on the outcomes of the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections. The
arguments which follow focus on the US debate but are also applicable to other countries; the issue has also been important in
UK politics in recent months, for example.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Although historically developed to finance wars, the estate tax is
an important continuing source of revenue for the U.S. budget. If
its repeal was made permanent from 2010, then more than $1
trillion would be lost to the federal government over ten years. And
remember that when the 2001 Act for reducing and eventually
repealing the estate tax was passed, the US federal budget was in
surplus and government spending was under control. Since then a
range of Republican tax cuts and spendthrift expenditure have
sent the budget into heavy deficit, while the ongoing costs of wars
in Iraq and Afganistan continue to be heavy. Given that the aging
of the baby boomer generation poses huge costs for the USA in
terms of health care, social security benefits, and a worsening
dependency ratio, abolishing the estate tax is a luxury America
cannot afford.
Historically, estate taxes have only been enacted to raise money in
times of war. These taxes were repealed soon after the war. The
estate tax should have been repealed following the end of WWI.
And if the objection is to wasteful government expenditure, then
the only way to cut back the size of government is to reduce the
amount it has to spend. Only by restricting the tax take can
politicians be forced to cut unnecessary or wasteful programs. The
estate tax is a good choice of revenue to cut, as it is not only unfair
and economically-distorting, it is also associated with high
compliance costs, requiring an expensive government
bureaucracy and a whole death-tax planning industry to operate it.
The estate tax is a progressive tax that promotes economic
equality by taxing the rich more than the poor. It acknowledges
that luck, circumstance, and family contribute to wealth along with
hard work, creativity, and sacrifice. Only about 2% of Americans,
the very wealthiest, actually pay estate taxes because there is a
high initial exemption level (rising to $3.5 million in 2009) below
which nothing is paid. This means that even the very rich pay only
a small percentage of the value of their entire estate - if you died in
2009 leaving an estate worth $5 million, only the $1.5 million
above the threshold would actually pay any estate tax.
The estate tax is unfair, placing a disproportionate share of the tax
burden on a few. It fails to achieve the goals of economic equality
suggested by its supporters. Instead it is a collectivist attempt at
redistributing wealth in pursuit of a socialist agenda of big
government and a society in which everyone is equally poor and
no one is allowed to benefit from their own enterprise and hard
work. This is both immoral and un-American. After all, although
only a few are wealthy enough now to pay estate taxes, many
more people aspire to that level of wealth and resent the attempts
of the state to stop them achieving it.
71
Double taxation can occur at several points across the whole tax
system, where income, sales, capital gains and property taxes
overlap, so it is certainly not a unique flaw of the estate tax. In fact
the estate tax raises little money from double taxation as most of
the wealth on which it is levied has not previously been taxed at
all. Instead it is the only way in which some sorts of unearned
income (e.g. the rise in value of property or an artwork) can be
taxed at all.
The death tax is also double taxation, raiding again money that
has already been taxed once when it was first earned. This is
unfair in principle as well as discriminatory – why should some
people be hit twice by the federal revenue service when others are
hit only once? We don’t allow unfair treatment on grounds of
gender, race or sexuality; why should we accept discrimation
against those who are a little better-off than the average?
The estate tax prevents the concentration of wealth in the hands of
a few, avoiding a plutocracy (government by a wealthy ruling
class). It allows the pursuit of the American dream by limiting the
power of “old money.” Repealing the estate tax would also widen
the gap between the poor and the wealthy, and could fuel the kind
of class envy that would really threaten the property-owning
American capitalism that so favours the wealthy. In any case, do
we really want to create a class of idle rich who have done nothing
themselves to create wealth, but merely inherited it? Would it even
be good for the inheritors if this happened? Much better for the
government to use some of these windfalls to help give every
American child a decent chance in life, for example through better
funding for education, health, etc.
As opposed to a “sin” tax, like the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol,
the estate tax is a “virtue” tax. The estate tax runs counter to the
law of the harvest, “you reap what you sow.” Why shouldn’t you be
able to die safe in the knowledge that you have disposed of your
wealth and property as you see fit, not as the government
demands? You may feel your heirs would be better off without a
huge windfall inheritance – fine, you can choose not to leave them
so much in your will. But what right does the government have to
make that decision for you? Instead, this tax taxes the American
dream. The estate tax hampers economic growth by discouraging
savings and investment in favor of consumption to reduce the size
of the estate. To reduce the tax burden, people will either be less
productive or consume more.
There are already allowances for family farms and businesses. In
fact, now that exemptions levels have risen, almost none of these
family enterprises are likely to be hit by the estate tax. Studies
have found that actual examples of businesses or farms which had
to be sold to meet the estate tax are either rare or non-existent.
Indeed, most of the family businesses that were big enough to
qualify for the estate tax turned out to have enough liquid assets
(cash, shares, bonds, etc.) to cover its cost.
The death tax hurts family farms and family-owned businesses,
often leading to their dissolution. This is because the tax is levied
on the value of the farm estate, or the business as a whole, but
these are not liquid assets (quickly covertible into cash). In order to
pay the Treasury the death tax sum demanded, the land has to be
broken up and much of it sold, or the business has to be sold
(often below its true market value as it is a forced sale) to generate
cash.
Any tax can be seen as creating disincentives to hard work but the
estate tax is less distorting than many other taxes, for example the
income tax. This is because the estate tax is not levied on the
amount that is earned, but only on the sum that is being given
away to non-charitable causes. Because no one knows exactly
when they will die, people will continue to work hard in order to
create as much wealth for themselves as possible in their lifetime.
A much greater disincentive to wealth creation is likely to come if
the estate tax is repealed, as the deficit in the federal budget is
likely be be made up by raising other taxes that have much worse
impacts.
The death tax is not only unfair, it also it provides disincentives for
hard work, savings, and charitable giving. The prospect of not
being able to hand over your lifetime’s work intact to your heirs
creates a huge disincentive to work hard building up a family farm
or business, and so is bad for the economy as a whole. And even
if higher exemptions mean few farms or businesses are subject to
the death tax today, who can predict how future values will rise?
Many businessmen will avoid expanding their company in order to
keep below the exemption threshold – and that means new jobs
won’t be created and the government won’t benefit from increased
corporate and income tax payments. Better to repeal the whole
tax.
The estate tax creates an incentive to leave money to charitable
causes, as any sum left to a charity is exempt from the tax
calculations. This allows rich individuals to exercise choices as to
where their fortune goes after their death, rather than leaving it to
the federal government to decide, but the whole of society still
benefits. In this way the estate tax underpins the whole tradition of
American philanthropy which does so much to enrich social,
educational, cultural and environmental areas of national life.
The death tax distorts estate planning, as rich individuals seek to
use accountants, lawyers and specialist consultants to avoid
paying money unnecessarily to the federal government. This is not
only expensive, it also results in productive assets (e.g.
businesses) being run-down or liquidated so that money can be
put into trusts, insurance policies, tax free investments, etc. in the
hope of reducing liabilities. The result of this is that financial affairs
become much more complicated and generally less productive in
terms of future income growth.
Motions
This House would bring back the estate tax
"Nothing is certain but death and taxes."
This House believes that the estate tax is fair
That Congress should reestablish the estate tax on a permanent basis
This House believes inheritance taxes are important to a fair society
72
Extraordinary Rendition
Summary: Is the practice of extraordinary rendition a useful and necessary policy in the fight
against terrorism?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Daniël Schut ( Netherlands )
Daniël Schut was both a Worlds and Euros ESL finalist in 2006 and won the Oxford IV ESL final in 2005. He lives in Amsterdam.
Created: Saturday, November 10, 2007
Last Modified:
Context
“Extraordinary rendition” is the transferring of a person from one jurisdiction to another, without any form of judicial or
administrative process (“rendition” in this case means giving something over to someone else). This makes it different from
other rendition-methods, like extradition, which is treaty-based, or deportation, which is based on the expelling country’s
domestic judicial processes. Other terms used for “extraordinary rendition” are “rendition” (the way Amnesty International refers
to it), or “irregular rendition”.
The word usually crops up these days in connection to the U.S. Government’s “war on terrorism”. Ever since President Bill
Clinton issued a directive in 1995, the C.I.A. had the possibility of using extra-ordinary rendition in their fight against terrorism.
Their use of it has risen significantly after the 9/11-attacks.
The persons who are “rendered” might be captured outside the U.S.A (by the C.I.A. or any other body, e.g. in Afghanistan) and
then, without legal process, transferred to America. They also might be captured on foreign soil and then transferred to any
other country by the U.S.A. It is the latter case which has attracted the most criticism: according to the critics, the U.S. uses this
specific form of extraordinary rendition to torture suspects of terrorism, without having to do the torturing themselves. That’s
why extraordinary rendition is sometimes also referred to as “torture flights”. It is on these alleged “torture flights” that this
discussion focuses.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The U.S. Government uses “extraordinary rendition” as “torture by
proxy”. They deliver suspects of terrorism to countries which are
known to practice torture, and expect certain results from those
countries, in the form of information extracted. They are thereby
violating the UN Convention against Torture (CAT), which forbids
countries to render persons to states which practice torture, and
also U.S. domestic law, which also prohibits this.
The U.S. Government does not render persons to countries with
the purpose of having them tortured, as reaffirmed by U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2006. The U.S.
Government may render suspects of terrorism for “harsh
interrogation”, but harsh interrogation is legal both under CAT and
domestic law, which determines torture as “inducing severe pain”.
In any case, the main reasons for rendering a terrorist suspect to
another country for questioning have more to do with that state’s
role in the investigation than with particular interrogation
techniques practiced there. The destination state may be better
placed to interrogate the suspect in his own language, and may
have detailed background information to inform the questioning
process that the USA lacks. The suspect may also be accused of
plotting atrocities in the state to which he has been rendered by
the USA, so they have a legitimate interest in interrogating him
first.
Finally, when ratifying the Convention Against Torture in 1994, the
U.S.A. made the reservation that it can render persons to
countries when they believe that it is more likely then not that a
person won’t be tortured – so, under the U.S. interpretation of
CAT, the U.S.A. can render persons to countries that practice
torture, as long as the U.S.A has reason to believe that it will not
torture in this specific case.
How does the U.S. Government know the difference between
“harsh interrogation” and “torture”, and on what grounds does it
base it’s belief that it is “more likely then not” that torture won’t take
place? The work of the C.I.A., by its nature, is secretive. So, even
if the C.I.A. does research and obtains agreements, the general
public can never check whether these agreements hold any water.
Since the C.I.A. is being held responsible to fight terrorism, they
The C.I.A. has a policy in practice where it obtains “diplomatic
assurance” that torture will not be used. Under customary
international law, the U.S.A. is obliged to act “in good faith”. So,
when America is gives diplomatic assurance by another
government, it would be a diplomatic blunder not to trust that
guarantee. Also, imagine the consequence if it were one day
proved that the C.I.A. rendered a person, knowing they would be
73
might even have an incentive to bend the rules a bit – as long as
they can later show results to the public.
tortured: not only would the persons involved lose their jobs, but
also the reputation of the C.I.A. would be severely damaged.
That’s why the C.I.A. has an incentive to make sure that these
assurances are believable.
What if the C.I.A. makes mistakes? Because the victims are held
in detention without recourse to any kind of judge, they have no
possible way of getting out. Even worse, when someone might be
released out of this type of detention, the victim has no way of
seeking redress since the operation was covert. An example of
this is the case of Khalid El-Masri, a German of Lebanese descent,
who suddenly disappeared in 2003. After he resurfaced in Albania
in 2004, he claimed he was “kidnapped” by the C.I.A. and tortured
under the policy of “extraordinary rendition”, until the C.I.A.
realized their mistake and released him, without excuse, and
without any compensation of any kind. Since there is no official
record, his attempts to make a case against the C.I.A. has failed.
Worse still, a U.S.-judge dismissed his case, under the argument
that pursuing the case would be a severe threat to national
security
To ensure that the C.I.A. does not make any mistakes, it has
started researching so-called “erroneous renditions”. In the case of
Khalid El-Masri, the C.I.A. has never admitted kidnapping him. The
C.I.A. does suspect, and is trying to catch a German-based
terrorist with the name Khalid Al-Masri, and it might be possible
that this person is using the similarity in names to create a
backlash against the C.I.A. Regardless of the merits of this
particular case, it is clearly in the interests of America’s enemies to
blacken its name and undermine its security forces through
accusations of torture. So murky and unsubstantiated stories
about rendition should not be believed uncritically.
For every example of an “effective” rendition, one has to ask: is it
worth it? Because for every terrorist successfully caught and
convicted after rendition, there may be many more mistakes. For
every Ramzi Youssefs, there might be dozens of Khalid El-Masris,
Abu Omars, Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmads, Muhammad
Bashmilas, and many more. On top of that: consider the loss of
reputation that the practice of extraordinary rendition has caused
the U.S.A. to suffer amongst it chief allies. In 2007 the E.U.
adopted a report condemning this particular U.S. policy, and this
was followed by a massive public outcry. Such American tactics
simply play into the hands of terrorists who seek to stir hatred
against America and divide it from its allies. And finally: does the
pretext of a terrorist threat really justify taking away a person’s
basic human right to due process? Especially as many experts
believe that torture is an ineffective method of acquiring reliable
intelligence in any case.
What people should not forget is that extraordinary renditions save
lives. It is used to bring people who are known or believed to be
terrorists, to justice. These suspects are often stateless or hide in
places where ordinary processes of law do not work –
extraordinary rendition is then the only possible way of tracking
them down, getting the necessary information from them, and
bringing them to justice. They carry information which could save
thousands of lives – the U.S.A. would be foolish not to try and get
that out of them. An example of this is Ramzi Youssef, who
masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and
plotted to blow up airlines over the Pacific Ocean. After a rendition
to the U.S.A., he was convicted and now serves a life-sentence.
Without rendition, who knows how many people he would have
killed?
The people targeted by extraordinary rendition are citizens, not
combatants, and more importantly, human beings. If there is a
reasonable suspicion of terrorism against these people, the U.S.A.
should follow the normal route of asking the country where the
suspect is living for to extradite him. The suspect can then be tried
for a normal U.S. criminal court, where the public eye will ensure
his or her right to due process. But more importantly, even if you
view this person as a “combatant”, then still he or she has the
fundamental human right to due process. The U.S. should not
itself violate the fundamental democratic rights it proclaims to
defend in this war against terror.
What people also should not forget, is that the people the U.S.A.
targets for extraordinary renditions should be considered “unlawful
combatants” in the war against terror. This term is important,
because it identifies the U.S. Government as partaking in a war,
and terrorists as combatants in that war. The people targeted for
extraordinary rendition are “unlawful combatants” since their aim is
to kill and terrorize U.S. civilians, not U.S. soldiers. Under
international law, that is a very severe warcrime, requiring very
severe measures on the side of the U.S.A. Moreover, since the
U.S. is at war with terrorism, it has the obligation to protect its
citizens first – and the obligation to dirty its hands in the process.
Mistakes will be made, we can be sure of that. But in a time of war,
the United States cannot afford to risk the lives of its own citizens.
Motions
That we should end the use of extraordinary rendition
This House would end rendition flights
This House believes the current US policy of using extraordinary rendition cannot be justified
This House would end torture flights
We should deny the use of our airspace and facilities to extraordinary rendition flights
74
Free Trade: Good or Bad?
Summary: Will free trade benefit third world countries? Does it harm developed countries?
Could it serve a universal good? Is free trade a realistic goal?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Created: Tuesday, April 02, 2002
Last Modified: Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Context
Free Trade’s virtues have been praised for three hundred years. By allowing everyone equal access to all markets, the theory
goes, you guarantee the most efficient allocation of resources and the cheapest prices for consumers. Can such a theory work
in practice? Specifically, could it help the least developed countries of the world provide themselves with a better quality of life?
Western rhetoric says it can, and points to international institutions such as the World Trade Organisation to promote free trade
of goods, and the World Bank to provide credit for development projects. However, so long as the West continues to protect its
own agriculture and industries from the international market – either through the European Union’s Common Agricultural
Policy, or the United States of America’s bale out of its steel industries – its position is arguably hypocritical.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Being interlocked through trading relationships decreases the
likelihood of war. If you are engaged in a mutually beneficial
relationship with other countries then there is no incentive to
jeopardise this relationship through aggression. This promotes
peace, which is a universal good.
Free trade does not promote the universal good of peace. Trading
countries have gone to war against each other. If there is anything
in that argument at all it holds good for any good natured trading
relationship, not necessarily just a tariff free one.
Maximum global efficiency, and the cheapest prices, can only be
maintained by a tariff free international economy. The more
efficiently allocated are the world’s resources the less waste there
is and the more affordable goods will become for consumers.
International economics isn’t as simple as increasing the efficiency
of global resource allocation above all else. Tariff revenue is a
perfectly legitimate and useful source of government income.
Second, without tariffs governments cannot protect the job security
of their citizens. US steel companies might not be able to provide
steel as cheaply as other companies, but the US has a clear
interest in protecting its own jobs.
Free trade might lead to domestic redundancies, but the universal
good of efficiency out-weights this. We shouldn’t subsidise
wastefully uncompetitive industries, we should redeploy those
workers in another field. Subsidising inefficiency is not sound
economic practice. Moreover, the jobs we subsidise in the West
are more needed in the developing world, whence they would
inevitably flow if free trade was observed.
Job security is a legitimate value to want to protect – the
destruction of job security in such a competitive arena would be a
clear case against free trade serving a “universal good.” Pro-free
trade arguments which condone domestic job losses fail to factor
into the equation the very real consideration of political power; a
starkly utilitarian conception of the “universal good” may dictate
that theoretically the best thing to do is let jobs flock to the
developing world, but political action is constrained by domestic
opinion and its conception of the “good” will invariably be much
more localised.
The growth of the developing world is a universal good, because
the improvement in the quality of life of millions of people is clearly
a moral imperative. Free trade helps countries by maximising their
comparative advantage in free trade circumstances.
Defending pure, unadulterated free trade is a pointless exercise.
The ideas of the text-books are always mediated by practical
constraints. The reality of free trade is that the conditions and
criteria developing countries must meet just to join the “not quite
free trade” WTO are severe and cost the equivalent of an entire
humanitarian budget for a year. There are pressing priorities that
must be addressed first.
It is not only free trade in goods that can benefit the developing
world. Developing countries gain ready access to capital in
liberalised international financial markets. This gives them the
opportunity to finance projects for growth and development.
If capital were rational in its flows it would be beneficial. In practice
liberalised capital flow can destabilise developing countries, which
are prone to fickle speculation, based on investor whim rather than
economic fundamentals.
Motions
This House Believes Free Trade Serves A Universal Good
This House Believes Free Trade is Good for the Developing World
75
76
Gay Marriages
Summary: Should homosexual couples be allowed to marry?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Eliot Jones ( Tunisia )
Eliot Jones is a freelance communications consultant.
Created: Wednesday, November 01, 2000
Last Modified: Thursday, May 28, 2009
Context
There is now an increasingly tolerant attitude towards homosexuality in society, especially in the West. However, the treatment
of homosexuals differ from one country to another. In some nations, homosexuality is illegal whilst in others, homosexuals are
now accorded an increasing catalogue of rights that have been enjoyed by heterosexuals all along. In the UK for instance, by
virtue of a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Lustig-Prean and Beckett v UK, gays can now serve in the Armed
Forces. However, in most countries gays have yet to attain complete equality of status in the eyes of the law.
For many gay people, and for those who find gay rights troubling, the demand for a right to marry a person of the same gender
has become the key modern political issue. South Africa, Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada and Spain all allow gay marriage,
while seven other countries, including the UK, allow civil partnerships which give gay partners all the legal rights of marriage.
In the USA the gay marriage issue is now a major front in the "culture wars". In 2003 Massachusetts became the first US state
to allow gay marriage, and by mid-2009 a dozen states recognised the partnerships of gay couples in some way, although only
not all of these extend all the rights available to heterosexual married couples. Some of the first states to change the law to
allow gay marriage did so through judicial interpretation of constitutional rights, prompting a series of referendum campaigns by
the Christian Right to change state constitutions so as to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. More
recently, however, gay marriage has been allowed by votes in state legislatures (e.g. in Maine and New Hampshire). At
Federal level the 1996 Defence of Marriage Act prohibits the US government recognising gay marriages in any way, so
homosexual couples who have married under state law still do not have full equality at national level. President Obama made a
campaign promise to repeal this Act but has yet to take action towards doing so.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
One of the last bastions of discrimination against gays lies in the
fact that gay couples in many countries are at present not allowed
to marry. Such discrimination should be eradicated by permitting
gay couples to marry as a means of professing their love to each
other. The contemporary views of society ought to change with the
times.
Whilst discrimination in general should be abhorred, some forms of
discrimination can be objectively justified. Marriage has always
been viewed by society as the religious and/or civil union between
a man and a woman, and has always been regarded primarily as a
heterosexual institution.
To allow gay couples to marry would enable them to take
advantage of the various fiscal benefits accorded to married
couples in general.
Many of the fiscal benefits enjoyed by married couples (e.g. child
support payments) are not geared towards encouraging marriages
in itself, but to promote the existence of the conventional family.
Religious attitudes should be modified to reflect the changes in
society. Many religious views are outdated and no longer
justifiable (e.g. the notion that women play a subservient role to
men in the world). Conversely, gay couples should be allowed the
option to undergo civil marriages; this does not entail any religious
ceremonies and ought to be acceptable to those who object to gay
marriages on the grounds of their religious beliefs.
Marriage is historically a religious institution. As most of the major
religions in the world (e.g. Christianity, Islam and Judaism) frown
upon homosexuality itself, it would thus be unacceptable to extend
the right to marry to gay couples.
It is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for
child-raising purposes. There are many married couples in society
today who do not have children of their own. Similarly, there are an
increasing number of children who are raised by single parents
these days. In any case, gay couples may adopt children in
countries where they are permitted to do so. The advance of
medical science has also enabled gay couples to have children of
their own through surrogate mothers.
Marriage is historically regarded as the main means to foster the
creation of a conducive environment in which children can be
brought up. As gay couples are unlikely to have children, there is
no real necessity for the right to marry to be extended to them.
An alternative to marriage is the registration of the union of gay
couples. However, any proposed alternative to marriage itself
Also known as the “love contract”, the registration of the union of
gay couples has been carried out successfully in countries such as
77
would be unacceptable as “registered” gay couples would still not
enjoy completely equal rights as married heterosexual couples in
society. Moreover, this would also fuel the idea that registered gay
couples enjoy an inferior status to married heterosexual couples,
thereby giving rise to discrimination all over again.
Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and Spain. This would be an
avenue for gay couples to declare their union to the world. The
practice in countries which implement this system is to allow
registered couples to be entitled to joint insurance coverage and to
allow them to file for joint tax returns as well as inheritance and
tenants’ rights. On the other hand, such a proposal makes no
incursions into the sanctity of the institution of marriage itself,
thereby proving acceptable to the religious sections of society.
Motions
This House would allow gay couples to marry
This House would give homosexuals equal rights
This House believes that discrimination can never be justified
78
Gays in the Military
Summary: Should gays and lesbians be allowed into the armed forces?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Eliot Jones ( Tunisia )
Eliot Jones is a freelance communications consultant.
Created: Friday, November 10, 2000
Last Modified: Thursday, August 20, 2009
Context
In 1993, President Bill Clinton attempted to remove the long-standing ban on gays in the US military, resulting in a compromise
known as "Don’t ask, don’t tell" - one that achieved such currency in US society that politicians routinely campaign as "don’t
ask, don’t tell" candidates. The USA is the only country in NATO to maintain such a ban. The UK held one until January 2000,
when it was lifted after being declared unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
No-one now can realistically doubt the ability of a gay man or
woman to be as hard-working, co-ordinated, intelligent or patriotic
as one of their heterosexual counterparts. It is therefore sheer
bigotry to deny those who want to join the army (and even to suffer
its endemic homophobia) the opportunity to do so.
This is a debate about soldiers being required to defend their
country while living and rooming in close quarters with each other.
It is a fact that their effectiveness depends on mutual trust and
uncomplicated camaraderie. Sexual relations or tension between
soldiers, of whatever gender, undermines this bond.
Much of the argument against the admission of gays is based on
the problems caused by homophobia amongst heterosexuals. This
homophobia is maintained and encouraged by continued
segregation. Allowing straight soldiers to see how effective gay
soldiers can be will reduce the prejudice.
A genuine worry is that not all gay applicants for the military will be
driven by a vocational calling. The high concentration of individuals
of one gender within a military unit make it a fruitful source of
sexual partners, and will provoke a disproportionate gravitation of
gays, lesbians and bisexuals towards application. This in turn will
provoke even more homophobia among heterosexuals as these
motives become clear.
Many other professions require a bond of trust and intense living
conditions amongst employees, and gays are not barred from any
of them (emergency services, oil rig workers, etc.).
The armed forces are a special case, putting their employees into
life-or-death situations where any mental distraction could be fatal.
Men and women aren’t sent into combat together; why should
gays and heterosexuals?
If gays were accepted in the armed forces, they wouldn’t need to
remain in the closet. This therefore reduces the risk of blackmail,
which is itself fast decreasing as homosexuality is increasingly
accepted.
Closeted homosexuals run the risk of blackmail, which could have
implications for national security if they were privy to military
secrets.
Sexual identity can be reached at different times. Gays and
lesbians frequently only come to terms with their sexuality in their
late teens or early twenties, which could be long after they had
enlisted in the armed forces. A ban would therefore entail the firing
of serving staff who had joined in good faith. This is discrimination
at its worst.
The problem is not so much the concept of a ban, but the halfhearted enforcement. If a ban is well-publicised and it is
understood that the peculiar and intense living conditions of the
army, navy etc. make in inappropriate to encourage sexual interest
between staff, then gays are not being misled.
Motions
This House would not admit gays into the armed forces
This House believes that the military and sexuality do not mix
79
80
Genetically Modified Food
Summary: Are there environmental, moral, or health issues associated with genetically
modified food? Should it be banned?
print this page
Discuss topic
Context
For the last year genetically modified (GM) food has been in the news almost every day! It is an issue on which everyone has
an opinion. This is a difficult debate because a basic grasp on the scientific issues is necessary to take the debate beyond the
level of media headlines. Here is a very brief summary of some of the key concepts:Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA)DNA, the
complex molecule that genes are composed of, is frequently likened to a computer program - an information-bearing code.
One of the things that the DNA in genes codes for is the production of proteins - chemicals that regulate many of the processes
that occur inside cells. Genetic ModificationTypically, genetic modification will do one of two things: either add new sections of
DNA to the genes of a particular plant or animal to code for new proteins, or remove stretches of DNA so that a particular
protein is not produced. A section of DNA coding for one particular protein is called a gene. There are an enormous number of
changes that can be made to organisms with genetic modification. These range from the introduction of fish genes into plants
to lead to better frost resistance to modifications leading to rice plants producing more vitamin A.The 'Terminator' GeneOne of
the most controversial additions is the 'terminator' gene, a stretch of DNA that renders the seeds produced by the plant infertile;
this makes the plant unable to reproduce (and is used by seed companies to force farmers to buy new supplies of the seed
each year).Patenting Crop VarietiesIn the past varieties of crops and their seeds have not been owned by anyone. There is an
increasing trend for biotechnology companies to patent GM crop varieties and thus own the exclusive right to produce and sell
their seeds. This means that farmers in developing (and developed) countries will become dependent on these multinational
seed-producing firms who will be able to charge high prices for patented varieties.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Genetic modification is unnatural. There is a fundamental
difference between modification via selective breeding and genetic
engineering techniques. The former occurs over thousands of
years and so the genes are changed much more gradually.
Genetic modification will supposedly deliver much but we have not
had the time to assess the long-term consequences. In addition,
many of the claims made by the companies have now been shown
to be false. For example, a recent study by the Soil Association
shows that GM crops do not increase yield. Another example is a
frost-resistant cotton plant that ended up not ripening.
Genetic modification is entirely natural. The process of crop
cultivation by selective breeding, which has been performed by
farmers for thousands of years, leads to exactly the same kind of
changes in DNA as modern modification techniques do. Current
techniques are just faster and more selective. In fact, given two
strands of DNA, created from the same original strand, one by
selective breeding and one by modern modification techniques it is
impossible to tell which is which. The changes caused by selective
breeding have been just as radical as current modifications.
Wheat, for example, was cultivated, through selective breeding,
from an almost no-yield rice-type crop into the super-crop it is
today.
It is wrong to introduce the DNA of one species into the genes of
another - e.g. using fish genes in tomato plants to make them
frost-resistant. This attempt to 'play God' is short-sighted and
unnatural.
It is perfectly natural and safe to introduce genes from one
organism into another. We must remember that all DNA is made
up of the same four fundamental molecules regardless of which
organism the DNA came from originally. It is also worth noting that
DNA from all organisms is very similar. Human DNA is 99% the
same as chimpanzee DNA and about 50% the same as grass
DNA. Consequently, the addition of genes from one organism into
the DNA of another is like adding Lego bricks to one another to
create a desired final structure. Indeed such processes occur all
the time in nature in sexual reproduction.
There are two problems associated with scientifically testing the
impact of genetic modification of food. 'Peer review' (the checking
of scientific test results by fellow scientists) is often made
impossible by the unwillingness of biotechnology companies to
give up their results for review. Monsanto, for example, has never
published even one of its results. Furthermore, government
agencies are often unwilling to stop GM foodstuffs reaching the
shelf because of the clout that the companies have with their
government.
This debate should be decided on the basis of hard facts, not
woolly assertions and environmental sentiment. Until scientific
tests show there to be some real risk of harm from farming and
eating GM food there is no case for a ban or a moratorium. Not
only is genetically modification natural and well understood but
extensive testing is applied to every new GM foodstuff before it is
placed on the market. This testing takes two forms. Peer review by
other scientists and testing by the food standards agency in
whichever country the product is to be marketed. For example, in
the United States all GM food must be tested for nine years before
its release onto the market. In fact, testing has been so successful
that in the 30 year history of GM food not one single person has
died due to genetic modification.
There are a number of dangers associated with the food itself. For
The fears about GM food have been nothing more than a media
81
example, the addition of nut proteins to soybeans caused those
with nut allergies to go into shock upon eating the soybeans.
Although this was detected in testing, sooner or later a transferred
gene will cause risk to human health because the scientists did not
conceive it could be a problem. This will become a greater
problem as more modifications are introduced. There are also
possible dangers associated with the scientific technique itself by
which the DNA is modified, an example is the spread of antibiotic
resistance. GM foods also present a danger to the environment.
The use of these crops is causing fewer strains to be planted. In a
traditional ecosystem based on 100 varieties of rice, say, a
disease wiping out one strain is not too much of a problem.
However, if just two strains are planted (as now occurs) and one is
wiped out the result is catastrophic. In addition, removing certain
varieties of crops causes organisms, which feed on these crops, to
be wiped out as well, such as the butterfly population decimated
by a recent Monsanto field trial. Pollen produced from GM crops
can be blown into neighbouring fields where it fertilises unmodified
crops. This process (cross-pollination) pollutes the natural gene
pool. This in turn makes labelling impossible which reduces
consumer choice. This can be prevented with the terminator gene.
However, use of this is immoral for reasons outlined below and
besides not all companies have terminator technology.
spin. The media have created a story about nothing due to
headlines such as 'Frankenfood'. Simply because people are
scared they assert that there is not enough testing whereas the
opposition have shown that there is. It is often claimed, for
example, that those allergic to nut protein died upon eating
soybeans beans to which nut DNA had been added. This is simply
not true - this possible problem was picked up in testing and the
product was never released on the market. All deaths from those
eating GM foods were shown to have resulted from poisons
accidentally introduced in food production, which were nothing to
do with genetic modification. The proposition case is
fundamentally unsatisfactory since they fail to state what
conditions would have to be fulfilled for the moratorium to be lifted.
The reason for this is, of course, because they too are falling into
the same media trap and that, in fact, at the moment all
reasonable precautions are being taken.There is no reason why
many different strains of GM crops cannot be produced and
planted - where this is not happening at present, it should be.
However, the need for many different strains is not an argument
against some or all of those being GM. Adding or removing genes
from natural varieties does not make the rest of their DNA
identical. Furthermore, there is no concrete scientific evidence of
what harm is done by the spreading of GM pollen.
GM food will do nothing to help solve the problems in developing
countries. The problem there is not one of food production but of
an inability to distribute the food (due to wars, for example), the
growing and selling of cash crops rather than staple crops to pay
off the national debt and desertification leading to completely
infertile land. In addition, the terminator gene prevents the farmer
from re-growing the same crop year after year and instead must
buy it annually from the producer. Abolishing the terminator gene
leads to the other problem of cross-pollination described above.
The possible benefits from GM food are enormous. Modifications
which render plants less vulnerable from pests lead to less
pesticide use which is better for the environment. Other
modifications lead to higher crop yield, which leads to lower food
prices for all. This technology really comes into its own in
developing countries, however. Here where water is at a shortage,
modifications, which lead crops to needing less water, are of vital
importance. The World Health Organisation predicted that vitamin
A deficiency should have been wiped out by this year. The fact
that it has not is illustrative of the lack of political and economic will
to solve these problems. GM food provides a way of solving these
problems, which does not rely on charity from Western
governments. As the world population increases and the
environment deteriorates further this technology will become not
just useful but necessary.
It is true that banning GM food would decrease consumer choice.
However, it is right for government to intervene and do this to
prevent harm to both the population and the environment. Besides,
the number of consumers who actually want GM food is tiny
anyway.
By banning GM food choice is taken away from the consumer. The
terminator gene prevents cross breeding between GM and nonGM plants. This allows foods to be properly labelled and so the
consumer can choose whichever type of food they want.
Genetic modification of food is yet another means by which multinational corporations can exercise illegitimate economic power
over developing nations. The patenting of genes and the use of
the terminator gene together are a recipe for exploitation of the
developing world and the decimation of traditional farming
techniques.
The question of whether crop varieties should be allowed to be
patented or not is separate from the debate on whether GM food is
itself a good or a bad thing.
Issues of principle should always come before pragmatic concerns
about unemployment. People have jobs that are dependent on
illegal trade in endangered species, and in drugs and arms.
Continuing employment is not an argument for the continuation of
these harmful and immoral practices, nor is it an argument in
favour of GM foods.
There would be large-scale unemployment in the biotechnology
industry if GM foods were banned.
Motions
This House Would Ban Genetically Modified Food
This House Believes That Genetically Modified Foods Are Not In The Public Interest
This House Would not Eat 'Frankenfood'
82
Geneva Convention
Summary: Should governments respect the Geneva Conventions in the War on Terror?
print this page
Discuss topic
Context
The Geneva Conventions form part of the International Laws of War, governing the conduct of the parties to both International
and Non-International (internal) armed conflicts. The Conventions were agreed in 1949 (with additional protocols added in
1977) and lay down rules for how wars should be conducted and how members of the opposing side and civilians should be
treated when attacked or captured.
The issue in this debate centres on the implications for countries’ counter-terrorism policies if the Geneva Conventions were
applied to people who are captured as part of the ‘war on terror’. Applying the Geneva Conventions and treating terrorists as
‘prisoners of war’ requires that terrorists are guaranteed a certain level of treatment in terms of how they are detained,
interrogated and tried. Refusing to apply the Geneva Conventions has allowed the USA to operate indefinite detention and
enhanced interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay and other military detention facilities. The Geneva Conventions also
limit practices such as targeted killing of terrorists in Israel/Palestine, Pakistan and Afghanistan because of the associated
civilian casualties.
At the moment there are two legal issues that cloud the debate on applying the Geneva Conventions to terrorists. First, the
Geneva Conventions only apply when a certain minimum threshold of violence has been attained: there needs to be a war.
This is a given in conflicts such as Afghanistan or Iraq but is less clear when applied to the general ‘war on terror’ across the
world. Second, the Geneva Conventions only protect certain types of combatant. In order to be legally protected by the Geneva
Conventions, a combatant needs to be part of a military and display certain signs that they are fighting, for example by wearing
a uniform and carrying arms openly. Terrorist operatives usually do not comply with these requirements and so under a strict
interpretation of the Geneva Conventions terrorists who conceal their weapons and disguise themselves as civilians are not
protected by International Law.
However, this debate is not about legal intricacies of whether the Geneva conventions do as a matter of law apply to terrorists
and terrorist acts but instead the policy question of whether or not they ought to and the benefits/detriments of extending the
remit of the Geneva Conventions to the War on Terror.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Not applying the Geneva Conventions is barbaric and inhumane
because people detained in the war on terror are not protected as
prisoners of war. This allows states to use tactics such as
indefinite detention without trial and enhanced interrogation
techniques such as water-boarding (which are seen by many as a
form of torture). These practices are cruel and significantly harm
the physical and psychological wellbeing of detainees. Even if
these techniques were effective in the war on terror, they should
not be practiced because they are a violation of human rights.
Terrorists themselves do not respect human rights. They attack
civilians and rarely comply with the laws of war such as carrying
weapons openly and wearing a uniform. They do not deserve to be
protected by the laws of war because they do not behave like a
military organisation. If they do not comply with the laws of war
there is no reason why they should enjoy the benefits of the
Geneva Conventions when they are detained.
Many of those detained are innocent or are civilians who were in
the wrong place at the wrong time. Applying the Geneva
Conventions in the war on terror would protect these individuals
from unnecessary and unjustified breaches of human rights when
they are detained.
People who have been wrongly detained can be protected through
alternative means without applying the Geneva Conventions to
terrorists. For example, they could have their status determined by
a tribunal earlier or where there is doubt they could be detained
under different conditions. Even if these options are not possible,
the benefits of indefinite detention and enhanced interrogation
outweigh the harm done to a few innocent detainees.
Treating terrorists with respect for their human rights allows those
fighting the war on terror to take the moral high ground. By failing
to comply with the Geneva Conventions, countries such as the
USA are no better than the terrorist groups that they are fighting.
The values that the west stands for are exactly what terrorists are
attacking and the west needs to show that it can win the war on
terror while still respecting fundamental values such as the rule of
law and human rights. Applying the Geneva Conventions is
therefore a vital part of winning the war on terror.
The war on terror is unlike any other war and so different tactics
are necessary in order to win. There is no point maintaining a
moral high ground where this leads to more civilian deaths. The
Geneva Conventions put barriers in the way of winning the war on
terror because tactics such as indefinite detention are necessary.
For example, Israel’s practice of targeted killing of terrorists was
restricted by the Israeli Supreme Court on the grounds that it did
not comply with the Geneva Conventions. Often there is no other
way to combat terrorists and the Geneva Conventions restrict
tactics that save hundreds of lives. Governments would also not
be able to gain as much intelligence if they had to adhere to the
Geneva Conventions when interrogating terrorists. It is dangerous
83
to put the west at an operational disadvantage in the war on terror
just to maintain a moral high ground.
Applying the Geneva Conventions would encourage terrorist
groups to comply with the laws of war. This would be especially
useful in the Israel/Palestine conflict where terrorist groups
currently have no obligation to comply with the laws of war. This
would lead to greater protection of civilians.
There is no link between one party to a conflict adhering to the
Geneva Conventions and another agreeing to comply. The
Geneva Conventions are breached in almost every war because
they are vague and make winning the war more difficult. There is
no guarantee that terrorists would agree to comply with the
Geneva Conventions just because the west respects them.
Moreover, the nature of terrorist organisations makes it even less
likely that they will comply because they benefit from asymmetric
warfare tactics such as attacking civilian targets and operating
undercover.
The Geneva Conventions provide a strong mechanism for
protecting the human rights of detainees in the war on terror.
Applying the Geneva Conventions would allow the Red Cross to
inspect prisons where detainees are held. Breaches of the Geneva
Conventions also give rise to State Responsibility, as seen in the
USA and Israeli courts’ supervision of the treatment of terrorists
and terror suspects. Individuals can also be held criminally
responsible for breaches of the Geneva Conventions, for example
the Charles Taylor trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone and
the trial of Karadzic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia. The Geneva Conventions are therefore a
useful way of ensuring that states respect human rights, rather
than simply promising to treat detainees well as a matter of policy.
The contents of the Geneva Conventions are vague and the
obligations they give rise to are difficult to identify. Moreover, they
give states a wide discretion in what the appropriate course of
action is. There is no guarantee that the Geneva Conventions
protect human rights any better than existing domestic law or
policy. In democracies, the accountability of elected politicians and
judicial review by independent judges can instead be trusted to
ensure that detainees are not abused or mistreated.
Motions
This House believes that America should respect the Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo Bay
This House would apply the Geneva Conventions in the War on Terror
That the laws of war should apply to the War on Terror
84
Global Warming: Is More Action Needed?
Summary: Although still a controversial subject, there is a growing consensus that global
climate changes are being caused by environmental pollution, especially by greenhouse gases.
Do we need to take more urgent action to halt this trend?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Bobby Webster ( United Kingdom )
Bobby Webster is a former World Schools Debating champion, and has taught debating on five continents. Currently working for
Demos, the UK's leading independent think-tank, he is also a film-maker in his spare time.
Created: Tuesday, July 04, 2000
Last Modified: Thursday, April 09, 2009
Context
Since the 1980s, there has been a growing body of evidence to suggest that industrialisation is having an effect on the climate
of the planet. As concern has grown, a number of international bodies have been set up to research the issue, and more
recently a series of treaties have been established to help curb the emission of so-called 'greenhouse gases'. The most
important of these was the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (see below for a link to the full text of the agreement) as part of which the
European Union, the USA and Japan agreed to reduce their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The protocol has come under
attack from both sides - many environmentalists feel that it does not really address the threat of global warming, while many in
industry feel it is an unnecessary burden.Global warming is a particularly difficult issue as it demands a world-wide response.
Many developing nations are understandably angered that a problem that seems to have been created by the rich, developed
nations will have most impact on them. A global consensus remains far off.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Over the past 100 years, mankind has been burning increasing
quantities of fossil fuels (such as coal and oil) to provide energy.
This has released large volumes of a number of gases into the
atmosphere, particularly CO2. At the same time, the world's
remaining large forests - which help absorb CO2 - are being
rapidly destroyed by commercial logging and to make way for farm
land. Overall, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have
increased by 30% over the last century.When in the atmosphere,
CO2 and other gases are thought to lead to a 'greenhouse effect':
they allow sunlight to pass through, but absorb heat emitted by the
earth, trapping it and leading to global warming. Weather records
seem to support this theory. Average temperatures have increased
by up to 0.6°C since the 19th century; the four hottest years since
accurate records began have all been in the last decade. Unusual
weather patterns such as floods and droughts have also been on
the increase, with the uncharacteristically strong El Niño events of
recent years causing widespread disruption. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an
international body set up to study possible global warming, has
concluded that "... the balance of evidence suggests that there is a
discernible human influence on global climate."
That mankind is causing global warming is far from being a proven
fact. It is true that records show that average temperatures have
increased over this century; however, temperatures actually
dropped slightly between the 1930s and the 1970s. This was not
associated with a reduction in fossil fuel emissions - in fact, they
were increasing over this period. If the 'greenhouse gases' are
responsible for global warming, how can this be?Accurate records
simply do not cover a long enough period to be useful. The earth's
average temperature varies naturally through time, and we so far
have few or no good explanations to explain events such as the
ice ages. Indeed, there was a 'mini-ice age' around four hundred
years ago, during which the Thames in London repeatedly froze
over during winter; this was followed by an intensive but natural
period of 'global warming'. We do not have enough information to
say that current trends are not simply natural variation.
Computer models predict that continued global warming could
have catastrophic effects. Changes in temperature could
devastate wildlife, as local vegetation dies off. Patterns of disease
could change - already, isolated cases of malaria have been
reported far north of traditional danger zones as warmer weather
allows the mosquitoes which carry the disease to spread. Most
importantly, a portion of the polar ice caps might melt and lead to a
rise in sea level, which has already increased by between 10 and
25cm in the last 100 years. Giant cracks have been found in the
Larsen ice shelf in Antarctica, which suggest that it is breaking
apart; a section 48 miles wide and 22 miles long drifted free and
melted as early as 1994. If, as experts suggest, temperatures rise
Again, our computer models for predicting climate change are far
from reliable. The weather is a hugely complex system that we are
only just beginning to understand; it is affected by millions of
factors, including solar activity, volcanic eruptions, ocean currents,
and other cycles which we are gradually discovering. Very slight
changes in the computer model result in immense differences in
predictions. Some scientists have, for example, suggested that
global warming could actually cause a drop in sea level, as rainfall
patterns and ocean currents shift. Indeed, refinements in the
models used by the IPCC have caused it to tone down its
predictions. In 1990, it estimated that by 2100 the average
temperature would rise by 3°C and the sea rise by about 65cm; by
85
a further 3°C over the next century, low-lying areas of land and
even entire countries - such as Bangladesh - could disappear
under the waves.
1995, it had revised these to 2°C and 50cm. The more research
takes place, the less 'catastrophic' global warming seems to be;
however, it is always the predictions of doom which are most
widely reported in the media.
Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to
develop standards of living throughout the world without needing
to burn fossil fuels. Renewable sources of energy - such as wind
or solar power - are ripe for development, but have yet to see the
levels of investment needed to make them truly effective. More
efficient use of energy is also vital. Encouraging developments
such as electric cars, or promoting better insulation of houses,
could make a substantial difference in the long run. Moreover,
after the initial costs, greater efficiency would actually be
economically beneficial.
Of course there is an important role for greater energy efficiency.
However, most alternatives to fossil fuels are simply not effective.
They can also cause their own problems. Nuclear power creates
unacceptable radioactive waste; hydro-electric power projects,
such as the Three Gorges dam in China, leads to the flooding of
vast areas and the destruction of the local environment; solar and
wind power often require the covering of large areas of natural
beauty with solar panels or turbines. Environmentalists often paint
an idealistic view of renewable energy which is far from the less
romantic reality.
Global warming is a world-wide catastrophe waiting to happen: the
emission of greenhouse gases affects everyone. It is therefore
vital that the entire world responds now. The targets set by the
Kyoto protocol will barely scratch the surface of the problem. Only
minimal reductions were agreed to by the developed world, and no
real agreement was reached involving the developing world, which
is producing a greater percentage of greenhouse gas emissions
every year.Gases such as CO2 remain in the atmosphere for
centuries. If we wait until we can see the results of global warming,
it may be too late - the damage will have been done, and reducing
emissions then will have no effect for generations. We therefore
must act now, and we must act globally. Developed countries must
do all they can to reduce their use of fossil fuels. They must assist
developing nations to do the same, by sharing technology or
perhaps through 'emissions trading' - allowing poorer countries to
sell their quota of pollution in return for hard cash. International
pressure must be exerted against those countries which do not cooperate; even if this slows economic growth, it is the poorest
regions in the world which would suffer most from more droughts
and floods and rising sea-levels. However difficult it may be in the
short term, it may save millions of lives in the future.
The evidence for global warming is not strong enough to merit this
kind of response - it is entirely possible that the changes over the
past century have been purely natural. Environmentalists in the
developed world can afford the luxury of demanding government
action, as increasingly technology-based economies mean that
reducing pollution will have a minimal impact on prosperity or
employment. Those in the developing world are not so lucky.
Industrialisation is a key part of building successful economies and
bringing prosperity to the world's poorest people; heavy industry is
often the only area in which developing nations can
compete.Global action on greenhouse gas emissions would
sustain the inequalities of the current status quo. The developing
world would be entirely dependent on multinationals to provide the
technology they needed to keep pollution levels low, or else would
have to stop expanding their economies. Having apparently
caused the problem through the industrialisation that made them
powerful, developed countries would essentially be pulling the
ladder up behind them, depriving other countries of the chance to
do the same. This is simply unacceptable: in the modern world,
one of our first priorities must be to help the poorest people
achieve the prosperity they need to support themselves. The
current evidence for global warming does not begin to merit
endangering this goal.
Motions
This House Believes that Kyoto Didn't Go Far Enough
This House Calls for Urgent Action on Global Warming
This House Fears a Global Greenhouse
This House Believes the Global Warming Demands Global Action
86
Globalization
2/14/10
Globalization refers to the absence of the walls of matchboxes that every country had, between themselves based on
suspicion, mutual distrust and ambition. We were different countries, in fact divided into worlds, and therefore could never
manage to deal with natural holocausts and deadly epidemics, which time and again challenged us. Globalization has
strengthened the nexus and has helped us to know each other’s need in a better way. It has helped to demolish those
walls that separated us and curbed our natural identity of being fellow human beings. Globalization has primarily become
a fiscal term but its impact is not limited to the economy of the countries only, the term globalization actually refers to
every aspect of life like cultural, social, psychological and of course, political.
It is true that the impact of globalization is visible and affects largely the politics and the economy of the country but its
effect on the mindset and the culture is noticeable gradually in the way people think and react. It’s like the Iceberg theory
wherein what we do and say are at the tip and what we think and believe is at the base. The base is not visible but
manifestations at the top are conspicuous. It applies here as well where people do not change abruptly but may be after a
decade the change starts showing and seems radical.
Context
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Large Corporations can often exploit citizens of our country and
The booming economies of India and China--the Elephant
and the Dragon--have lifted 200 million people out of abject others by moving their jobs abroad for a cheaper wage and less
strick work conditions.
poverty in the 1990s as globalization took off, the
International Monetary Fund says. Tens of millions more
have catapulted themselves far ahead into the middle class.






Now there is a worldwide market for the companies
and for the people there is more access to products
of different countries.
There is a steady cash flow into the developing
countries, which gradually decrease the dollar
difference.
Due to the presence of a worldwide market, there is
an increase in the production sector and there are
lots of options for the companies now.
Gradually there is a world power that is being
created instead of compartmentalized power
sectors. Politics is merging and decisions that are
being taken, are actually beneficial for people
allover the world.


there is also a threat of corporates ruling the world
because there is a lot of power, which is invested in
them due to globalization.
For nations that are at the receiver’s end are also
giving up the reins in the ends of a foreign company
which might again lead to a sophisticated form of
colonization
There is more influx of information between two
countries, which do not have anything in common
between them.
There is cultural intermingling and each other is
trying to know about the other’s cultural preferences
and in the process of doing so, we are actually
coming across things that we like and in the course

. It is true that Europeans are losing jobs and that is

posing a problem for them since the companies are
outsourcing work to the Asian countries since the
cost of labor is low and profits the company
considerably.
There is immense pressure on the employed
Europeans who are always under the threat of the
87



of time adopt it.
Since we share financial interests, corporate and
governments are trying to sort out ecological
problems for each other.
Socially we have become more open and tolerant
towards each other and they who live in the other
part of the world are not aliens as we always
thought. There are examples like now Indian girls
work in call centers and work nights, which was a
taboo even two years back. We are celebrating
Valentine’s Day, scraping on Orkut, watching the
Idol series, Fear factor, the Indian version Big
Brother.
There is a lot of technological development that we
have undergone over the years. There are fewer
brain drains since Asians are working in their own
country though for a foreign company but are
earning foreign exchange for their country.


business being outsourced.
Corporates are building up units in other countries
equally well equipped as they have done at their
own country, thus transferring the quality to other
countries.
There are some experts who think that
globalization; along with the positive aspects is also
leading to the incursion of negatives like
communicable diseases and social degeneration.
88
Globalisation: Marginalisation of the Poor
Summary: Has the rise and spread of trans-national companies exacerbated global economic
inequalities?
print this page
Discuss topic
Context
Globalisation is the process, which brings about the spread of economic, political (and social and cultural) activity across
national boundaries and the increasing integration of internationally dispersed activities. Globalisation is often typified in the
media as the spread of (often American) culture (characterised as fast food restaurants, Hollywood movies, etc.) but academic
debates centre around more fundamental economic factors. The proposition side are putting forward the "radical" view that
globalisation, driven by MEDCs (More Economically Developed Countries) and by TNCs (TransNational Companies) expands
‘the North’ and weakens ‘the South’, erodes global and national solidarity and brings about the increasing impoverishment and
exclusion of the ‘Third World’ (LEDCs - Less Economically Developed Countries). The opposition argue the "neoliberal"
viewpoint that globalisation spreads affluence and erodes the North-South divide.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The poor are being marginalized. Globalisation is a means for
exclusion, deepening inequality and reinforced division of the
world into core and periphery: it is a new form of Western
imperialism which dominates and exploits through TNC capital and
instrumental global governance such as the World Bank and IMF.
North-South differences are being eroded. Globalisation is a
progressive force for creating global prosperity. Through free trade
and capital mobility, globalisation is creating a global market
civilisation in which prosperity, wealth, power and liberal
democracy are being diffused around the globe.
Globalisation has intensified global and national inequality. There
is an increased economic and social gap within countries and
between countries, the richer are becoming richer and the poorer
are becoming poorer. Globalisation is an uneven process causing
world fragmentation. There has been increasing inequality in trade
too, resulting in the amplification of the trade gap. Through
increasing globalisation the value of world trade is 17 times greater
than 50 years ago, but Latin America’s share has fallen from 11%
to 5% and Africa’s from 8% to 2%. The terms of trade have
increasingly moved against LEDCs and their poor.
Globalisation has increased world prosperity and organisational
efforts to stabilise the world economy have significantly improved.
By historical standards global poverty has fallen more in the last
50 years than in the past 500, and the welfare of people in almost
all regions has improved significantly over the past few decades.
Globalisation will bring about the end of the ‘Third World’.LEDC’s
fall in their share of world trade can be attributed to the internal
economic, social and political conditions in individual countries.
Globalisation exploits LEDCs and their poor through TNCs. The
World Guide (known as the Third World Guide) says that
globalisation is a ‘euphemism for transnationalisation’ - the spread
of powerful companies over the globe, wherever suits corporate
interest best.
Globalisation promotes development in LEDCs as well as
spreading the technology and knowledge of the MEDCs.There is
some evidence to suggest that those countries largely by-passed
by globalisation are amongst the poorest.
Increased global integration means that poorer countries become
more vulnerable to world financial markets. The East Asian Crisis
was a direct result of globalisation and resulted in intensifying
poverty. The crisis shows that even the strongest developing
states are at the mercy of global economic forces that serve the
interest of the dominant capitalist powers. Globalisation also
meant that there was a speedy transition of the crisis to the other
East Asian countries - the ‘contagion effect’ - having devastating
human consequences.The benefits of the global market accrue to
a relatively small proportion of the world’s population. The stronger
become stronger and the weak become weaker.
Globalisation has brought about huge benefits. The emergence of
a single global market, the principles of free trade, capital mobility
and global competition has allowed the diffusion of prosperity,
wealth and power and these aspects of globalisation are the
harbingers of modernisation and development. New opportunities
and possibilities have been opened up. On the contrary,
globalisation was the very force that led to the successful
development of Eastern Asia and its ‘economic miracle’.Far from
making LEDCs more vulnerable, increasing global integration
means that there are better organisational structures in place to
deal with world political, economic and social problems including
those associated with natural hazards.
Globalisation is a form of disempowerment. Outside interference of
the World Bank and IMF has made LEDCs economies worse and
has constrained the development strategies that nation-states may
pursue. International negotiations to reduce and eliminate foreign
debt have led to increasing exports of capital and the further
indebtedness of the countries affected.
Global market civilisation has been reinforced by the policies of the
major institutions of global economic governance, namingly the
IMF, World Bank and the G7. Global governance The World Bank
restructured LEDCs economies in SAPs (Structural Adjustment
Programmes) manage indebted economies. Outside intervention
allows the dissemination of effective economic management
strategies.
Motions
This house believes that globalisation marginalizes the poor
89
This house believes that globalisation will bring about the end of the Third World
This house believes that globalisation is a euphemism for transnationalisation
90
Greenhouse Gas: Cap and Trade
Summary: Should countries be allowed to buy greenhouse gas quotas from other countries
and so, in effect, pay for the right to pollute more? Or should polluters simply be heavily taxed if
they exceed their own quotas?
print this page
Discuss topic
Context
It is generally, although not universally, accepted that the planet is under severe threat from climate change. A number of
methods have been proposed in order to reduce the emissions of so-called greenhouse gases, which lead to global warming.
The European Union has always favoured a 'carbon tax' (a tax on heavy polluters) whereas the United States has supported
Tradable Pollution Quotas (TPQs). Each country in the TPQ scheme is initially permitted to produce a certain maximum
amount of each polluting gas. Consequently, countries which wish to exceed their quotas can buy the right to do so from other
countries which have produced less than their quota of polluting gases. In 1997, at the Kyoto environmental summit, the
European Union conceded and the subsequent Kyoto protocol laid the foundations for TPQs. Under this protocol developing
countries are exempt from the emission standards and cannot take part directly in pollution trading. Furthermore, countries can
also 'sink' carbon (e.g. by planting forests to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) to offset some of their pollution
against their quota.The definition for this debate is simply that the TPQ system, as agreed upon in Kyoto, will be an effective
way of averting global warming. The issues of global warming or climate change, alluded to in point 1, is covered more fully in
the specific debate on that topic.There are two distinct subsets of opposition arguments. The industrial lobby claims that TPQs
go too far and that such stringent regulation is unnecessary. The environmentalists claim that TPQs are too lax. Both strands
are presented below but note that they are mutually contradictory and you may end up in trouble if you run all these lines in a
debate!
Arguments
Pros
Cons
It is now generally agreed in the scientific community that
something must be done to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.
The fact that El Niño has occurred with record frequency and that
the four hottest years on record have all been in the last decade
are clear evidence for climate change. The evidence that this
climate change is due to global warming caused by pollution is
also strong. The possible consequences include crop failure, mass
flooding and the destruction of entire ecosystems with the possible
loss of billions of lives. Other consequences of pollution include
acid rain and the enlargement of the hole in the ozone layer.
The environmental lobby has hugely overestimated the claims for
pollution damaging the environment. The fossil record indicates
that climate change has occurred frequently in the past and there
is little evidence linking climate change with emissions.
The TPQ scheme is the only practical way to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases globally. It will guarantee that global levels of
these gases are kept below strict targets, which is more realistic
than expecting heavy polluters magically to be able to cut their
emissions overnight.
In reality the TPQ scheme is a cop-out. It means that in the long
run there will be more pollution than if limits were strictly enforced
for each country and punitive taxes imposed on those exceeding
their quotas. Without TPQ, if a country kept well below its quota,
that would be good for the environment. The TPQ scheme means
that this benefit is lost and the right to this extra pollution is bought
by another country.
Emissions are fundamentally a global problem. The emission of
the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, for example, effects the
entire planet regardless of where the gas is produced or the
distribution of sites in which the gas is produced. This validates the
use of TPQs, which act to limit the total amount of each polluting
gas globally. This is much more effective that the alternative of
taxing emissions, because rich companies or countries are still
able to pay the tax and pollute. This effect is exacerbated since the
tax would act to bankrupt smaller companies, which cannot afford
the tax, thereby generating more revenue for larger companies.
It is much too simplistic to state that it does not matter where
pollution is produced, merely that the total amount generated is
salient. This is completely untrue for many gases which do effect
the region in which they are created. Furthermore, in order to
permit them to industrialise, developing countries have been
excluded from the protocol. This seriously undermines the efficacy
of the protocol.It is also wrong for the proposition to assert that
taxes still allow big companies to pollute; if taxes were set high
enough then pollution would become prohibitively expensive.We
also note that the introduction of TPQs will make later reduction in
global emissions much harder. Once trading in TPQs has started it
is almost inconceivable to imagine countries which have bought
extra emission rights voluntarily giving up those rights in order to
help reduce global emissions further.
TPQs are a tried and tested scheme. For example, this system
was introduced in the United States by the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and lead to trading in sulphur dioxide emissions.
Such schemes have been successful and there is therefore good
reason to suppose we can institute TPQs on a global scale.
It is true that TPQs have had some success in the United States.
They have, however, failed in Europe for two reasons. First, the
European schemes were badly planned. This bodes very poorly
for the Kyoto protocol, which has all the hallmarks of bad planning,
since many of the key decisions were not made at Kyoto but were
91
left until later. Secondly, whereas the American solution to
pollution was always trading emissions, the main European
solution was, and still is, to produce new technology to clean the
emissions. Extending the TPQs scheme to the entire globe
thereby places European initiatives at a disadvantage because of
the cheaper, but ultimately less effective method of TPQs.
Progress in the field of emission control is remarkably difficult
because of the opposition from the industrial lobby, most notably in
the United States, which sees such restrictions as being harmful to
the economic wellbeing of their economy. TPQs are the one
method of control which is accepted by these lobby groups and
more significantly by the United States government. As the world's
biggest polluter the United States must be included in any
meaningful treaty and since TPQs are the only acceptable solution
to the United States' objections they are to be welcomed as the
only practical way forward.
Enforcement was ignored at the Kyoto summit itself and large
question marks still remain over the compromise reached at the
follow-up Bonn summit. Clearly the entire scheme is invalidated
without a comprehensive enforcement mechanism. It is also
virtually impossible to assess the effect that an individual country's
carbon 'sink' is having on the atmosphere. This merely creates a
loophole through which a country can abuse the protocol and
produce more than its quota.
Economically TPQs cause less damage to an economy than any
other emission control regime. Individual companies and countries
can trade TPQs on the free market until they have struck the right
balance between the cost of paying to pollute and the cost of
cleaning up their industry.
Such a scheme as TPQs will hit employment and hit it hard.
Countries even in the developed world are not so rich that they
can simply buy enough quotas to avoid pollution, neither can they
afford to install the expensive cleaning technology. There will
therefore be a decrease in growth and consequently in living
standards in developed countries.
Motions
This House Would Buy The Right To Pollute
This House Supports Tradable Pollution Quotas
This House Believes that Kyoto got it Right
92
Gun Control
Summary: Should laws be passed to limit gun ownership further?
print this page
Discuss topic
Context
Gun laws vary widely from country to country, so this topic focuses upon arguments for tightening gun laws in principle.
Particular debates might centre upon different categories of guns (for example automatic weapons, handguns or shotguns),
licensing requirements for ownership, the right to carry concealed weapons, or requirements that manufacturers increase the
safety features on their weapons. The USA is exceptional in protecting the right to own firearms in the Second Amendment to
its Constitution, and gun control has been a major issue in American politics over the last few years, partly due to a series of
tragic massacres involving children.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The only function of a gun is to kill. The more instruments of death
and injury can be removed from our society, the safer it will be. In
the U.S.A death by gunshot has become the leading cause of
death among some social groups. Quite simply, guns are lethal
and the fewer people have them the better.
Prohibition is not the answer, especially not in countries such as
the USA where gun ownership is such an entrenched aspect of
society. Banning guns would not make them disappear or make
them any less dangerous. It is a legitimate right of citizens to own
weapons with which to protect themselves, their family, and their
property (see point 4). Many people also need guns for other
reasons. For example, farmers need guns in order to protect their
stock and crops from pests, e.g. rabbits, birds, deer, foxes, stray
dogs attacking sheep, etc.
The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens inevitably
leads to many unnecessary and tragic deaths. Legally held guns
are stolen and end up in the hands of criminals, who would have
greater difficulty in obtaining such weapons if firearms were less
prevalent in society. Guns also end up in the hands of children,
leading to tragic accidents and terrible disasters such as the
Columbine High School massacre in the U.S.A. Sometimes even
normal-seeming registered gun owners appear to go mad and kill,
as tragically happened at Hungerford and Dunblaine in the U.K.
Guns don’t kill people – people kill people. Restricting gun
ownership will do nothing to make society safer as it is the intent of
the criminal we should fear, and that will remain the same
whatever the gun laws. In the vast majority of crimes involving
firearms, the gun used is not legally held or registered. Many of
these illegal weapons are imported secretly from abroad, rather
than being stolen from registered owners.
Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all
firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorises and legitimises
unnecessary gun ownership. It remains the interest of a minority,
who should not be allowed to block the interests of society as a
whole in gun control. Compensation can be given to individual gun
owners, gun clubs and the retail firearms trade, in recognition of
their economic loss if a ban is implemented.
Shooting is a major sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people,
both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport.
These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure
pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an
investment the government would effectively be confiscating if
their guns were confiscated. In addition, field sports bring money
into poor rural economies and provide a motivation for landowners
to value environmental protection.
Burglary should not be punished by vigilante killings. No amount of
property is worth a human life. Perversely, the danger of attack by
homeowners may make it more likely that criminals will carry their
own weapons. If a right to self-defence is granted in this way,
many accidental deaths are bound to result.
Self-protection. Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect
their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged
incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and
armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any
house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This
can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons,
deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.)
There is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws
and its suicide rate – not because gun owners are more
depressive, but because the means of quick and effective suicide
is easily to hand. As many unsuccessful suicides are later glad
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary top the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.” – 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Any country
is much more able to defend itself from aggression if many of its
93
that they failed in their attempt, the state should discourage and
restrict the ownership of something that wastes so many human
lives.
citizens are able to use guns, keeping them for leisure and
sporting use. Some countries actively require adult citizens to
maintain weapons in their house, and periodically to train in their
use. Of course, such widespread ownership of weapons is also a
safeguard against domestic tyranny.
Motions
This House calls for stricter controls on gun ownership
This House believes there is no right to bear arms
This House would prise the musket from Charlton Heston’s cold dead hands
94
Health Care, Universal
print this page
Discuss topic
Debatabase Junior Topic
Summary: Should the United States introduce a universal health care system?
Context
The provision of health care to the citizens of the United States has been a controversial issue for decades. Currently, some
people are covered under government health plans through programs like Medicaid, Medicare and Children’s Health Insurance
Program (CHIP). Many of the rest receive health care through their employer, or through private insurance for which they have
to pay out of their own pockets. But about 40 million people in the USA do not have health insurance at all. The health statistics
for the uninsured are far worse than the statistics for those with insurance.
Almost every other developed country has a system of universal health care. These systems are usually single-payer programs
– the government is the single payer for health care services so that they are free when people need medical treatment.
People contribute to the cost of health care through their taxes. Some people believe that the United States should move to a
system of universal health care so all its citizens can have access to quality medical care. A recent poll found that a majority of
young Americans would favour such a system. Others say there are better ways to fix the system.
Recent debate on changing the United States’ healthcare system has centred on extending private health insurance to every
US citizen. Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont are putting plans in place to make everyone living in the state buy health
insurance – with government help to make this less expensive. As of spring 2008, another 12 states are planning to bring in
similar policies, and many other states are looking into the issue. However, a likely economic downturn may mean that states
do not have the money to pay for these policies and they may have to be scrapped. At a national level the Democrats broadly
favour reforms which would extend health insurance to all Americans. Republican Presidential candidate John McCain
opposes this, focusing instead on ways to reduce the cost of treatment.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
With universal health care, people are able to seek preventive
treatment. This means having tests and check-ups before they feel
ill, so that condidtions can be picked up in their early stages when
they are easy to treat. For example in a recent study 70% of
women with health insurance knew their cholestrol level, while only
50% of uninsured women did. In the end, people who do not get
preventive health care will get treatment only when their disease is
more advanced. As a result their care will cost more and the
outcomes are likely to be much worse.
Universal health care will cause people to use the health care
system more. If they are covered, they will go to the doctor when
they do not really need to, and will become heavy users of the
system. We can see in other countries that this heavier use leads
to delays in treatment and constant demands for more resources.
As a result care is rationed and taxes keep going up.
American health insurance payments are very high and rising
rapidly. Even employer-subsidised programs are very expensive
for many Americans, because they often require co-payments or
high deductibles (payment for the first part of any treatment). In
any case employee health benefits are being withdrawn by many
companies. For those without insurance, a relatively minor illness
or injury can be a financial disaster. It is unfair that many ordinary
hard-working Americans can no longer afford decent medical
treatment.
A range of health programs are already available. Many employers
offer health insurance and some people deliberately choose to
work for such companies for these benefits, even if the pay is a
little lower. Other plans can be purchased by individuals with no
need to rely on an employer. This means they are free to choose
the level of care which is most appropriate to their needs. For
other people it can be perfectly reasonable to decide to go without
health insurance. Healthy younger adults will on average save
money by choosing not to pay high insurance premiums, covering
any necessary treatment out of their own pockets from time to
time. Why should the state take away all these people’s freedom
of choice by imposing a one-size-fits-all socialist system of health
care?
Partial plans like Medicare and Medicaid cover only individuals in
certain categories (the young, the old, the very poor and veterans).
Such systems will never provide truly universal coverage. Even the
Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was meant to give
more children the benefits of health insurance, has not been very
successful. Since CHIP was put in place, the number of uninsured
children has gone up. Instead we need a proper governmentfunded universal health care system.
Partial plans provide a safety net for vulnerable groups who are
not in a position to make choices about their health care. Lowincome individuals qualify for Medicaid and seniors qualify for
Medicare. Many children benefit from the Children’s Health
Insurance Program. But for most people, health insurance is a
necessity for which they should budget, taking responsibility for
their own lives and futures. The government is not expected to
provide necessities such as food or housing on a universal basis,
so why should it provide universal health care?
The current system of health maintenance organisations (HMOs)
has destroyed the doctor-patient relationship and removed
patients’ ability to choose between health care providers. Patients
find that their doctors are not on their new plan and are forced to
With government control of all health care, caps will be placed on
costs. As a result many doctors would not be rewarded for their
long hours and important roles in our lives. The road to becoming
a doctor is long and hard; without the present financial rewards
95
leave doctors with whom they have established a trusting
relationship. Also, patients must get approval to see specialists
and then are allowed to see only selected doctors. Doctors usually
can’t spend enough time with patients in the HMO plans. By
contrast a universal health system would give patients many more
choices.
many young people will not choose to study medicine. Current
doctors may find that they do not want to continue their careers in
a government-controlled market. The American Medical
Association does not back a government-controlled, single-payer
universal health care system.
The United States as a whole spends 14% of GDP (total income)
on health care. This includes the amount spent by the federal
government, state governments, employers and private citizens.
Many studies have found that a single-payer system would cut
costs enough to allow everyone in the USA to have access to
good health care without the nation as a whole spending more
than it does at the moment. Medicare, a government-run health
care program, has administrative costs of less than 2% of its total
budget.
The United States government cannot afford to fund universal
health care. Other universal social welfare polices such as Social
Security and Medicare have run into major problems with funding.
Costs are rising at the same time that the baby boomer generation
are growing old and retiring. Soon tens of millions of boomers will
stop contributing much tax and start demanding much more in
benefits than before. In such a situation we cannot afford to
burden the nation with another huge government spending
program. Nations that provide universal health care coverage
spend a substantial amount of their national wealth on the service.
In the current system the employee and the employee’s family
often depend on the employer for affordable health insurance. If
the worker loses their job, the cost of new health insurance can be
high and is often unaffordable. Even with current federal laws
making insurance more movable, the costs to the employee are
too high. With a single-payer, universal health care system, health
insurance would no longer be tied to the employer and employees
would not have to consider health insurance as a reason to stay
with a given employer. This would also be good for the economy
as a whole as it would make the labour market more flexible than it
has become in recent years.
The current system of offering group insurance through employers
covers many Americans with good quality health insurance. The
group plan concept enables insurance companies to insure people
who are high risk and low risk by mixing them in the same pool.
Issues over losing or leaving a job with health benefits are dealt
with by federal laws which require companies to continue to offer
workers cover for at least 18 months after they leave employment.
Moving to a system of universal health care would reduce the
burden on human resources personnel in companies. At present
they must make sure the company is obeying the very many
federal laws about the provision of health insurance. With a
universal system where the government was the single-payer,
these regulations would not apply and the costs of American
businesses would be much reduced.
Human resources professionals will still be needed to deal with the
very many other employment regulations put in place by the
federal government. Instead of employees being able to exercise
control over their health care choices and work with people in their
company, patients will be forced to deal with the nameless,
faceless members of the government bureacracy.
US health care is hugely unequal. This can be seen in infant death
rates, life expectancy and outcomes for common conditions such
as cancer and heart problems. The rich have the best healthcare
in the world; the poor get worse treatment than in any other
developed country. Social justice demands that a universal system
is introduced to provide decent care for every American. And as
black health outcomes are much worse than those for whites, this
is also a racial issue.
US health care is the best in the world. For example, cancer
survival rates are very much better than those under the universal
system of Britain’s National Health Service. Almost all new drugs
and surgical advances come from the USA because its system
encourages excellence. Changing to a government-run system
would “level down” health care, making it worse for most
Americans while failing to actually improve it for the most badly off.
Very often poor health is linked to poverty because of diet, lifestyle
and housing issues, and universal health care will do nothing to
solve these problems.
Motions
This House would adopt a universal health care system
This House believes that universal health care is more important than financial concerns
This House believes that it is immoral that US citizens do not have equal access to health care
That we should introduce a single-payer universal health care system
This House would be more European
This House calls for the introduction of a Federal Health Service
96
Human Cloning Ban
Summary: Should human cloning be banned ? Should reproductive human cloning always be
prohibited?
Context
The cloning of ‘Dolly’ the sheep in 1997 by Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh generated a
spontaneous worldwide reaction. Dr. Richard Seed, an American geneticist, claimed he would be able to clone human beings
within a year. A Korean doctor was reported to have created, and killed, the first human clone. President Clinton ordered
research into the ethics of human cloning, which subsequently became the Shapiro Report. The United States has imposed a
moratorium on human cloning and a ban on federal funding of cloning research, that will be reviewed every five years. One bill
to make human cloning lawful and another demanding its prohibition were both rejected by Congress in 1999. The British
government claimed that existing legislation regulating embryo research banned human cloning, but a strict interpretation of
the statute would suggest that cloning remains lawful in Britain. Germany, Switzerland and several American states have
passed laws expressly forbidding human cloning, whereas Canada and Ireland have no relevant legislation at present. The
opposition of international organisations towards human cloning seems clear. The European Parliament, the Council of
Europe, UNESCO and the WHO have all passed resolutions asserting that human cloning is both morally and legally wrong.
There is a clear distinction between ‘reproductive cloning’ and ‘therapeutic cloning’. Reproductive cloning relates to the use of
the technology with the intention to produce a foetus identical to its parent. The technique used to produce Dolly is known as
‘nuclear transfer’, whereby the nucleus from a somatic cell was fused with an unfertilised egg from which the nucleus had been
removed. This method of procreation is ‘asexual’, as it does not require one person of each sex in order to produce a child. A
single mother or a lesbian couple, for example, could produce a child genetically related to them both, without the necessity for
a male gamete.Therapeuti
Pros
Cons
The technology is unsafe. The nuclear transfer technique that produced
Dolly required 277 embryos, from which only one healthy and viable sheep
was produced. The other foetuses were hideously deformed and either
died or were aborted. Moreover, Ian Wilmut and other commentators have
noted that we cannot know whether clones will suffer from premature
ageing as a result of their elderly genes. There are also fears that the
reprogramming of the nucleus of a somatic cell in order to trigger the cell
division that leads to the cloning of an individual may result in a
significantly increased risk of cancer.
Cloning is in this respect no different from any other new medical
technology. Research is required on embryos in order to quantify and
reduce the risk of the procedures. Embryo research is permitted in Britain
until the fourteenth day of embryo development. Many other Western
countries are also actively engaged in embryo research. The thousands of
‘spare’ embryos generated each year by IVF procedures and destroyed
could be used to the good purpose of human cloning research.
Cloning is playing God. It is not merely intervention in the body’s natural
processes, but the creation of a new and wholly unnatural process of
asexual reproduction. Clerics within the Catholic, Moslem and Jewish faiths
have all expressed their opposition to human cloning.However, this
objection to cloning is not specifically theological. David Hume, the
eighteenth-century Scottish moral philosopher, warned us to heed our
feelings as much as our logical reasoning. Leon R. Kass of the University
of Chicago has stated in relation to human cloning, that mere failure to
produce scientific reasons against the technology, does not mean we
should deny our strong and instinctive reactions to it. As he states, there is
a "wisdom in repugnance".
This argument assumes that we know God’s intentions. Evidently, there is
no biblical statement on the ethics of human cloning. Who is to say that it is
not God’s will that we clone ourselves ? At least one Hindu writer has
indicated that Hindu thought embraces IVF and other assisted reproduction
technology (ART). Moreover, every time that a doctor performs life-saving
surgery or administers drugs he is changing the destiny of the patient and
could be thus seen as usurping the role of God. Furthermore, we should be
very wary of banning something without being able to say why it is wrong.
That way lie all sorts irrational superstition, repression, fundamentalism
and extremism.
Reproductive cloning harms the integrity of the family. Single people will be
able to produce offspring without even the physical presence of a partner.
Once born, the child will be denied the love of one parent, most probably
the father. Several theologians have recognised that a child is a symbolic
expression of the mutual love of its parents, and their hope for the future.
This sign of love is lost when a child’s life begins in a laboratory.
This argument is wholly unsuited to the modern age. Society freely allows
single people to reproduce sexually, whether by accident or design.
Existing lawful practices such as sperm donation allow deliberate
procreation without knowledge of the identity of the father. Surely it is
preferable for a mother to know the genetic heritage of her offspring, rather
than accept sperm from an unknown and random donor? Moreover,
reproductive cloning will allow lesbian couples to have children genetically
related to them both. It might be better for the welfare of the child for it to
be born into a happy relationship, but the high rates of single parenthood
and divorce suggest that this is not always possible.
Reproductive cloning is contrary to human dignity. ‘Donum Vitae’, the
declaration of the Catholic church in relation to the new reproductive
technologies, holds that procreation outside the conjugal union is morally
wrong. Many secular organisations, such as the WHO and UNESCO have
issued statements that similarly find cloning violates human dignity.
Assisted reproductive technologies might all be seen as challenges to
human dignity, including IVF and sperm donation. However, human cloning
is a completely artificial form of reproduction, which leaves no trace of the
dignity of human procreation.
When people resort to talking in wholly empty abstract terms about ‘human
dignity’ you can be sure that they have no evidence or arguments to back
up their position. It is difficult to understand why the act of sexual
intercourse that leads to sexual procreation is any more ‘dignified’ or
respectable than a reasoned decision by an adult to have a child, that is
assisted by modern science. The thousands of children given life through
IVF therapy do not suffer a lack of dignity as a consequence of their
method of procreation. The Catholic church regards every embryo from the
moment of existence as a living person. This position is not shared by most
Western governments, and it would deny not only cloning, but IVF and all
97
the medical knowledge and benefits that have accrued from embryo
research.
Cloning will lead to eugenics, or the artificial manipulation and control of
the characteristics of people. An American geneticist, Dr. Dan Brock, has
already identified a trend towards ‘new and benign eugenics’ that is
perpetrated by developments in biotechnology. When people are able to
clone themselves they will be able to choose which type of person shall be
born. This seems uncomfortably close to the Nazi concept of breeding a
race of Aryan superhumans, whilst eliminating those individuals whose
characteristics they considered unhealthy. The ‘Boys from Brazil’ scenario
of clones of Hitler, the baby farms of ‘Brave New World’, or even the
cloning or armies of identical and disposable soldiers, might soon be a very
real prospect.
There is much more danger of eugenics associated with developments in
gene therapy and genetic testing and screening, rather than human
cloning. The notion of clones of Hitler is frankly preposterous.
Psychologists have shown that nurture is at least as important as genes in
determining personality. It would be impossible to produce another Hitler,
or Elvis, or whomever, by cloning or any other ART. Clones (people with
identical genes) would by no means be identical in every respect. You only
need to look at identical twins (who are genetic clones of each other) to
see how wrong that assumption is, and how different the personalities,
preferences, and skills of people with identical genes can be.The idea of
breeding huge fighting forces is also confined to the realm of science
fiction. The necessity of thousands of willing mothers, the nine month
gestation process, and the many years rearing this child towards
adulthood, means that cloning would hardly be an efficient technique for
any mad dictator to raise an army. And there is no reason, in any case, to
suppose that a clone would be any more willing or effective a soldier than
any other human being - clones (like twins) are just as conscious and free
as everyone else.
Cloning will lead to a diminished sense of identity and individuality for the
resultant child. Instead of being considered as a unique individual, the child
will be a copy of his parent, and be expected to share the same traits and
interests, such that his life will no longer be his own. This is an
unacceptable infringement of the liberty and autonomy that we grant to
every human person. The confusion of the offspring is likely to be
compounded by the fact that his ‘parent’, from whom he is cloned, will be
genetically his twin brother or sister. There is no way of knowing how
children will react to having such a confused genetic heritage.
It should be emphasised that children produced by reproductive cloning will
be ‘clones’ but not ‘copies’ of their parents. Different environmental factors,
nurture, and the process of gestation mean that children will not be
emotionally or mentally identical to the people from whom they are cloned.
Furthermore, this objection would apply to all identical twins. A small
proportion of identical twins do indeed suffer from psychological problems
related to feelings of a lack of individuality. However, cloned children would
in fact be in a better position than these monozygotic twins, as the clones
will be many years younger than their genetic twins, which are of course
their parents. They will not be daily compared to a physically identical
individual, as there will be a gap between their ages, and hence
psychological and physical characteristics, of tens of years.
Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population. The
natural process of evolution will be halted, and as such humankind will be
denied development, and may be rendered more susceptible to disease.
Any reduction in the diversity of the human gene pool will be so limited as
to be virtually non-existent. The expense and time necessary for successful
human cloning should mean that it will only be used to the benefit of the
small minority of people who require the technology. The pleasure of
procreation through sexual intercourse does not suggest that whole
populations will prefer to reproduce asexually through cloning. The only
significant lack of diversity which can be expected will be in women who
suffer from a severe mitochondrial disease. They will be able to use cloning
by nuclear transfer in order to avoid passing on the disease which is
carried in their egg cells to any offspring. This elimination of harmful
genetic traits from the gene pool is no different from the eradication of
infectious disease, such as small pox, and should be welcomed.
Human reproductive cloning is unnecessary. The development of in vitro
fertilisation and the practice of sperm donation allows heterosexual couples
to reproduce where one partner is sterile. Moreover, merely 300 babies are
adopted each year in the United Kingdom. It might be better for potential
parents to give their love to existing babies rather than attempt to bring
their own offspring into an already crowded world.
The desire to have one’s own child and to nurture it is wholly natural. The
longing for a child genetically related to oneself existed long before
biotechnology, but it is only recently that medicine has been able to satisfy
it. In vitro fertilisation remains an imperfect technology. Couples typically
submit to four cycles of costly treatment before producing a child.
Evidently, the technique does not assist homosexual couples, couples
where both partners lack gametes, or where the female partner suffers
from a mitochondrial disease. Cloning would allow a child to be born to all
these couples.
Cloning treats children as objects. Children will be manufactured by an
expensive technological process that is subject to quality control. The gulf
between an artisan and an artefact is immense. Individuals will be able to
have a child for the sake of having children, or as a symbol of status, rather
than because they desire to conceive, love and raise another human being.
Cloning will not only allow, but actually encourage, the commodification of
people.
The decision making and the effort that will be required to clone a human
suggests that the child will be highly valued by its parent or parents.
Furthermore, we should not pretend that every child conceived by sexual
procreation is born to wholly well-intentioned parents. The desire to have ‘a
son and heir’ is common around the world but does not concern the
welfare of the future child. Similarly, children are often conceived out of
marital custom, in order to consolidate a relationship, or even in order to
gain free accommodation from local housing authorities. Finally, many
children are not intended at all, but are born as a result of unplanned
pregnancies. There would be no fear of ‘accidental cloning’ that could bring
a child to a parent who was unprepared, or unwilling, to love it.
98
Human Rights
Summary: Do Human Rights exist? What are they? Why do we have them?
print this page
Discuss topic
Context
Human rights talk is much used in everyday situations – in the media, in politics, in education, in the court-room. But what does
it all mean? What is it to have an “inalienable birth right?” Do we have such rights, and if we do, what are they for? The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights was formulated after the Second World War, in response to the savage inhumanities
perpetrated during it. It sets out a declaration of fundamental entitlements, such as Article 3’s right to “life, liberty and security
of person.” However, there was no enforcement mechanism and states are only obliged to ‘move towards’ a realisation of
these rights. Thus, whilst important steps have been made towards an international regime of rights, an awful lot of ground
remains to be covered.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Human beings are, by their nature and birth, possessed of certain
inalienable claims which must be respected by everyone, no
matter what the circumstances. These are human rights, which
Artice 1 of the UDHR states that all humans have from birth in
equal amount.
Do animals have the same inalienable rights by virtue of their
nature and birth? Isn’t this claim a bit arbitrary? Why should
everyone have a “right” just because they are born?
It is the simple sharing of a common humanity that grounds human
rights. We know how we feel about things and we know how we
want to be able to live. We extrapolate from this to norms which
secure the basic dignity with which we all want to live.
This is arbitrary and nebulous – it bases fundamental human rights
on extrapolating from “feelings.” How accurate can this be?
Furthermore, isn’t this just a wish list of ways you want to be
treated? A desire to be treated in a certain way doesn’t give the
right to be so treated.
It is not desires that ground human rights. It is the universal need
for basic bodily security, for security in our possessions and
relationships within society. This isn’t just desirable but vital to our
lives. Human rights are those things that rationally fix on these vital
requirements. Thomas Hobbes recognised that we all benefit from
this security, from the strongest to the weakest man because of
man’s essential equality in the capacity to harm other men.
If Human rights are requirements of reason then why is there so
much ambiguity and confusion over what they are? There is huge
debate over what rights we have, whether civil and political or
economic, social and cultural. Moreover, many people cannot
even agree that we have any basic economic, or development
rights. This seems odd if human rights are rational requirements
that are vital to life.
Human rights talk and practice has evolved over several hundred
years. The standards of rationally have changed over those years
and are not completely in synch now. The standards of rights that
we see voiced and protected now in the West are better than the
rights hitherto found in past societies. This is because people in
recent times have achieved the highest levels of widespread
welfare ever seen. In some cases you just have to have
experienced something to appreciate how vital it is to you.
This is a very subversive line to start down. These “requirements
of reason” are looking very subjective and dependent on specific
circumstances. Does that mean that we really don’t have rights per
se, but instead transform accepted standards of living into actual
rights? In that case, two cultures could have radically different
interpretations of a human right, say women’s rights, and still both
be right. Can this be a satisfactory basis for concrete and actual
rights?
Human rights are not meant to be subject to artificial, academic
analysis. They are practical guides to life, standards of how we
should be able to live. They provide an objective standard, through
the use of which people can have recourse against their
governments.
This all suggests that Human rights can be extremely useful.
However, something can be useful to you, indeed necessary to
your doing something, without it being your right. None of these
arguments grounds the claim that we have “rights.”
Motions
This House Believes in Fundamental Human Rights
This House Believes Rights are Right
99
100
Immigration Laws, Relaxation of
Summary: Should governments in rich countries relax the laws controlling immigration?
print this page
Discuss topic
Context
This is a debate primarily centred on developed countries into which many (often poor) people wish to immigrate. At the
moment the countries are only obliged to accept migrants who the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)
rule have a genuine ‘fear of persecution’ in their own country. Most rich countries tend to only accept immigrants who can
provide either specific skills or substantial investment. In fact red tape reduces even the number of those who enter.
Proposition tends to focus on both the moral case for improving people’s lives and an advantage to the recipient country.
Opposition can use either mainly right wing arguments about the dangers for the recipient or take a more liberal line centred on
the exploitation of the immigrants. Policy can be aimed either at individual governments or at the UN.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
People are being kept in unbearable poverty by immigration laws
that bar them from pursuing work in the countries where it is
available. Their situation is often worse than that of people who
are classed as genuine refugees. By allowing them to work in rich
countries we improve not only their situation but via remittances
that of their family and home country. Think of the economies of
the Philippines and the West Indies.
We should attempt to improve the situation in poor countries rather
than just allowing anyone with the drive to leave. This proposal will
cause a brain drain of talent from the countries that most need it in
order to build up their own economies condemning them to
permanent underdevelopment. It will take away working age
people from countries who already lack them because of AIDS and
high birth rates. Further, it will distract from our real aim which
must be to build up the economies of poor countries through
training and investment.
People are already entering Britain for work illegally in enormous
(but obviously unknown) numbers. This brings with it dangers that
can be stopped by legalisation. Illegal immigrants are exploited by
employers who don’t follow regulations on pay or conditions. They
pay no tax. They often become involved in prostitution or crime
because they are marginalised. The smuggling of immigrants into
rich countries allows them to be exploited by the gangs who do it
and there have been a number of casualties in the process.
Regulation is vital and only legalisation allows it.
Far more people will be exploited if we allow total immigration. The
desperately poor often invest all their money in a one way ticket
and are therefore trapped with no means of bargaining. Their
willingness to accept below minimum wage will undercut the whole
system and impoverish Western workers. Foreign workers are
often unaware of their rights and the regulations about their work
whether they are legal or illegal immigrants. These are the
grounds on which the Trades Unions movement explicitly opposes
this case.
Rich countries are in a demographic crisis with an ever decreasing
working population to support pensioners. The EU needs 14million
new people of working age each year to maintain the
worker/pensioner balance. Even Germany has had to reduce its
generous pension system. Developing countries are in the
opposite situation and almost all immigrants are of working age
and they will ease this demographic strain.
Rich countries may be dealing with a burden of supporting more
old people but raising the population is not the answer. more
developed countries are already under huge environmental
pressure because of their large populations and we cannot
suddenly have a huge increase in the already pressured housing
pool and road system without huge damage. Further, the welfare
system that supports the elderly is one of the great attractions for
immigrants who will certainly not all be young and may well not
choose to be workers. How can you prove that ‘welfare
scrounging’ won’t make the situation worse.
Rich countries that have boomed in the 90’s are short of both
skilled and unskilled workers who are kept out by stringent
immigration law. In London there are unfilled places for skilled
workers in 70% of companies and finding people willing to perform
basic manual jobs is increasingly difficult. Merrill-Lynch’s attempt
to recruit Russian workers was stymied by red tape in Britain. No
economy can grow when there are no workers to keep up with
demand. Immigration makes the whole economy bigger and
everyone richer in the long term.
Importing labour is an ineffective sop to the problems. There is still
unemployment in all rich countries and retraining and education
are the way to improve the supply of skilled labour. Why should
companies sponsor students if they can import their labour
cheaper? As well as brain draining poor countries the proposal will
allow governments to ignore the marginalised in their own country.
Labour shortage is temporary and a bust may well cause all those
immigrants to return to their own countries of origin which have not
grown economically because of the absence of workers and are
now structurally dependent on remittances.
This is good for the global economy because it brings workers to
where infrastructure and knowledge are. It also allows rich
countries to compete better and stops companies moving abroad
to lower pay and regulation countries. Lots of the biggest
multinationals have specifically lobbied for a free market in labour
so that they can reap the efficiency benefits. They after all pay little
attention to national borders.
What is good for poor countries and the global economy is sound
trading practice and investment in Less Developed Countries. This
is explicitly to be reduced if poor workers are to come to the
Western world. The reason that multinational companies are
engaged in a lobby for a free market in labour is because they are
engaged in a ‘race to the bottom’ in search of the cheapest labour.
101
Immigrants are generally seen to be extremely keen to work and
work hard in their new country. The drive to emigrate is a drive
from a wish to do well and tends to translate itself into
achievement. Also emigrants rarely come from countries with a
welfare culture so there is little use of welfare unless we make it
structurally impossible for them to work. The achievement of Jews
in Britain and America following the Second World War and the
social mobility of the Chinese in the USA stand as proof of this.
The examples in no way relate to the contemporary flow of
uneducated immigrants. If we look at the situation today we can
see that a huge percentage of immigrants don’t work and in many
cases this pattern persists for more than one generation.
Motions
This house would open the borders
This house would open the floodgates
This house believes in the right to work
This house would relax immigration law
102
Iran & The Bomb
Dominic Villet, 2/13/2010
Context
What are the implications, (Global, Middle East, and Domestic) of a Nuclear armed Iran? With Iran now producing 20%
enriched Uranium (Natural Uranium is composed of 99% U238, and the process of enrichment increases the relative amount of
U235, the isotope utilized for nuclear power plants and weapons), the distance to 90% (Weapons Grade) may seem far off,
however, the enrichment process requires less energy and Uranium the higher the existing enriched grade of Uranium. So,The
Bomb isn’t far off.
Resolution: THW allow Iran to have a nuclear bomb.
Pros
Cons
A Nuclear Iran would finally allow the U.S. to exert some real
positive influence on other M.E. governments. The existing
animosities in the M.E. would compel anti-Iranian governments to
seek shelter under the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal Umbrella. This potent
regional security could thus be exchanged for political, economic,
and military concessions. For example, Pakistan and Afghanistan
could be coerced to finally work towards eradicating extremists
groups, especially Al Qaeda. Thus, the U.S. would be able to pull
out of Af-Pak sooner, saving lives and treasure. Saudi Arabia,
likewise, and other members of OPEC could be TOLD to start
producing more gas, thus driving down the price of gas.
"Israel must be wiped off the map" - Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. The crazed President, with a Nuke, might just
initiate the Samson Option (see Pros), or quite possibly
compel a U.S. nuclear strike. This could lead to the longterm desolation of the M.E. and even the U.S., or hell, the
whole damn world.
According to the Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D) doctrine,
the existence of nuclear weapons amongst various nations, both
friend and foe, would severely lower the probability of not just a
nuclear attack, but of conventional warfare itself. The long-term
destructive capabilities of a nuclear strike are too risky for any
sane or insane political or military leader to push the button. An
attack on one, even if launched by surprise, would likely not
eradicate the entire nuclear arsenal of any given nation (such
arsenals are generally spread out and underground.) Thus, the
chances of counterattack in such a scenario are very probable.
This state of MAD, especially between Iran and the U.S., might
just create a Cold War pt. II. The deterrence capabilities of Nuclear
Weapons would thus save these two states from conventional
warfare.
As Iran currently has an extensive network of underground tunnels
and bunkers, any preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear arsenal
would surely for two reasons. One, existing bombs would be
unable to reach the depths of these tunnels, shielded by up to half
a mile of dense rock. Two, the intelligence estimates of the exact
locations of an underground nuclear arsenal would be very
imprecise. Thus any strike, preemptive or not, would surely not
destroy even a substantial amount of the arsenal. Thus, a
belligerent Nuclear Iran would pose a logistical nightmare for any
invasion or counter-attack.
The futility of MAD would thus compel the U.S. and Iran to seek
closer relations, especially economically. This would not only lower
the price of gas even more, but also allow for much needed
investment and trade with Iran as sanctions are lifted and
globalization does its thing.
The people of Iran would suffer as the global community forces
even more stringent sanctions upon Iran. This would lead to
further de-democratization and a retrenchment of the existing
political status-quo (especially the Revolutionary Guards) as the
country is more and more isolated from the rest of the world.
Next Page, Fix Cells Please, I have no clue
PRO
A Nuclear Iran would surely alarm Palestinians just as much as any Israeli. If the territory of Israel is nuked, well, the Palestinians
both within and without would obviously be affected as well. Thus, this mutual threat would compel these previously antagonistic
103
groups to seek an expedient compromise to their problems. This rapprochement would likely lead to the Israelis and Palestinians
talking as one voice in negotiation with Iran to find a livable solution.
Likewise, a Nuclear Iran would stir fears in the Arab world of the fatal initiation of the Israeli Samson Option. This Deterrence strategy
basically consists of Israel taking down the M.E., with nukes, if it is threatened by a large scale military or nuclear attack. Thus, states
formerly antagonistic to the Israelis would now have a compelling reason to sort things out, for everyone’s sake. This might even lead
to the majority of the M.E. bringing Iran and Israel together to make amends.
The majority of Iranians want a Nuclear Bomb, both as deterrence to Israel and for national pride. Why shouldn’t all peoples, of all
creeds and cultures, be allowed to have nukes?
104
Marijuana for Medical Purposes
Summary: Should marijuana be made legal for medical purposes?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Andraz Melansek ( Slovenia )
Andraz Melansek is a student of Intenational Relations at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. He is a debater , winning the Model
UN Balkan Case Challenge in 2003. He is also an experienced judge, twice adjudicating at the World Schools Debatin
Created: Sunday, February 01, 2004
Last Modified:
Context
Marijuana or cannabis is one of the most widely used drugs in the world. It causes hallucinations, disorientations and also
feelings of exhilaration and anxiety. The same drug has been found to relieve symptoms of many serious diseases, including
asthma, glaucoma and muscle spasms, as well as loss of appetite and nausea due to AIDS wasting syndrome and
chemotherapy treatment. Many distinguished professional medical bodies, including the American Medical Association, the
American Public Health Association and the New England Journal of Medicine have publicly supported prescriptive access to
marijuana. Governments, however, are still opposing the legalization of marijuana for medical use. They continue to list
marijuana as a Schedule I drug: "unsafe, highly subject to abuse, and possessing no medical value." As of July 9, Canada
became the first country to adopt a system regulating the medicinal use of marijuana in July 2001. 582 Canadians were
authorized to possess marijuana for medical reasons, most of whom were also licensed to cultivate the drug.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Medical cannabis has been clearly demonstrated by many studies
to be a safe non-toxic medicine, useful in the treatment of some of
our most disabling medical conditions including multiple sclerosis,
cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, chronic pain, etc.
The US Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study in
1999 to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its
constituent cannabinoids. The study concluded that smoking
marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease
condition. In addition, the effects of the cannabinoids studied are
generally modest, and in most cases, there are more effective
medications currently available.
Scientists and mentally-ill sufferers of bipolar disorder have
independently made the discovery that cannabis can improve this
medical condition, whether the mania or depression. It may also
reduce side effects of other drugs used in its treatment, such as
Lithium, Carbamazepine (Tegretol) or Valproate (Depakote).
Moreover, 30-40% of patients with bipolar disorder are not
consistently helped by or cannot tolerate standard medications.
A number of studies have reported that the effects of smoking
marijuana for people with psychological problems are profound,
most significantly in young women, where rates of mental health
problems were many times higher in daily cannabis users.
Cannabis is bad for one's mental health and causes higher rates of
depression and anxiety problems. Cannabis also triggers the onset
or relapse of schizophrenia in predisposed people and also
exacerbates the symptoms generally.
Marijuana helps terminally ill people to lead a better quality life.
Because smoked marijuana can give rapid relief from great
suffering to some patients, quickly improving such patients'
comfort and mental outlook, the terminally ill can still maintain their
human dignity and suffer less.
For the terminally ill, the use of marijuana can no longer be
considered a therapeutic intervention but one of several
procedures used to ease the ebbing of life of the terminally ill.
However, for this purpose doctors should prescribe antiemetic and
analgesic therapies of proven efficacy, rather than marijuana
smoking that also causes side effects.
Legalized marijuana would provide patients with a quality drug to
alleviate their pain. This would make the usage of drug
controllable, ingredients would be well known and experts would
determine the appropriate healing quantity. Legalization for
medical purposes is also necessary to encourage the
pharmaceutical industry to invest in further research of marijuana's
healing properties.
Legalization would lead to misuse and abuses. People who are
addicted to a drug are especially driven to find loopholes. In
countries where marijuana has already been introduced for
medical purposes, this has been the case. Legalizing marijuana
would pose a bad example and trigger pressures for the
legalization of other drugs.
Cannabis as a drug incurs twofold costs to the state. Firstly, a
state is paying all the restrictive apparatus caused by marijuana
being criminalized. Secondly, its citizens aren't given the medical
treatment they need and waste money on less efficient
medicaments. In addition sufferers and their carers are
The first obligation of a state is to protect its citizens. Prosecution
for possessing marijuana is a precaution to protect individual
citizens and society as a whole from the negative effects of a drug.
105
criminalised by the current policy and forced to trade with
underworld dealers for relief from their conditions.
Marijuana is the best drug to be put into medical use since it was
ranked lowest for withdrawal symptoms, tolerance and
dependence (addiction) potential; it ranked close to caffeine in the
degree of reinforcement and higher than caffeine and nicotine only
in the degree of intoxication.
Repeated use would lead to a psychological craving for it and thus
cause psychological addiction. Marijuana by definition meets the
criteria for an addictive drug; animal studies suggest marijuana
causes physical dependence, and some people report withdrawal
symptoms.
Motions
This house would legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
This house believes that hospitals should prescribe marijuana.
This house would give the weed to those in need.
106
Mercenaries
Summary: Should mercenaries be recognised as a legitimate part of warfare and given the
same rights as soldiers?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Harriet Jones-Fenleigh ( United Kingdom )
Harriet is reading History at Cambridge University, where she is Director of Debating. She is winner of the 2004 International Mace
and 2004 Oxford IV. Harriet has represented Cambridge at the World Universities Debating Championships and has reached the
Created: Wednesday, November 30, -0001
Last Modified: Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Context
Mercenaries, or hired soldiers, have long played a part in warfare. The Persians used 4,000 Greek mercenaries against
Alexander the Great; the incessant war between the city states of Renaissance Italy was conducted by condottieri, who offered
their services to the highest bidder. The English East India Company employed its own private army to gain control of the
subcontinent. It is only with the development of modern centralised nation states over the past two centuries that large national
standing armies have replaced mercenaries. However, the use of hired private armies has risen again over the past two
decades. Weak states unable to attract, train and pay recruits, as well as developed states forced to economise, increasingly
outsource military duties. The use of mercenaries is so widespread that many governments are calling for their official
recognition and laws to regulate the conduct of privatised warfare.
Those who see the use of mercenaries as legitimate argue that they are an inevitable and effective aspect of modern warfare
and that international recognition would open the way for regulation, which would make clearer the lines of responsibility.
Opponents stress the difficulty of making private armies accountable for their actions, particularly given their tendency to ignore
other areas of international law.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Mercenaries or Private Military Contractors (PMCs) are a flexible
and efficient tool with which to fight 21st century wars. Private
groups can be hired at short notice to carry out specific missions,
to reinforce traditional troops where greater numbers are required,
or to guard contractors during reconstruction after national armies
have been withdrawn.
Hiring mercenaries may save money but the practice creates huge
problems of accountability. Mercenaries are not bound by the
same rules and standards of conduct as conventional troops.
When problems arise it is often unclear whether army
representatives or PMCs should be held responsible, leaving a
black hole of accountability. Moreover, the lack of regulation
means that there is no means to ensure mercenaries breaking
laws are disciplined. Currently most mercenaries can operate
outside martial law with relative freedom. Some of the worst
offences at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were committed by
“privatised interrogators” who are yet to be punished.
Mercenaries are a cost efficient way of fighting. Although
expensive to hire, the government does not have to cover the cost
of training, housing, pensions or healthcare. Mercenaries, unlike
regular troops, are only paid for the days on which they are used.
Military commanders can economise by reducing the size of
standing armies and outsourcing roles to mercenaries as required.
For example, the US army is around a third smaller than it was in
the 1991 Gulf War. This saves taxpayers’ money and avoids the
build up of conventional troops, which, in the past, has contributed
to the development of arms races.
There is no guarantee of the quality of contracted soldiers.
Whereas the soldiers in national armies usually receive years of
intensive military training and undergo various assessments,
anyone can work for a PMC. The desire to increase
competitiveness has resulted in PMCs driving down costs by
recruiting cheaper, less experienced staff ill-suited for warfare.
Even if the mercenaries are former soldiers from national armies,
these veterans may have been kicked out for a reason. This
problem cannot be solved by regulation, as it is unlikely to extend
as far as requiring standardised training.
Private Military Contractors and the mercenaries they employ are
well trained and responsible. In fact, as mercenaries operate on
short-term contracts there exists a strong incentive to perform
effectively and carefully to ensure they are hired again. Most
mercenary organisations recruit ex-soldiers with combat
experience and ex-policemen trained in bodyguarding. In 2004
more SAS soldiers worked privately in Iraq than served in the
army. Moreover, governments increasingly recognise the quality of
mercenaries. An American PMC - Military Professional Resources
Inc - trains the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) on behalf
This new responsible image is not entirely justified. Executive
Outcomes may have had some success but white South African
ex-secret policemen predominantly staff the organisation. One of
EO’s chiefs was Eeben Barlow, a former officer in the 32nd
Battalion - an assassination squad that operated under Apartheid.
Similarly, the alleged involvement of Simon Mann, founder of
PMCs EO and Sandline International, in a recent plot to oust
President Obiang in Equatorial Guinea shows that even mercenary
organisations considered legitimate by the British Government
remain staffed by corrupt opportunists. It is highly morally
107
of the US Government. The British Ministry of Defence now allows
soldiers yearlong sabbaticals to work as mercenaries in the hope
they will return having made their fortunes. This official recognition
suggests that mercenaries have shed their “dogs of war” image.
They are no longer disreputable maverick figures operating in
failed states but highly trained professionals endorsed by national
governments.
questionable whether organisations with such a profound
disrespect for the sovereignty of other nation states should be
involved with the training of our armed forces, let alone fighting
alongside them.
Mercenaries often arouse less hostility amongst civilians than
soldiers fighting for national armies. In ethnic conflict they are
perceived as less partisan. The fact that civilians to some extent
do not connect mercenaries with a particular ideological cause,
invasion or civil war makes them ideal for protecting safe areas
and policing reconstruction projects. For example, PMC Global
Risk Strategies successfully guarded the Green Zone in Baghdad,
the sealed off section inhabited by coalition staff.
Whilst mercenaries appear to be less disliked than American
troops in Iraq, in parts of Africa their activities have increased
tension. The reputation of a national government is often stained
by the activities of hired mercenary groups. The involvement in
national military operations of white supremacist adventurers and
discredited individuals like Simon Mann is used by men such as
Mugabe to challenge the legitimacy of British policy in Africa.
Mercenaries are an essential means of bolstering regimes without
their own national forces. Whilst over the course of the 19th and
20th centuries many nation states have achieved sufficient unity to
rely on their own armies, there remain a large number of weaker
states unable to monopolise the use of force. Where no trained
army exists mercenaries provide the only way to prevent violent
opponents toppling administrations. British Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw believes that in an era of “small wars and weak states”
mercenaries have a “legitimate role”. Executive Outcomes (EO)
saved thousands of lives in Sierra Leone by protecting the regime
against the murderous rebels of the Revolutionary United Front.
Mercenaries may be the only way of providing short term security
guarantees to allow a government to establish itself without relying
on warlords or one side of an ethnic conflict. This could be the only
way out of a pattern of coup and counter-coup.
The use of mercenaries is counterproductive for unstable states.
By relying on hired mercenaries weak states encourage private
competition rather than reinforcing their own nascent armies. The
emergence of powerful local, as well as international, mercenary
organisations frustrates the ultimate goal of securing a state
monopoly over the use of force. There are many cases where
mercenaries have remained in a region long after their official
contract ended in an attempt to exploit regional instability in order
to further a particular ideological cause or reap financial reward.
Colonel Bob Denard fought vaguely “against Communism” in
Africa and attempted to overthrow the government of the Comoros
Islands off Madagascar on four separate occasions. Similarly,
Colonel “Mad” Mike Hoare tried to topple the government of the
Seychelles in 1981, arriving with 43 mercenaries disguised as
rugby playing members of a beer-tasting club named The Ancient
Order of Froth Blowers.
Mercenaries currently lack the protection of the law, rendering
them highly vulnerable. PMCs are still not allowed to use heavy
weaponry, such as bazookas, and cannot rely on help from the
military. Unless they are given recognition and protection there is a
danger they could pull out of the most dangerous areas, seriously
compromising their employers who may well feel unable to
continue without their protection. For example, Halliburton could
cripple US forces if it withdrew its support infrastructure in Iraq.
The possibility of mercenaries pulling out will always remain a risk.
PMCs are not fighting for their own country so they can never be
threatened with a charge of desertion. As such, encouraging
greater reliance on mercenaries is destabilising in the long term. It
allows invaders and local governments to feel that they can get
away with not providing sufficiently trained or numerous security
forces because there are men on the ground. It also means that
the most influential actors, large multi-national companies, no
longer have to pressure governments so hard to provide security
guarantees for everyone because they can buy their own. That
leaves those without influence or money high and dry.
Motions
This house would legitimise mercenary activities
This house recognises the use of mercenaries in state conflicts
This house would rely on soldiers of fortune
This house believes war is a private matter
108
Minimum Wage
Summary: Should minimum wages be instituted?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Jacqueline Rose ( United Kingdom )
Jacqueline is a History student at Clare College, Cambridge. A former convener of the PriceWaterhouseCoopers Cambridge Union
Schools Competition, she now runs workshops for intermediate level Cambridge debaters.
Created: Sunday, October 13, 2002
Last Modified: Sunday, October 13, 2002
Context
A minimum wage, simply stated, is the minimum (or floor) price set by governments in the market for labour. To have an effect,
it must exceed the ‘market clearing price’ at which the supply of labour (i.e. the number of those willing to offer their labour at
the clearing price) matches the demand for it (i.e. by employers willing to pay that amount). Theoretically a minimum wage
above the market clearing price will mean that supply exceeds demand and thus unemployment will result. However, given that
labour is a resource which is rarely cut back without serious thought, demand for it may be ‘inelastic’ i.e. will not change much,
limiting unemployment. How big an impact the minimum wage has depends upon how easy it is to substitute capital for labour,
how much greater it is than the market clearing price, and whether the economy is booming or in recession. Whilst most
minimum wages are national, there is also an international dimension to consider with regard to accusations of exploitation of
cheap Third World labour.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Low wages are inadequate compensation for potential workers
who are discouraged from entering the labour market. By making
labour more attractive, more human resources will be used, thus
raising national productivity. Even where capital is substituted (e.g.
through use of machinery instead of people), a rise in efficiency
will occur. Some studies suggest minimum wages raise
productivity as they encourage workers to stay with a company,
which benefits as they gain experience, and because they also
encourage companies to invest in worker training.
Artificially high wage rates lead to a misallocation of resources and
market failure. More people will be encouraged to work, but fewer
will be demanded by companies seeking to minimise costs. Such
distortions lead to an uncompetitive inflexible market that does
nothing to solve problems of skills mismatches.
Low wages are inadequate compensation for potential workers
who are discouraged from entering the labour market. By making
labour more attractive, more human resources will be used, thus
raising national productivity. Even where capital is substituted (e.g.
through use of machinery instead of people), a rise in efficiency
will occur. Some studies suggest minimum wages raise
productivity as they encourage workers to stay with a company,
which benefits as they gain experience, and because they also
encourage companies to invest in worker training.
Artificially high wage rates lead to a misallocation of resources and
market failure. More people will be encouraged to work, but fewer
will be demanded by companies seeking to minimise costs. Such
distortions lead to an uncompetitive inflexible market that does
nothing to solve problems of skills mismatches.
Governments have a duty to reduce poverty and so to raise the
standard of living of all households. There is an absolute minimum
quality of life, below which families should not fall. A minimum
wage that had no effect on employment would be unnecessary,
especially as the wage rate is not necessarily the main
consideration of employers when hiring workers.
The failure of the market to clear (‘classical unemployment’) will
actually disadvantage the poor, as capital is substituted for labour.
The lowest paid are often second earners in higher income
households; whereas the poorest are unemployed, not low paid.
Companies will either sack workers or suspend recruitment worsening the chances of getting a job.
Low pay is a relative measure, thus increasing basic salaries
would reduce occupational, sexual, geographical and age
inequalities. Freedom from dependence is a vital part of selfrespect; modern liberal democracies must encourage greater
equality of consumption opportunities via higher pay rates.
Redistribution is unlikely to take place in effect, as all that will
happen is inflation of pay up the salary ladder in order to retain
previous differentials. It is economically as well as morally
defensible that lower skilled workers should receive lesser pay
rates - a minimum wage merely fosters dependence on the
equivalent of a government handout.
Poverty and inequality must be reduced not only in Western
countries, but also in less economically developed states, where a
minimum wage would prevent exploitation of the workforce,
Once salaries are increased, companies will withdraw production
from such markets and there will be no income at all. The case of
Asia over the past fifty years shows that initially poorly paid jobs
109
including child labourers. Whilst national minima will naturally vary
across borders, forcing firms to pay higher salaries around the
globe will improve the quality of life of the poor. If it is a moral
imperative to relieve the relatively poor, then it is much more
pressing to help the absolutely impoverished.
tend to increase in skills and wages over time without intervention.
Imposing a minimum wage will make a country’s products
internationally uncompetitive and reduce inward investment.
Imposing such standards upon the developing world would
essentially be protectionism by the rich world.
Higher wages throughout the economy are not necessarily
negative, as an increase in purchasing power leads to a higher
quality of life. As the marginal propensity to save increases at
higher levels of income, higher earnings should in theory increase
the amount of savings available for reinvestment. Conversely,
decreased marginal propensity to consume will limit any
inflationary potential.
As well as being internationally damaging, the macro-economic
impact is also negative. As all pay levels are likely to rise, the
minimum wage will be disadvantaged by inflation - increased costs
are passed on to the consumer, stoking ‘cost-push’ inflation. For
the NAIRU (non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) to
remain static, a rise in wages in one part of the economy would
have to be balanced by a fall in another wage sector.
Tax credits are notoriously bureaucratic, as their administration via
pay packets by firms is resented as costly and time consuming.
Viewed as a political tool to artificially decrease the proportion of
national income spent by the state, they also confuse workers. A
minimum wage is a clear and simple promise of adequate
compensation for labour. In any case, the two policies are not
mutually exclusive.
Minimum wages are blunt instruments that damage the most
vulnerable. Small businesses cannot afford to pay such rates,
whilst lower levels of pay for younger workers does not prevent
discrimination against employing such individuals as the minimum
is proportionately greater than the norm for older workers. A better
alternative is a targeted system of tax credits which reduce the
‘poverty trap’ by making work more lucrative than benefits, and
which end the ‘unemployment trap’ by topping up low pay with
assistance to low income households yet still encourage a work
ethic.
This is an argument for better enforcement of the system, rather
than against it in principle - the majority of workers will choose to
act legally and accept higher pay if possible.
Avoidance and evasion will be encouraged by businesses who
seek to minimise costs in the informal sector of the economy.
Those desperate for work will connive and accept lower wages only fair, as it is their fundamental right to exercise the free choice
by opting for lesser pay rather than unemployment.
Motions
This House would help the poor.
This House would pay a minimum wage.
This House would raise its salary.
110
NAFTA: Good or Bad
Summary: Is a large North American free trade bloc a laudable project? Should it be
supported, or is free trade in this area a curse rather than a blessing?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Jonathan Simons ( United Kingdom )
Jonathan is a student of Politics at the University of Durham. A Grand Finalist at the World Universities Debating Championships
2002 in Toronto, and a finalist at Oxford IV 2002, he is also the ex-convenor of multiple Durham university and schools' tourn
Created: Wednesday, August 14, 2002
Last Modified: Monday, July 24, 2006
Context
The North America Free Trade Agreement was initially created as a bilateral agreement between the USA and Canada in
1994, with Mexico joining later. The aims of NAFTA are different for all three nation states, as is the opposition to it from within
those states. It is not really comparable to the modern European Union - it exists purely as a free trade bloc with no political
ties. It is also a loose arrangement. Opposition to NAFTA was vocal at its inception - the Canadian government who signed it
into law was reduced to just 2 MPs in the following general election. In the USA, Ross Perot’s bid for the Presidency was
largely based around opposition to the NAFTA proposals, gaining him the largest third party vote for decades.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
NAFTA is a giant free trade block which importantly includes the
USA. NAFTA will ensure maximum trade advantages for a
sizeable part of the economy of the world. Productivity will be high
as growth and jobs are created in the region. Mexico as the least
developed member of NAFTA has particularly benefited, but its
increasingly prosperous consumers have become in turn a much
larger market for US and Canadian companies.
The key feature of NAFTA is asymmetric power. Wage disparity
between the US and Mexico is 8:1 as opposed to 4:1 within the
European Union. The US does only 7% of its trade with Mexico
and 20% with Canada, whilst they do over 75% of their trade with
the USA. Asymmetry is further shown by the USA’s ability to
exploit non-tariff barriers as a continuing protection for domestic
industries. NAFTA is not therefore a meaningful trade bloc.
All three countries benefit from the arrangement. The US ensures
access to its largest single market (Canada) and this also allows
them to lock in the Mexican economic reforms. It has also secured
a better political relationship with Mexico and more progress in
dealing with cross-border issues such as drug trafficking and
illegal immigration. Canada and Mexico can stop the US going
protectionist and ensure access to the world’s largest economy.
There is massive opposition to NAFTA in all three countries, which
shows the potential danger. The US is worried about being
swamped with Mexican goods through comparative advantage.
The Trade Unions are against it and there are serious
environmental concerns. Canadians fear they will lose cultural
diversity. Canada’s influence in NAFTA has not stopped the US
using protectionism over their largest single export, softwood
lumber. Mexico may get swamped by US goods. Multinational
companies may relocate and crush Mexican industry. There is the
possibility of exploitation of land and labour which are cheaper in
Mexico
If the US sneezes, then the rest of the world catches a cold.
Similarly, if the US economy is buoyant, then the rest of the world
benefits. Free Trade is the means whereby the US has secured a
strong boom throughout the 1990s and NAFTA has helped to
secure that. Consumers have gained from cheaper goods, and
companies have benefited from being forced to exploit
comparative advantage.
The USA does not depend on trade from within NAFTA to survive.
Only 27% of its visible exports and even fewer invisible exports
come from the NAFTA area. Moreover, its buoyancy is determined
by trade that can be established without any formal agreement,
due to the sheer size of the US economy. NAFTA has therefore
made little difference overall.
NAFTA acts as an economic security arrangement and a strategic
message to Europe and Asia. This message is that if they want to
stay serious players in the world economy, then they need to
liberalise their regional markets to compete.
The emergence of rival economic blocs is, if anything, likely to
encourage protectionism and rivalry. This can be seen by
examples such as the Banana wars and disputes over hormonetreated beef. NAFTA won’t liberalise the US market that still uses
protectionism in cases such as the steel industry? Why should
Europe and Asia liberalise?
NAFTA’s success shows the US public, politicians and trade
unions the advantages of freer trade. This will encourage them to
pursue this further by committing themselves to wider
liberalisation, such as the Doha round of the WTO and the creation
NAFTA’s economic benefits are still being debated, so no clear
lessons can be drawn yet for wider application. The political battles
fought to negotiate and pass the agreement were so bruising in all
three countries that its politicians have come to fear any future
111
of a Free Trade Area of the Americas.
battles over trade liberalisation, making this less likely. The more
the world divides up into rival economic blocs (EU, NAFTA,
Mercosur, ASEAN, etc.), the harder it will be to cut global deals
which benefit everyone, but particularly the developing world.
The success of such a bloc, combining the effectiveness of free
trade with the maintenance of national sovereignty and diversity
shows that the European model can work elsewhere, and is
worthy of adoption in other regions.
NAFTA is fundamentally nothing like the European Union. It is a
large confederation of states with no central structure. NAFTA is
purely a free market. It has no commitment to closer union and no
political ties.
Motions
This House would join NAFTA
This House welcomes the benefits of NAFTA
112
NASA, Government funding for
Summary: Should the National Aeronautics and space administration (NASA) be government
funded?
print this page
Discuss topic
Context
The USA’s National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) was founded in 1958 as a response to the Cold War threat
posed by the USSR’s launch of the first artificial satellite. NASA rapidly responded with America’s own successful launches of
unmanned and unmanned space craft as part of a “space race” with the Soviet Union. Its most famous achievement was
sending men to the moon, beginning with Neil Armstrong in 1969. Other achievements include launching the Skylab space
station in the 1970s, the Voyager programme which explored our solar system before heading off for deep space, and the
Hubble Space telescope which has explored distant galaxies in search of the origins of the universe. Since the late 1970s
NASA’s most high profile programme has been the Space Shuttle, a reusable craft designed to carry men and cargo into
space, but there are now plans to revisit the Moon and eventually land human beings on Mars for the first time.
Many have accused NASA of losing its way since the mid-1970s, inventing missions as a way of protecting its own funding and
status rather than pursuing programmes on their own merits. The Space Shuttle and the International Space Station in
particular have been criticised as examples of high-profile and hugely expensive programmes with no real justification other
than to keep human beings in space and NASA employees in work. These programmes have tended to overshadow the
achievements of unmanned NASA missions in peering into the origins of the universe and exploring our solar system (e.g. with
robotic craft on Mars). Many people argue that the billions of dollars spent on NASA every year would be better spent solving
problems here on earth, for example in improving education and providing opportunity for poor Americans. The 2003 Columbia
disaster when a space shuttle was destroyed on reentry into the earth’s atmosphere and 7 astronauts died has also focused
attention on NASA’s failings.
Criticism of NASA has increased over the past decade as private efforts to send vehicles into space have gathered pace.
SpaceshipOne captured headlines in 2004 after winning the $10 million X Prize for a private craft able to take a person to
space twice within two weeks. Today a number of companies are aiming to offer cheap access to space, both for tourists (via
Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, for example) and for commercial satellite launches. People are increasingly asking if NASA
is still needed or whether space missions could now be left to private business. Some even argue that NASA is acting as an
obstacle to private enterprise in space, and demand that the government should get out of the way of this growing economic
sector.
In this changed climate funding for NASA has become more controversial and it faces tough annual battles to get its budget
passed by Congress each year. The arguments below focus on whether the government should fund NASA at all, but they
could be adapted for related debastes such as privatisation of the agency, the commercialisation of space, and President
Bush’s New Vision for Space Exploration.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The government should stop funding NASA because it is not worth
the $17 billion of taxpayers’ money that is spent on it every year.
We can take pride in NASA’s past achievements of putting men on
the moon, and enjoy the benefits of satellite communications
which resulted from its work in the 1960s and 1970s. However,
NASA’s recent record is very poor. Its scientific discoveries are of
no practical use to mankind. Its tragic loss of the Space Shuttle
Columbia is part of a pattern of failures that expose the agency as
dangerously incompetent and wasteful. And its obsession with
manned spaceflight and the International Space Station combines
maximum expense with minimum scientific justification.
The government does not put a high enough priorty on space
exploration and NASA should receive much more government
funding in order to expand its crucial mission. Far from being
pointless, NASA’s recent work has allowed mankind to explore the
origins of the universe and our own planet’s formation. It has led
the search for worlds around distant stars, where life might one
day be found. And it continues to embrace the challenge of human
spaceflight; manned missions have a flexibility and scope that
robot probes will never deliver, and they can inspire and unite
humanity in pursuit of a noble common cause.
NASA is such an expensive part of the government budget that it
would be better to redirect the money to more urgent causes here
on earth. Barack Obama, for example, has suggested cutting the
agency’s budget in order to fund early years education and more
investment in the teaching of Maths and Science. Others see the
millions of Americans who cannot afford health insurance and
wonder whether a country which pours billions into space
exploration has its priorities straight. The facts that America is
entering an economic downturn and that the federal budget deficit
is huge suggest that NASA is a luxury we should no longer afford.
Cutting NASA out of the federal budget, would only cut less than
one percent of the total. Compare this to the 5% of the federal
budget spent on NASA at the height of the Apollo missions to the
moon and it is clear that its current programmes are affordable.
Nor would scrapping NASA and spending its budget on social
programmes make any great difference – the federal government
alone spends nearly a hundred times more on social programmes
than it does on NASA (and state and local governments spend
tens of billions more tax dollars on similar programmes). So the
impact on the poor from redirecting our space exploration budget
would be less significant than a rounding error in federal
accounting. By comparison, defence and homeland security
spending is more than forty times NASA’s budget each year, so if
the nation is to change its priorities that is clearly a better place to
113
start.
We should solve our problems here on Earth before we go into
space. The environmental damage that mankind has inflicted on
our planet is so great that life on earth is in great danger. At the
same time millions of children go to bed hungry and die of
preventable diseases. Tackling these issues is such a global
priority that all our resources need to be directed to saving the
planet and its, rather than frittered away into space. If our nation’s
technological might and the efforts of its best scientific minds were
directed to these causes instead of cosmic ones, we have a
chance to reverse our suicidal course.
Even if earth’s huge social and environmental problems could be
solved simply by throwing more money at them, redirecting
NASA’s small budget will make no real difference. In fact NASA
makes a real contribution to solving the world’s problems by
helping to expose and investigate the issues facing us. For
example, NASA satellites provide critical data on problems such
as the ozone layer or global warming, and they can expose illegal
deforestation or track the progress of dangerous weather events
such as hurricanes. More profoundly, NASA’s pictures from space
of our beautiful Earth have changed human consciousness,
bringing home to us our common destiny as shared inhabitants of
a fragile planet. Nothing has done more to stimulate the growth of
internationalism and environmental awareness.
NASA is hugely bureaucratic and wasteful, tying up thousands of our
nation’s best minds in a complex system of red tape and vested interests.
Other countries and private companies both produce much cheaper, more
cost-effective space missions. NASA also suffers from political
interference, with the President and Congress both trying to micro-manage
the agency. This forces it to focus on prestige projects, such as the
International Space Station or President Bush’s New Vision for Space
Exploration with its emphasis on manned flights to the moon and Mars. At
other times it has proposed politically-correct missions “to planet earth” to
please environmentalist legislators. And each year NASA’s funding round
in Congress becomes highly politicised as legislators seek to ensure that
part of its budget is spent in particular states, or devoted to their pet
projects.
NASA’s funding and management are not perfect, but that is a reason to
reform them, not to abolish the agency altogether. Part of the reason the
agency’s work is expensive is that it is both cutting-edge and concerned to
minimise risk. Other countries’ space agencies and private companies may
look more cost-effective, but that is because they are less ambitious, being
largely content to replicate what NASA already achieved decades ago.
They may also be prepared to tolerate more risk to their manned missions
than NASA would. But with NASA’s commitment to the most challenging
and innovative scientific missions comes economic benefits, as
technological breakthroughs in materials, communications, imaging, and
propulsion find new applications in civilian industries here in the USA.
Many who are serious about space research are very critical of NASA’s
emphasis on manned space exploration. They see it a classic example of
political interference, as NASA seeks to respond to President Bush’s New
Vision for Space Exploration. This may be more sensational, making it
easier for NASA to attract funding from the Administration and Congress,
but it makes the agency look like it exists simply for its own sake. The New
Vision will actually result in less serious science being done as money is
shifted away from more cost-effective and important robotic missions.
Manned space flights are hugely more expensive than unmanned
missions, largely because the rockets and craft needed to send people into
orbit are much larger than those needed for robotic exploration, but also
because so much has to be done to minimise risk. Yet that risk cannot be
completely removed, as NASA’s past tragedies show, and further loss of
lives may well discredit the whole idea of space exploration of any kind.
NASA has always been committed to manned flight, so President Bush’s
New Vision for Space Exploration was hardly imposed on the agency.
Robot missions are fine for one-off, defined tasks, but they are not able to
respond intelligently and flexibly to new situations in the way astronauts
can. Manned missions can take on many more challenges (e.g. repairing
and reconditinaing the Hubble space telescope); they also have huge
importance in focusing the attention of mankind upon the mysteries of the
universe and in inspiring millions of young people to become engineers
and scientists. It is true there is a legitimate debate within the space
community about manned vs unmanned missions, but few who wish to
focus on unmanned spaceflight would want to shut NASA down. Instead
they would like it to shift its priorities, generally into areas private space
businesses are unlikely to venture.
NASA is not only ineffective in advancing space exploration; it actually
prevents progress by others. In recent years private businesses have
become interested in space exploration, finding innovative and costeffective ways to solve technological challenges. Yet NASA obstructs the
development of cheaper private sector alternatives to its own efforts, just
as any big centrally-planned socialist monopoly distorts the economy.
NASA has prevented other branches of government from placing spacerelated work (e.g. satellite launches) with private companies. The agency
also ties up vast numbers of talented engineers and scientists in both its
own ranks and in university departments that receive NASA funding.
Freeing these minds from the numbing hand of government would unleash
innovation and enterpreneurial energies that would surely drive progress
rapidly forward and quickly bring down the costs of space flight.
In recent years many private sectors space companies have started up,
which suggests that NASA is not preventing their growth. On the contrary,
NASA’s investment in research and technology has stimulated an ecosystem of space industries that continue to depend on it for trained
personnel and scientific innovation. But these private efforts will never
replace NASA’s role – they are only interested in the commercial
opportunities of near-space, such as tourism or satellite launches. Private
money will never wish to explore the solar system and answer the
fundamental questions about the origins of the universe. For these, we
have NASA.
If the government wishes to put public money into space research and
exploration, then it should do so as a customer. In other areas of public life
government increasingly commissions services from specialist private
companies (e.g. welfare or military supply), which bid in open competition
for the work and accept some of the risks. This drives down costs,
promotes innovation and efficiency, and ensures that the government’s
financial commitment is capped. Following the same model, if the state
wishes to buy satellite data, transport a load to the International Space
Station, or send a mission to Pluto, it should put the job out to tender from
the private sector rather than building its own wasteful and enormously
expensive infrastructure.
The government should not be reliant on the private sector for its access to
space. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, having a dedicated space
agency continually expands the realm of the possible, allowing it to offer
new data and propose new missions to government. Without NASA’s
expertise, the government would not know how to approach space
exploration, so private companies would not be offered any business
anyway. Secondly and more importantly, control of space is now critical to
our defence, with intelligence-gathering, communications and early
warning satellites vital to the protection of American interests and the
projection of its power. Not only should control of this part of our national
security not be entrusted to private business, but defence considerations
mean that NASA should continue to be well funded in order to ensure the
USA continues to be the global leader in all space technology.
Motions
114
NATO, Disbanding of
Summary: Should NATO be disbanded?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: James Acton ( United Kingdom )
James has a PhD from Cambridge, where he was Director of Debating, and coached the England Schools Debating Team on three
occasions.
Created: Wednesday, November 01, 2000
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Context
NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It is an international military body currently consisting of nineteen
European and North American states. It was set up during the cold war as a counter balance against the Warsaw Pact
(comprising the Soviet Union and Eastern European communist countries). NATO’s doctrine, developed during the cold war,
was based around the concept of collective security; an attack against any one member country would be viewed as an attack
against all member countries, which would then be obliged to defend the attacked state. This doctrine is still central to NATO’s
strategic thinking although its role has dramatically changed since the end of the cold war. In many senses NATO is now a
‘European Policeman’, in theory, able to provide rapid response to a crisis. In this new role it has intervened in Bosnia and
Kosovo.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
NATO is a relic of the Cold War. It may have been necessary in
then but it is now an anachronism. Much of NATO’s thinking is
based around an outdated Cold War philosophy. It is trying to
carve a role for itself as ‘Europe’s Policeman’ but it has no
authority to fulfil that role. Indeed, it does active harm in this role
by undermining the United Nations. The member countries of
NATO would be better deploying their military strength through the
UN, which has the legitimacy to authorise the use of force where
necessary.
NATO has undergone a mammoth programme of reform. The
boarder areas around Europe are very unstable and it is in
everyone’s interests that regional stability is maintained. This is not
only important for the physical safety of Europeans but also for the
economic prosperity of the region. Due to its composition NATO is
a legitimate body to act in Europe.
The very existence of NATO and its current expansionist policies
are threatening toward Russia. Many ultra nationalist parties have
gained popular support in Russia by running on an anti-Western
agenda generally and anti-NATO policy specifically. Ironically
NATO, which helped to end the Cold War, is helping to bring about
a Russian administration hostile to the West. NATO expansion has
also been an enormous barrier to trade between Russia and the
West. Furthermore, there is a strong need for close cooperation
between Russia and the West over the safe disassembly of
Russia’s nuclear weapons. This programme has been hindered
greatly by NATO expansion.
NATO has cooperated carefully with Russia to ensure that its
expansion has not caused rifts. The Founding Act, signed with
Russia in 1997, laid down a framework in which Russia and NATO
could cooperate. The agreement not only included military
cooperation but economic cooperation as well. NATO is being
seen as less and less of a threat from Russia. For example, the
Russian Duma has now ratified START II in spite of its earlier
refusal to do so because of NATO expansion.
NATO is currently ineffective. It is governed by the council, which
makes all its key decision. The current size of the council hinders
fast decision-making, preventing it from fulfilling the role it has
created for itself. Its doctrine of collective security is also outdated.
It is inevitable that the whole of NATO would be dragged into a war
effecting just one of its members. Many of NATO countries (e.g.
Turkey, the Czech republic and Poland) border on unstable areas.
It seems absurd that the whole of NATO should be brought into a
war over a Turkish border skirmish. There are also big disparities
within NATO between the military capabilities of its various
member states e.g. USA and Poland. This results in tactical
difficulties deploying military units from different countries together.
It is no coincidence that since the end of the cold war the number
of smaller regional conflicts has increased dramatically. The rigid
system of alliances which bound states to either the Western or
Eastern power bloc during the cold war have now collapsed
resulting in, for example, the break up of and subsequent
slaughter in the former Yugoslavia. International intervention in
such crises is necessary. NATO can respond much quicker than
the UN and is the only military force with the ability to successfully
intervene in the most delicate of conflicts. Its interventions in
Bosnia and Kosovo were both successful. The NATO troops left in
Bosnia have helped ease ethnic tensions and are currently helping
to restore the ethnic balance in Kosovo as well as policing the
region.
115
116
Negotiating with Terrorist Groups
Summary: Should governments negotiate with terrorists?
print this page
Discuss topic
Context
This issue has become increasingly important in the years since the end of the Cold War. Over the past ten to fifteen years,
many terrorist groups involved in long-running conflicts – the IRA in Northern Ireland, the PLO in Israel, ETA in Spain, and
others – have been brought to the negotiating table; in the case of South Africa, a former terrorist group has now formed the
government. All of these stem from internal conflict, but for many other countries an external terrorist threat also exists. It is
important for the proposition to define clearly the terms of the motion: what constitutes terrorism? And what does it mean to
negotiate? The best debate will be produced by a fairly strong definition, with the proposing team accepting that terrorists will
harm civilians and the negotiation would involve making concessions. The debate also only really works in the context of a
democracy, where there are other alternatives to violence as a tool to change policy.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Most terrorist
organisations are not engaged in violence simply for the joy of it,
nor for personal gain; instead, they stand for a particular political
position, and often for a particular group of people. It is important
to realise that there are two sides to every conflict. A good
example for this is the ANC in South Africa. For many years they
were regarded by the government – and by many foreign
governments – as an illegal terrorist organisation. For the majority
black population of the country, however, they were legitimately
fighting for their freedom. History will record that they were on the
side of right, and the apartheid government was in the wrong.
The example of South Africa is an isolated one. In many cases,
the political situation in which terrorism takes place is far more
complex, and it is far less clear who is in the right and who is in the
wrong. In such cases, the one most important fact is that killing
people is immoral. By accepting violence as a political tool, these
groups become no more than murderers, and should be treated as
such.
Any government’s primary responsibility is to save lives. History
has shown that military solutions have little chance of succeeding:
it is almost impossible to defeat an organisation composed of
individual people with guns and bombs without unbearable
restrictions on the freedom of the innocent. In the case of
prolonged internal campaigns of terrorism, the promise of
negotiations can be used as a bargaining tool to end violence, and
will almost always lead to a ceasefire. This has been seen in
almost every case where terrorist groups have been brought to the
negotiating table. In the case of more isolated incidents, such as
hostage-taking, it is worth making concessions in order to save the
lives of civilians who the government has no right to sacrifice on a
stubborn point of morality.
Giving in to terrorists may save lives in the short term, but is
harmful in the longer term. Many terrorist groups have been
unable to achieve their goals through democratic means and
hence resort to violence; by making concessions, the government
is saying that groups who use guns and bombs can have more
influence in society than those who use peaceful methods. This is
a dangerous precedent to set, as it encourages others to use
violence in the belief that it will further their cause. Instead,
governments must demand that groups abandon violence and
cease acts of terrorism before negotiations can even be
considered.
Many terrorist conflicts are the result of political disagreements
that run back many years; terrorism is often fuelled by a historic
culture of hatred and distrust. In such situations, it is imperative
that someone take the first step in trying to resolve the situation. In
the interests of peace and of fairness, it is the government which
must do so: it is inevitably the more powerful side in the conflict
and is therefore in a position to make concessions. Only by taking
a lead is it possible to end the killing.
The reverse problem is that terrorist organisations have nothing to
lose. The threat of violence gives them undue power at the
negotiating table: they can insist on total concessions to all their
demands – even if they are undemocratic – and threaten to
recommence terrorist activities if they are denied. In Northern
Ireland, Spain and Israel negotiations have hit this same stumbling
block, and ceasefires have been broken. Terrorists cannot be
trusted.
Refusing to talk to terrorists can cloud the issues surrounding their
activities, and can make them seem as if they are fighting against
an oppressive regime. By opening up negotiations, a government
denies them this opportunity to present themselves as martyrs,
and opens their often un-democratic demands up to public
scrutiny.
Again, negotiating with terrorists gives them a legitimacy which
they do not deserve. Those who use peaceful means to achieve
their goals should be respected and listened to; those who murder
and terrorise innocent civilians in order to be heard must be
treated not as political leaders but as criminals.
Motions
This House would talk to terrorists
This House believes that force cannot eliminate ideology.
This House would bomb their beliefs out of existence.
117
This House believes the terrorism list is far too short.
118
Nuclear Weapons, Abolition of
Summary: Should Nuclear Weapons be abolished?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Bobby Webster ( United Kingdom )
Bobby Webster is a former World Schools Debating champion, and has taught debating on five continents. Currently working for
Demos, the UK's leading independent think-tank, he is also a film-maker in his spare time.
Created: Thursday, October 12, 2000
Last Modified: Saturday, April 18, 2009
Context
The nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 forever changed the face of war, and the half-century of Cold
War which followed was dominated, above all, by the threat of nuclear destruction. Both superpowers raced to produce a
greater arsenal than their opponents, leading to the point where they had the ability to destroy the world several times over.
Added to the direct destructive power of the weapons was the consensus growing among scientists from 1970s onwards that a
major war would plunge the world into a ‘nuclear winter’, destroying life even in places that had escaped attack. This led to the
concept of ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’, a stalemate in which both sides knew that the use of their weapons would lead to
their own destruction as well as their enemies’.
The global situation has, however, changed substantially since the end of the Cold War. Nuclear Weapons have ceased to
dominate world politics; however, the fear of proliferation – the spread of weapons of mass destruction to many more countries
– is also on the rise. India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are all now nuclear powers, and many fear that Iran will soon join
them. The Proposition in this debate will focus on the total abolition of the world’s nuclear arsenals as a realistic goal to aim for,
as President Obama has recently argued. The opposition is more pragmatic, not defending the weapons per se but insisting
that they remain a necessary evil.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Nuclear weapons are morally repugnant. Over the past fifty years,
we have seen a general tendency towards limited warfare and
precision weapons, allowing military objectives to be achieved with
minimal loss of civilian life. The entire point of nuclear weapons,
however, is their massive, indiscriminate destructive power. Their
use could kill tens of thousands of civilians directly, and their
catastrophic environmental after-effects would harm many more all
around the world. These effects could never be morally
acceptable.
The use of nuclear weapons would indeed be a great tragedy; but
so, to a greater or lesser extent, is any war. The reason for
maintaining an effective nuclear arsenal is in fact to prevent war.
By making the results of conflict catastrophic, a strategic deterrent
discourages conflict. The Cold War was in fact one of the most
peaceful times in history, particularly in Europe, largely because of
the two superpowers' nuclear deterrents.
The idea of a so-called 'nuclear deterrent' no longer applies.
Peace during the Cold War was maintained only by a balance of
power - neither superpower had an advantage large enough to be
confident of victory. This eventually became the doctrine of
Mutually Assured Destruction: both sides had sufficient weaponry
to totally annihilate one another, and potentially the whole world.
However, there is no longer a balance of power. With the
proliferation of nuclear weapons, some rogue states may develop
the ability to strike at enemies who have no nuclear weapons of
their own. It is not clear that the major nuclear powers would then
strike back at the aggressor. This is further complicated by the fact
that most of the emerging nuclear threats would not be from
legitimate governments but from dictators and terrorist groups.
Would it ever be acceptable to kill thousands of civilians for the
actions of extremists?
The deterrent principle still stands. During the Gulf War, for
example, one of the factors which prevented Iraq from launching
missiles tipped with chemical weapon warheads against Israel was
the threat the USA would retaliate with a nuclear strike. Although
there is no longer as formal a threat of retaliation as there was
during the Cold War, the very possibility that the use of nuclear
weapons by a rogue state could be met a retaliatory strike is too
great a threat to ignore. Moreover, although the citizens of the
current nuclear powers may be against the use of force against
civilians, their opinions would rapidly change if they found
weapons of mass destruction being used against them.
By maintaining a strategic deterrent, the current nuclear powers
encourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. To be
a part of the so-called 'nuclear club' is seen as a matter of great
prestige; when India and Pakistan recently declared their nuclear
capability, it was seen in both countries as increasing their
international status. Also, nations opposed to a nuclear power feel
that they need to develop their own capability in order to protect
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to go
back. Nuclear technology exists, and there is no way to un-invent
it. Much as the ideal of global disarmament is fine, the reality is
that it is impossible: it takes only one rogue state to maintain a
secret nuclear capability to make the abolition of the major powers'
deterrents unworkable. Without the threat of a retaliatory strike,
this state could attack others at will.
119
themselves. The declared nuclear powers must therefore take the
lead in disarmament, as an example for the rest of the world.
While nuclear weapons exist, they can fall into the wrong hands.
This is particularly true in Russia, which now had control of all of
the nuclear weapons which were distributed around the former
Soviet Union. The military is disastrously underfunded; technicians
and officers who were used to a high standard of living are now
finding themselves without pay, sometimes for years. At the same
time, other states and extremist groups are willing to pay
substantial sums for their services, and to gain access to nuclear
weapons. The danger of a weapon being stolen, or - in
consideration of the current political instability in Russia - a nuclear
base being taken over by disgruntled members of the military or
other extremists, can only be ended by destroying the weapons.
While nuclear weapons can be dismantled, the weapons-grade
plutonium which forms their warheads cannot simply be destroyed.
Instead, they must be stored in special facilities; in Russia, there
are some thousand sites were military nuclear material is stored. It
is producing this plutonium which is in fact the most difficult stage
in building a weapon - by dismantling missiles, you are therefore
not destroying their most dangerous part, and hence the risk of
theft does not decrease. In fact, it may increase: missile silos in
Russia are still the most heavily funded part of the military,
whereas in recent years it has become clear that security at
storage facilities is often inadequate. Moreover, it is far easier to
steal a relatively small quantity of plutonium than an entire
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Ironically, the safest place for
plutonium in present-day Russia may be on top of such a missile.
Motions
This House would abolish nuclear weapons
This House would ban the bomb
120
Overpopulation and Contraception
Summary: Is there a global crisis of overpopulation? Is so, is increased use of contraception
the solution?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Wu-Meng Tan ( Malaysia )
Wu Meng is a MB/PhD student at Cambridge University, studying fora doctorate in molecular biology. A former president of the
Cambridge Union Society, he was quarter-finalist in the 2001 World Debating Championships and has won three UK intervarsity
debating tournaments.
Created: Monday, October 02, 2000
Last Modified: Monday, April 13, 2009
Context
It has long been accepted that natural resources are limited. Despite the efforts of scientists to find more efficient ways of using
what is already available, it has become clear that no amount of technology will completely solve the problem of limited
resources. Attention has therefore turned to the question of population growth – it is far easier to preserve the environment if
our natural resources are shared among fewer people. Environmental degradation will accelerate if the increase in the global
human population is not slowed down. Over the years, there has been a great deal of debate about whether large-scale
contraception is the solution to the population explosion in the developing world. Debates about birth control can exist on two
levels; on one level, there can be debate about whether the problem is serious enough to merit some form of action. On the
second level, the debate can discuss whether contraception is an appropriate solution. In debate formats where there is some
definitional leeway, any debate on solving the developing world’s population crisis can be steered towards this topic, by using
the definition to propose a policy supporting greater contraceptive use.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Population is a major problem today – the world population of 6
billion is expected to reach 10.7 billion by 2050. Given the strain
on global resources and the environment today, it is clear that an
environmental disaster is waiting to happen, as the population time
bomb ticks away. While reproduction, as part of family life, is a
fundamental human right, we must also consider that rights come
with responsibilities. We have a responsibility to future
generations, and population control is one method of ensuring that
there will still be some natural resources left for our descendants.
Many of these forecasts are exaggerated and do not take into
account the different phases of population growth. A nation’s
population may grow rapidly in the early stages of development,
but with industrialisation and rising levels of education, the
population tends to stabilise at the replacement rate, after an initial
boom period. Even if the quoted figure of 10.7 billion by 2050 is
true, this is likely to remain steady thereafter, as the developing
nations of today achieve maturity. Developed, industrialised
nations can use alternative methods to solve the environmental
and social problems arising from overpopulation. For example, one
could explore options like better redistribution of economic wealth
and food, and the creation of a global market which does not
disenfranchise the poor (e.g. the EU’s protectionist Common
Agricultural Policy deprives developing agricultural economies of a
level playing field). All available options should be exhausted
before taking the drastic decision to curb reproductive rights.
Contraception is an easy and direct method of reducing population
growth. The popularity and success of contraception in the
developed world is testament to this.
There are often technical difficulties associated with implementing
widespread contraception. The cost can be prohibitive, especially
when considered on a national scale. Large numbers of trained
workers will be required to educate the public on the correct use of
contraceptives. Even with an investment in training, there is no
guarantee that birth control methods will be used correctly,
especially by the illiterate and uneducated – numerous anecdotal
reports exist, where, for example, villagers, having seen a banana
used as a prop for teaching condom use, proceeded to place their
state-sponsored condoms on bananas.
Contraception can reduce family sizes. This will allow a greater
proportion of resources to be allocated to each child, improving
their opportunities for education, healthcare, and nutrition.
In many agrarian communities, it is actually in the interests of the
family to have as many children as possible. Children can be
deployed to work on the farm, as a source of income. In an
undeveloped nation without a good social welfare system, children
can provide security in old age. Furthermore, a large number of
children can be an insurance policy against child mortality, which
121
is, sadly, very high in the developing world. Until the child mortality
rate is reduced through improvements in public health and
sanitation, families will lack the will to use contraception.
Contraception empowers women by giving them reproductive
control. By deferring pregnancy, this helps restore opportunities for
education, employment, and social and political advancement.
Birth control can therefore be a long-term investment towards
political reform and greater protection for women’s rights – as
more women enter the workforce and political system, their voices
are far more likely to be heard, and their concerns far more likely
to be addressed.
Women may not have a choice, even if contraception allows them
the option of reproductive control. In many developing nations,
there can be a cultural preference for sons over daughters,
religious pressure to have as many children as possible, and a
traditional male dominance in sexual relationships and family
planning decisions. Birth control may not even be socially
acceptable. Even if contraception allowed a woman the potential
for biological control over childbearing, these factors can prevent
her from exercising this new-found choice. It is also unclear if
women’s rights are advanced by contraception. In reality,
contraception typically forms part of a wider population control
policy by national government. Such policies (e.g. China’s onechild policy), when considered as a whole, often violate the
women’s rights that advocates of contraception claim to value so
highly.
Contraception can help save the lives of women in the developing
world. Due to the lack of advanced obstetric care, and the
prevalence of disease and malnutrition, there is a high rate of
mortality among pregnant mothers and their new-born children.
This risk can be over 100 times that of mothers in developed
countries. Birth control allows women to avoid the risks of
pregnancy if they so wish.
While birth control should be a priority in many developing nations,
there are often other more pressing issues to be addressed.
Improving basic healthcare and providing proper sanitation can
improve the health of an entire family, in addition to reducing
childhood mortality – often a major reason for parents wanting to
hedge their bets by having plenty of children. Spending money on
such infrastructure and services is a far better long-term
investment compared to the ongoing cost of providing
contraception.
Supporting contraception is an easy way for the developed world
to help the developing world cope with population crises and the
consequent stifling of development. Contraceptives, compared to
monetary aid, are less likely to be misdirected into the pockets of
corrupt officials.
Contraception is a controversial issue in both developed and
developing nations. Some religions prohibit the use of
contraception (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church) – this can reduce
the success of birth control programmes in the developing world,
and diminish the political (and thus funding) appeal of procontraception policies in the developed world.
Motions
This House supports contraception in developing nations
This House would cap population growth in the developing world
This House believes that there are too many people
This House believes that there isn’t enough room
122
Politics and Special Interests
print this page
Discuss topic
Debatabase Junior Topic
Summary: Are special interests damaging American politics? Should special interest groups be
banned from giving campaign donations and from lobbying politicians for their causes?
Introduction
Author: The Debatabase Book ( United States )
Topic written specially for The Debatabase Book, 2003. Updated by The Editor of Debatabase.
Created: Monday, June 18, 2007
Last Modified:
Context
Political discussion in America often involves negative references to “special interests”. These special interests are organised
groups that play an active part in politics, especially through the giving of money to parties and candidates in elections. They
also lobby (try to persuade) elected law-makers (legislators) and government officials in an attempt to influence new laws
(legislation) and public policy. Some special interests act in their economic self-interest (e.g. manufacturers’ associations,
unions, farmers’ groups). Some special interest groups act on behalf of particular parts of society (e.g. National Organisation
for Women, National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, AARP, American Indian Movement). Other groups
are dedicated to public causes or policies (e.g. Sierra Club, National Rifle Association, American Civil Liberties Union, National
Right to Life Committee). Many of these groups have millions of dollars available to spend on influencing the political process.
Between them they employ thousands of lobbyists in Washington DC (famously on “K Street”) and in state capitals. The
question is whether this money corrupts the political system? Are legislators more concerned with pleasing donors and
lobbyists than they are with responding to the will of average citizens?
Arguments
Pros
Cons
No one who accepts money from someone else is truly free to
serve the public good in a fair-minded way. Running for election in
the USA costs millions of dollars, needed to pay for a campaign
organisation and television advertisements. When a politician
relies on huge sums of money contributed by an interest group in
order to run, his or her vote will naturally be influenced by the
wishes of that organisation rather than by what is best for the
country.
If a politician depended on only one source of funding, undue
influence might be a possibility. But so many interest groups are
active in Washington that politicians gets contributions from
dozens, if not hundreds, of them. The influence of any one group,
therefore is tiny; even a contribution of $10 000 is only a “drop in
the bucket” when campaigns cost millions. In fact a bigger problem
is the rise of very rich politicians (e.g. Steve Forbes, Michael
Bloomberg, Jon Corzine). The funding interest groups can provide
to talented but hard-up politicians means that elections are not
dominated by the very wealthy.
The size of campaign donations has become so large that donors
certainly expect some kind of payback. A manufacturers’
association will not give $100 000 away just as a gesture of good
will; it expects to see its concerns favourably addressed in
Congress. And what is good for a particular group of
manufacturers may well be bad for the wider public interest. For
example, protective tariffs (import taxes) on foreign compestitors
may raise prices for consumers. Weaker health and safety rules
may be bad for employees.
Charges of unfair influence are often vague and unsupported by
facts. Watchdog organisations like to make statistical links
between donations and votes, but that is not real evidence that
votes have been “bought”. Don’t forget that actually buying votes is
a crime and is vigorously prosecuted. Recently both lobbyists (e.g.
Jack Abramoff) and politicians (e.g William Jefferson) have been
found guilty and punished for giving and taking bribes. This shows
the system works and will deter others from acting in the same
way.
Lawmakers have long understood that the power of special
interests can lead to corruption. More than fifty years ago, for
example, Congress banned unions from acting to influence federal
elections. But in recent years the creation of political action
committees (PACs) and the growth of “soft money” have allowed
special interest groups to break the spirit of the law while obeying
its letter. PACs get round campaign funding rules by acting as
middle-men between special interest groups and candidates. Soft
money is used to organise voter registration or get-out-the-vote
drives. In both cases candidates still benefit and will be expected
to be grateful to the groups which have aided them.
Special interests are condemned for having too much influence,
but the argument against them is badly flawed. When the National
Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) give
money to politicians’ election campaigns, it does not buy the votes
of legislators who would have voted differently on reproductive
issues. Rather, NARAL gives money to candidates who have
already stated their support for policies in line with NARAL’s aims.
Given that the other candidates in these races may well be
opposed to NARAL’s interests, it makes sense for them to try to
influence particular electoral contests.
Money buys access to politicians, who are more willing to make
People who want to kill special interest groups are usually thinking
123
time for donors than for average citizens. Access leads naturally to
influence. The average citizen is shortchanged by the current
system, which favours cash-rich organisations. The result is
legislation which is stuffed full of favours to interest groups. Such
hand-outs, tax-breaks, exemptions from regulation, and protection
from competition cost tax-payers billions every year and distort our
economy. This is why a recent energy bill has been called “The no
lobbyist left behind” bill.
of groups that support things they dislike. Special interest groups
cover the whole range of political opinion and represent many
points of view. Indeed, the variety of groups with competing
interests is an indication of a healthy and vigorous political system.
Many speak for millions of voters so of course law-makers should
consult them for their views and expert opinions. And after all, a
Congressman can’t individually consult every one of their voters.
Organisations often spend hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby
politicians. They would not give such sums if they did not think
such spending made a difference in helping them get what they
want. Again, money clearly is shaping legislation.
Individuals should organise themselves into groups to speak for
them more effectively. Special interest groups do not just fund
politicians, they also spend money connecting like-minded people
with each other. They hire researchers, commission surveys, and
employ full time campaigners and media experts who seek to
change public opinion. All of this is part of free speech and free
association – key rights of every citizen. After all, Congress passes
laws that affect the daily lives of teachers, for example. Surely
teachers have the right to have their voices heard – through their
unions – when such laws are drawn up.
The influence of special interest groups is increasing. New
campaign finance laws are needed to check this growth and give
politics back to the people. We should follow the British system,
which puts severe limits on individual candidates’ spending and
bans political television ads, but gives political parties free access
to the national media for regulated political broadcasts.
The influence of big spending lobby groups on elections is actually
getting smaller. Howard Dean’s “insurgency” in 2003 showed how
millions of dollars can be raised via the internet from thousands of
individual supporters giving small sums each. Now every serious
candidate for national office wants to use the organising power of
the web in this way. This makes them more independent of lobby
groups in their fundraising. It also shows primary voters how much
appeal they actually have to ordinary voters.
Motions
This House believes America has the best democracy money can buy
This House condemns the influence of special interests in politics
That we should change campaign finance laws to allow contributions from individual only
124
Pornography
Summary: Should pornography be banned for moral, religious, feminist or crime-prevention
reasons? Or is censorship of this sort ill-advised?
print this page
Discuss topic
Context
At the moment, pornographic material showing adults over the age of 16 or 18 (depending on which country) is legal. Child
pornography is entirely illegal at the moment, and it would be very hard indeed to argue that it be legalised. The debate will
mainly centre on whether pornography depicting adults should be available to adults, or be banned completely. The proposition
will also have to define what is meant by ‘pornography’ - does the term include books, magazines, pictures, the Internet?
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Pornography debases human interactions by eliminating love,
laughter and all other emotions, and reducing them to the crudely
sexual. Sex is an important factor in relationships - the proposition
are not prudes - but by no stretch of the mark is it the be all and
end all of them. Pornography also debases the human body, and
exploits those who are lured into it due to desperation. It also
encourages unhealthy, objectifying attitudes towards the opposite
sex; it is naïve to suppose that pornography is a victimless crime.
The victim is the very fabric of society itself.
We aspire to live in a country free of censorship in all its form; free
speech is an ideal we cherish. Censorship is only deployed when
free speech becomes offensive to others. This is not the case with
pornography, as it is filmed legally by consenting adults for
consenting adults, and thus offends no-one. Pornography, contrary
to what the Proposition have argued, neither injures nor offends
anyone, and is a legitimate tool to stimulate our feelings and
emotions in much the same way as music, art or literature does.
Pornography helps to reinforce the side of our sexual identity that
sees people not as people but as objects, and debases both their
thoughts and their bodies. We have already seen evidence of this
in the way that pictures of semi-naked women (hardly ever men )
are used in advertising to sell products. Society’s acceptance of
pornography leads to the objectification of the opposite sex, and
thus directly to sexual discrimination.
Pornography is a legitimate exploration of sexual fantasy - one of
the most vital parts of human life. Psychologists have confirmed
the important, if not driving, role that sexual impulses play in
shaping our behaviour, and it is both prudish and ignorant to deny
and seek to repress this part of out personalities. As such,
pornography should be available for adults to vary their sex lives.
Indeed, far from ‘corroding the fabric of society’, pornography can
actually help to maintain and strengthen marriages by letting
couples fully explore their sexual feelings.
The more legal pornography is available, the more other illegal
forms, such as child pornography, are encouraged by the apparent
tolerance of similar activities. Given that some people may have
feelings for people below the legal age of consent, are we to allow
them the ‘legitimate sexual exploration’ of their feelings ? The
opposition cannot fit human impulses with the rules that society
has to protect us from harm.
This is not true; no ‘slippery slope’ scenario exists here. The only
people interested in child pornography will be those who will obtain
it anyway regardless of legality. Human sexuality does not work in
such a way that one might move to finding a different type of
pornography stimulating by sheer exposure.
Many rapists are obsessed with pornography. It serves to
encourage them in their crimes, by letting them treat women as
objects whose feelings are not relevant, or as people who are
actually wanting to be raped; a very common defence case is that
a woman was ‘asking for it’. Indeed, feminism has proposed that
pornography is rape, by its exploitation of women’s bodies.
Pornography only serves to encourage brutal sex crimes.
Sadly, rape will exist with or without pornography. However, It is
likely that if one is subject to the feelings rapists are then one is
more inclined to use pornography, not the other way round pornography does not create rapists. The claim that pornography
is rape does not hold water; our entire legal system is dependent
on a distinction between thought and act that this claim seeks to
blur. Pornography is a legitimate form of expression and
enjoyment, and should not be censored in the interests of sexual
repression and prudery.
Motions
This House believes pornography does more harm than good
This House would ban pornography
This House believes that pornography is bad for women
125
126
Positive Discrimination/Affirmative Action
Summary: Should the use of positive discrimination be increased?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: James Acton ( United Kingdom )
James has a PhD from Cambridge, where he was Director of Debating, and coached the England Schools Debating Team on three
occasions.
Created: Tuesday, October 03, 2000
Last Modified: Friday, April 17, 2009
Context
Positive discrimination is the selection of a candidate for a position on the grounds of race, sex or colour rather than merit
alone. There are many ways this can be implemented. Some US police forces score all applicants and select between
candidates of equal ability based on race. In the 1997 UK election Tony Blair created all-women shortlists in winnable seats.
Some universities have quotas for candidates from ethnic minorities. The proposition can run the case in a number of ways.
They could argue for legislation calling for the use of positive discrimination in the public sector or universities. Alternatively, for
more of a challenge, they could argue that it is in the private sector’s own interest to introduce positive discrimination.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Applicants from minority backgrounds have frequently had to
All discrimination is negative. It is always wrong to select on any
surpass many more obstacles and difficulties than applicants from basis other than merit and ability. Positive discrimination leads to
the majority. These obstacles might include, for example, poor
able applicants being unfairly passed over.
schooling and poor training. Positive discrimination therefore levels
the playing field. It would ideal if such measures were not
necessary and everyone was presented with the same
opportunities early on in life, but given such inequalities do exist
this action is necessary.
Such a policy would be good for the economic welfare of the
country in the short term since it unlocks potential that would
otherwise be unrealised. Minority applicants are just as skilled as
those from the majority but that talent is frequently untapped due
to lack of opportunity. Moreover, we must also recognise that
every social groups has its own unique skills and talents and that
we could gain enormously by using them more.
Positive discrimination leads to less able applicants filling
positions. Employers must have the flexibility to employ the best
candidates as they see fit in order to ensure efficiency and
productivity.
Minority applicants who were successful would become role
models for future generations. This would be good for the minority
and good for the economic welfare of the country since it would
facilitate the development of bright, able youngsters from minority
backgrounds.
Positive discrimination undermines the achievements of minority
applicants who are accepted on their own merits; it is patronising
and suggests they cannot be employed on merit alone. It will also
create the impression that a minority applicant was successful only
because of positive discrimination. In addition, minorities
themselves see positive discrimination as being condescending. It
is rarely advocated by the minorities themselves but almost always
by the majority out of a misguided sense of guilt. It is nothing more
than tokenism.
There are currently those in the workforce who are racist and
sexist. By bringing more minority applicants into the workplace, in
an environment in which everyone works as part of a team, we can
help alleviate such bigoted attitudes.
he introduction of positive discrimination would lead to a backlash
against minorities. It would cause resentment in those who were
turned away and this would be directed against those who were
accepted. This will cause more divisions in the workplace. These
problems have lead many US universities (e.g. California) to stop
positive discriminations programs.
In any multicultural society the ideal for which we should strive is
that the mix of races and sex in any particular job or position is the
same as it is in the wider population. At present the underrepresentation of minorities and women in certain fields (e.g. the
police force and judiciary) leads to perceptions of institutional
racism and sexism, undermining their credibility. It is generally
Another of our cultural ideals is that our society should be a
meritocracy, in which the only criterion for selection is ability. The
proposition’s aim of improving representation in high profile jobs
and positions is indeed worthy but we should not sacrifice the
meritocratic principle for it. Instead we should try to bring it about
by giving everyone better access to education.
127
agreed that the extra women in the UK parliament due to Blair’s
all-women shortlists have done nothing but good, bringing fresh
ideas to a very traditionalist atmosphere and improving its image.
By getting minority candidates into top jobs now, they will able to
manipulate the system ‘from the inside’ to make it fairer for all.
There is at the moment a strong move in higher education to
broaden access. The undergraduate population is becoming more
culturally diverse all the time. This will lead to increased diversity in
senior positions as these undergraduates enter the job market.
Although the pace of change is not as fast as it might be there is
change and it is in the right direction. Positive discrimination could
in fact damage this trend because of the resentment it will cause.
Instead we are better off improving access to education for all.
Motions
This house believes in positive discrimination
This house believes race does matter
This house would act affirmatively
128
Prison Reform
2/14/10
Context Prison reform is an attempt to improve conditions inside prisons, aiming at a more effective penal system.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
By subjecting prisoners to harsh conditions, authorities
One criticism of this model is that criminals are rewarded
hope to convince them to avoid future criminal behavior and with training and other items which would not have been
to exemplify for others the rewards for avoiding such
available to them had they not committed a crime.
behavior; that is, the fear of punishment will win over
whatever benefit or pleasure the illegal activity might bring.
The deterrence model frequently goes far beyond "an eye
for an eye", exacting a more severe punishment than would
seem to be indicated by the crime.
One criticism of the deterrence model is that criminals
The goal here is simply to keep criminals away from
typically have a rather short-term orientation, and the
potential victims, thus reducing the number of crimes they
possibility of long-term consequences is of little importance can commit.
to them. Also, their quality of life may be so horrific that any
treatment within the criminal justice system (which is
compatible with human rights law) will only be seen as an
improvement over their previous situation. However, if that's
the case, this points to a far more severe social problem.
the goal is to "repair" the deficiencies in the individual and
return them as productive members of society. Education,
work skills, deferred gratification, treating others with
respect, and self-discipline are stressed. Younger criminals
who have committed fewer and less severe crimes are most
likely to be successfully reformed.
The system in place and efficient containing the criminal
population in the united states, to attempt to change things now
would only cause problems for prison guards and the criminal
justice system itself.
criminals or potential criminals who do not have access to
such educational resources are only acting in their best
interests by gaining access to these prisons; if a prison is
successful at providing resources to individuals who were
unable to get these resources through "acceptable"
channels, then perhaps what would be next needed, in the
implementation of this model, is societal reform
.
An expensive way of making bad people worse is what the current
system promotes.
129
130
Prison, limiting to violent offenders
Summary: Are prisons appropriate for non-violent offenders, or should they be given
alternative punishments?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Jo Box ( United Kingdom )
Jo has an undergraduate degree in Law from Cambridge and is currently studying for the LLM. She is a European Debating
Championships Semi-Finalist, John Smith Mace Finalist and former Director of Debating at the Cambridge Union Society.
Created: Thursday, August 27, 2009
Last Modified: Thursday, August 27, 2009
Context
When individuals are convicted of a criminal offence, sentencers (judges or magistrates) have a range of options including
prison (custodial sentences) and non-custodial sentences such as fines, community sentences (often involving a mixture of
volunteer work, curfews, behavioural management courses, education and training or drug rehabilitation). In some countries,
such as the USA, capital punishment is also an option. There is increasing evidence that despite these various options,
sentencers rely too heavily on prisons. This causes problems in terms of overcrowding (all state and federal US prisons were
operating above capacity in 2003 and Ministry of Justice figures show that the UK prison population is at least 8000 greater
than capacity). There are also serious questions as to whether offenders are receiving the most appropriate punishments for
them. A distinction can be drawn between those who commit violent offences (murder, manslaughter, rape, assault, robbery
etc) and those who commit non-violent offences such as theft, burglary, fraud and drug offences.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Non-violent offenders can be adequately punished by other
means: sentencers have a wide range of options. It is often argued
that sentences should be proportionate to the crime committed:
more serious crimes should receive more serious sentences.
There are two reasons for this. Firstly, sentences are intended to
convey moral censure and assist offenders in considering the
implications of their actions. Secondly, hard treatment is needed to
give individuals a prudential reason not to offend. Offenders are
less likely to respond to the moral message if they think that they
have been treated unfairly or that others who commit more serious
crimes get less severe sentences. However, this does not require
the availability of prison. Heavier fines, longer community
sentences or curfews can be given to those who commit more
serious offences.
Prison is necessary to punish some non-violent offenders
proportionately: for those who commit serious fraud involving large
sums of money, or who steal property with a high value, a
community sentence may not be a sufficient punishment. Property
offences can often be more serious than minor violent offences
and excluding the option of prison for the former undermines the
idea of proportionality. This not only means that non-violent
offenders are not sentenced adequately, but also that violent
offenders may feel that the system is unfair to them. Furthermore,
the public may not feel that non-violent offenders are being
punished sufficiently, undermining trust in the justice system.
There is an element of class here as well – many serious nonviolent offenders are middle-class “white collar” criminals whose
fraud has impoverished tens of thousands of savers or investors,
while violent offenders are more likely to be working class.
Prisons harm offenders: all the available studies suggest that
those who are given a custodial sentence are more likely to
reoffend than those given a fine or a community sentence, all other
things being equal. There are good reasons to support this.
Prisons isolate offenders from their families and friends so that
when they are released their social networks tend to be made up
largely of those whom they met in prison. As well as sharing ideas,
prisoners may validate each others’ criminal activity. Employers
are less willing to employ those who have been to prison. Such
circumstances may reduce the options available to past offenders
and make future criminal behaviour more likely. Rehabilitation
becomes more difficult. In addition, rates of self-harm and abuse
are alarmingly high within both men’s and women’s prisons. This
suggests that imprisoning offenders unnecessarily is harmful both
for the offenders themselves and for society as a whole.
Prisons can provide an opportunity to develop important skills: it is
especially clear in the case of non-violent offenders that criminal
behaviour often stems from a perceived lack of alternatives.
Offenders often lack educational qualifications and skills. Prisons
can provide an opportunity to develop necessary skills for future
employment through the provision of courses and education. Not
all prisons have great provision at the moment, especially with
overcrowding in a number of countries, but the solution here is to
ensure courses are available, rather than not sending people to
prison.
Prisons should be reserved for those who are dangerous: in
addition to the harms above, prisons are much more expensive
than other sentences. They should therefore be used simply to
incapacitate those who commit violent offences as these
Non-violent offenders can be a danger to society: those who
commit property offences, particularly repeat offenders, cause
considerable harm to society. A victim of burglary (where the
offender breaks into a home to steal items) may be just as
131
individuals are a greater threat to society. Violent offences are
more traumatic for the victim and are less likely to stem from
unemployment, poverty or a perceived lack of opportunity than
property offences such as theft.
traumatised as the victim of an assault. Drug dealers may never
use violence but they can ruin hundreds of lives. It is sometimes
necessary to incapacitate non-violent offenders too to effectively
prevent them from reoffending.
Prison is not necessary as a deterrent: it is often argued that
prison is a necessary deterrent for both violent and non-violent
offenders. There are two ideas here. Firstly, the possibility of being
sent to prison is thought to make people less likely to commit
crimes. Secondly, those who have been to prison are less likely to
reoffend because they don’t want to go back. However, the
empirical studies (such as the Cambridge Study on Deterrence)
show that offenders are much more affected by the likelihood of
being caught than by the sentence attached to a particular crime –
so deterrence is a policing, not a sentencing issue. A criminal
record and the consequent difficulties, for example in the
employment market, are an enormous disincentive for most
people. In addition, for a prison sentence to deter people, they
have to be aware that prison is the likely sentence; most members
of the public are unaware of the sort of sentences received for
crimes such as theft or burglary. Finally, many crimes are
committed impulsively and deterrence has little impact here.
Prison is a necessary deterrent: the possibility of being sent to
prison does affect whether individuals commit crimes. Whilst
violent crimes might be committed in the heat of the moment,
property crimes are often committed by individuals who have
weighed up the chance of being caught and possible sentence,
and still think that they have more to gain by stealing. Such
individuals are more likely to commit crimes if prison is not
available as an option to the sentencers. Furthermore, there are a
considerable number of non-violent offenders who commit further
crimes after receiving a fine or community sentence. Where the
alternatives were an insufficient deterrent, prison may be
necessary for repeat offenders. Finally, some offenders may try to
avoid paying fines or completing their community sentence; in
such cases the threat of prison is a necessary sanction to ensure
that lesser punishments are respected.
Motions
This House would only imprison violent offenders
This House believes that prisons are for violent people
This House believes that prisons harm non-violent offenders
This House would send fewer people to prison
That non-violent offenders should only receive non-custodial offences
132
Prostitution
Summary: Should prostitution be legalised ? Do the benefits of legalisation or decriminalization
outweigh the possible dangers?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Rob Weekes ( United Kingdom )
Rob won the World Universities Debating Championships in 2002.
Created: Tuesday, September 26, 2000
Last Modified: Sunday, April 12, 2009
Context
As the world’s oldest profession, legal prohibition of prostitution has failed to eradicate the business. There have long been
clear religious and ethical objections to the practice of selling sexual services, and indeed to sex outside of the marital
union.However, prostitution has also become associated with several modern problems. The sexually transmitted virus HIV
poses greater dangers to the health of prostitutes and their clients. Gangs which perpetrate organised crime force prostitutes to
work on their behalf and compel them to become involved in the dealing and use of drugs. The UN has recently reported that
many young women from Eastern European countries such as Kosovo and Albania are being brought into Germany and Italy
as illegal immigrants and forced to work as prostitutes. Nonetheless, many feminists and advocates of individual liberty have
recently expressed support for prostitution. As an alternative to ethical concepts, the realist might acknowledge that when the
law has so conspicuously failed to preclude prostitution, it may be better to eliminate the problems associated with it, rather
than the trade itself. Different solutions to these problems have been proposed, and these can be divided into the options of
prohibition, ‘decriminalisation’ and ‘legalisation’. To decriminalise prostitution is to remove laws against it; to legalise it is, in
addition, to provide regulations and licences for legally run brothels. In Britain and some German states, the receipt of money
in exchange for sex is not illegal, but the action of ‘soliciting’ the business is unlawful. It is also illegal for a prostitute to work in
partnership with another, or for a pimp to offer their services. These laws amount to making prostitution prohibited. In the Dutch
city of Amsterdam and the state of New South Wales in Australia, the decriminalisation approach has been followed. Although
prostitution is not explicitly regarded as being lawful, there are not laws that prohibit i
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Prostitution is simply an issue of individual liberty. The control of
one’s own body is the most basic of human rights. We do not
impose legal penalties upon men and women who choose to be
promiscuous. Why should the exchange of money suddenly make
an incident of lawful and consensual sexual intercourse an illegal
act?
Prostitutes do not have a genuine choice. They are often
encouraged to work before they are old enough to make a
reasoned decision. Many have their reasoning impaired by an
unhappy family background or previous sexual abuse. They may
be compelled to enter prostitution by circumstances beyond their
control, such as substance addiction or the necessity to provide for
a family.
Granted that prostitution has been present in societies across the
world for thousands of years, governments should recognise that it
cannot be eradicated. Consequently they should pass legislation
that makes prostitution safer, rather than persist with futile and
dangerous prohibition.
Governments have a duty to protect the moral and physical health
of their citizens. Initiating the legalisation of prostitution would
grant implicit approval to a dangerous and immoral practice.
Prostitution should never be regarded as a legitimate career option
for a young girl.
Prostitutes have performed a valid social function for thousands of
years. Prostitution actually helps maintain marriages and
relationships. Instead of a relationship, a purely physical
transaction occurs, a commercial exchange which does not
jeopardise the emotional stability of a relationship. In Italy, for
example, a visit to a prostitute does not violate the law against
adultery.
Prostitution harms the fabric of society. Sexual intercourse outside
of a relationship of love, or even marriage, shows disregard for the
sanctity of the sexual act and for the other partner in a relationship.
Emotional commitment is inextricably linked to physical
commitment.
Many libertarian feminists consider that prostitution reflects the
independence and dominance of modern women. The majority of
prostitutes are women. Once the dangers of abuse from male
clients and pimps are removed, the capacity of women to control
the sexual responses of men in a financially beneficial relationship
is liberating. Furthermore, many campaigners for the rights of
prostitutes note that the hours are relatively short, the work wellremunerated, and the services they offer are ones that other
The overwhelming trend of feminism is against prostitution. The
radical feminist school that emerged in the 1990s supports the
orthodoxy that prostitution leads to the objectification of women.
The use of a woman’s body solely for the purpose of sexual
gratification does not treat them as a person. This lack of respect
dehumanises both prostitute and client, and does not represent a
victory for either sex.
133
women are compelled to provide without charge.
Reports in the United States suggest that prostitution is
responsible for preventing some incidence of sex crime.
There is no method of proving that some individuals who visit
prostitutes would otherwise have committed violent offences.
Psychological therapies that recommended the use of prostitutes
have now been widely discredited. The number of violent attacks
on prostitutes, including rape and murder, and the considerably
greater number of such crimes which are believed to go
unreported, suggests that prostitutes themselves are the victims of
the most serious criminal offences. In Victoria, where prostitution is
legalised, there are two rapes of prostitutes reported each week.
Legalisation would improve the sexual health of prostitutes, and by
implication, their clients. The activity occurs in a clean and safe
environment rather than on the street. In Nevada and Victoria
prostitutes undergo regular health checks as a condition of
working in the brothels. Furthermore, the use of contraception is
compulsory and such devices are made freely available.
More sexual health problems are inevitable. When prostitution is
lawful and increasingly regarded as socially acceptable, a greater
number of people will use prostitutes. Medical studies show that
the condom is only ninety-nine per cent effective. Moreover, during
the period between each health check, a prostitute could catch
and transmit a sexually transmitted disease. Consequently, the
legalisation of prostitution will result in the transmission of more
potentially fatal diseases.
Legalisation of prostitution would break the link between their
managers or ‘pimps’. These individuals subject prostitutes to
physical abuse and threats of violence, retain a portion of their
earnings, and often encourage them to become addicted to drugs.
The provision of a secure environment in which to work would
allow men and women to be independent of these individuals.
The legalisation of the ‘Bunny Ranch’ in Nevada did not prevent
the majority of prostitutes from continuing to work outside of the
licensed brothel, and remain dependent on pimps. This is because
brothels are more expensive environments for prostitutes to work
and clients to visit. Rent, health checks, and security, are some of
the costs which make it uneconomic for some prostitutes to be
employed in brothels. In Britain, where prostitution is virtually
prohibited, some prostitutes use private apartments, whilst others
work on the street. Legalisation of prostitution does not remove the
street market, or the dangers associated with it. The dangerous
street environment is generated by simple economics, not legal
controls.
Legalised brothels improve the quality of life for people who live
and work in areas currently frequented by prostitutes. Brothels can
be licensed only in specified areas distant from houses and
schools.
Prostitutes will continue to work on the streets, and are unlikely to
work nearby to the competition offered by the licensed brothels.
Furthermore, it is questionable whether local councils would wish
to create ‘ghettos’ of prostitution on the outskirts of towns.
Existing legal prohibition of soliciting, or of prostitution itself, does
not work. Prostitutes are regularly convicted of summary offences
and fined. It is then necessary for them to return to work as
prostitutes in order to repay the fines. British police officers have
described this method of legal prohibition of prostitution as a
‘revolving door’. The laws banning prostitution are in fact counterproductive.
Merely because some individuals break a law does not mean that
the law itself is at fault, or that it should be abolished. The ease
with which prostitutes can return to work suggests that penal
sanctions should be more severe, rather than removed altogether.
Legalisation of prostitution would bring clear economic benefit for
governments. A tax on the fee charged by a prostitute, and the
imposition of income tax on the earnings of prostitutes would
generate revenue.
An economic benefit cannot take precedence over social harms
that result from the legalisation of certain prohibited activities.
Otherwise we would encourage governments to become involved
in other unlawful trades, such as the trafficking of drugs. Moreover,
there is no evidence that the sex workers would declare their true
earnings from what is a confidential relationship between the
worker and his or her client. Hence it is likely that the amount of
revenue would not be very significant.
The problem of a high concentration of ‘sex tourists’ in a small
number of destinations will disappear once a larger number of
countries legalise prostitution. Supporting this motion, therefore,
will reduce the problem of sex tourism.
The legalisation of prostitution would render the country in
question a destination for sex tourism. Relaxed legal controls on
prostitution in Thailand, the Philippines and Amsterdam have
made these countries attractive for individuals, many of whom the
local population would not regard as desirable visitors to a country
or city.
Motions
This House Would Have Lots More Sex
This House Would Legalise Brothels
This House Would Decriminalize Prostitution
134
Protectionism Bad/Good
Tim Thiel : 02-11-10
Protectionism = a policy under which a country limits imports by different means so that the country consumes primarily its own
goods. ; The economic policy of restraining trade between states or nations, through methods such as tariffs on imported goods,
restrictive quotas, and a variety of other restrictive government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign takeover of local markets and companies.
Why is bad? Possible Attention getting device: Classical Liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill astutely observed in the last century
that "Trade barriers are chiefly injurious to the countries imposing them." It is true today as it was then. ----- Protectionist laws (1)
raise taxes (tariffs) on imported goods and/or impose limits (quotas) on the amount of goods governments permit to enter into a
country raising the price of the goods. They are laws that not only (2) restrict the choice of consumer goods, but also contribute greatly
both to the rise in cost of goods and to the cost of doing business. So, under "protectionism" you end up poorer, with less money for
buying other things you want and need. Moreover, (3) protectionist laws that reduce consumer spending power actually end
up destroying jobs. For example, according to the US Department of Labor's own statistics, "protectionism" destroys eight jobs in the
general economy for every one saved in a protected industry.

Japanese consumers pay five times the world price for rice because of import restrictions protecting Japanese farmers.

European consumers pay dearly for EC restrictions on food imports and heavy taxes for domestic farm subsidies. American consumers also suffer from the
same double burden, paying six times the world price for sugar because of trade restrictions.

The US Semiconductor Trade Pact, which pressured Japanese producers to cut back production of computer memory chips, caused an acute worldwide
shortage of these widely used parts. Prices quadrupled and companies using these components in the production of electronic consumer goods, in various
countries around the world, were badly hurt.
When the government of Country "A" puts up trade barriers against the goods of Country "B", the government of Country "B" will
naturally retaliate by erecting trade barriers against the goods of Country "A". The result? A trade war in which both sides lose. But all
too often a depressed economy is not the only negative outcome of a trade war . When goods don’t cross borders, armies often do.
Why is protectionism good? During a crisis, globalization and free trade do little good. The enormous forces of the global economy
cannot be controlled or steered towards a certain goal, such as job creation in the U.S.. Protectionism can do that, but at a cost to the
global economy, and global growth. An increased amount of protectionism would likely cause some problems in trade relations
around the world, but those problems may not be as large as those that would occur if the unemployment rate were to go up to
15-20%. There are definitely some excesses in global trade that could be addressed, while local goals could be achieved.
-There are important instances in which protectionism is an essential precondition even to economic efficiency. The most fundamental
rule of economic efficiency in a market economy is that the full costs of producing a product must be included in its price. There
must be no subsidies. When the environmental costs of producing a product are passed on to the larger society, this constitutes a form
of subsidy by the society to the producer. When a country requires that environmental costs be internalized in prices, this is a step
toward greater economic efficiency. However, when a country with policies that support this form of economic discipline engages in
free trade with one that does not, the tendency will be for more and more production to shift to the latter. This reduces economic
efficiency and should be resisted as vigorously as the protection of inefficient national monopolies.
Great quote in support of protectionism- John Maynard Keynes, who in 1933 wrote an overlooked essay on national selfsufficiency He said the following: "I sympathize therefore, with those who would minimize, rather than with those who would
maximize, economic entanglement between nations. Ideas, knowledge, art, hospitality, travel, these are the things which should of
their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible. And above all, let
finance be primarily national."
135
Types of resolutions =

This house would raise trade tariffs

This house would decrease imports

This house would buy American

This house would become self-reliant ect……
136
Protectionism
Summary: Should governments favour a country’s industries by means of protectionist
measures?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Jacqueline Rose ( United Kingdom )
Jacqueline is a History student at Clare College, Cambridge. A former convener of the PriceWaterhouseCoopers Cambridge Union
Schools Competition, she now runs workshops for intermediate level Cambridge debaters.
Created: Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Last Modified: Monday, July 24, 2006
Context
Freedom of international trade has been a goal pursued since 1948, when 23 countries set up the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and tariff levels in the 1990s were only 10% of their post war level. Since then there have been nine
trade talks (‘rounds’), the most recent being Uruguay (1993) and Doha. The 1993 round set up the World Trade Organisation
(WTO), which now has over 132 members, and which strengthened regulation by making it impossible for countries to veto
penalties for restricting trade.
The WTO is matched by regional trading blocs such as the European Union, North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA, set up
in 1994), the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), and Mercosur (in South America). In 1990 there were 25 such
areas; there are now in excess of 90.
Protection of domestic industry may take the forms of subsidies (paid to companies to decrease production costs), tariffs
(duties levied on imported goods to artificially increase their price), or quotas (quantitative restrictions on imports). Increasingly,
however, protectionism is taking the form of ‘anti-dumping measures’; dumping being when an importer artificially lowers their
prices for a short period to drive competition out of business (‘predatory pricing’).
WTO rules do allow some forms of protection: duties in response to subsidised goods, protection against import surges, and
anti-dumping measures. However, these are often poorly defined and slow to process through dispute-settlement procedures.
Whilst progress has been made on IT and accountancy liberalisation, the most hotly disputed remaining areas are textiles (the
world quota system will end in 2005), agriculture, shipping, and migration.
Research shows that the level of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations have boomed in recent years, especially in
areas such as India. These are mainly targeted against China, Japan, and America. Such action is favoured as the law is
unclear, and tariff margins
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The first duty of every government is to protect its own citizens; a
duty of care is owed to those whose economic prosperity depends
upon industrial production.
It is right that a regime’s primary duty of care is to its own people;
but prosperity for all is enhanced most by trade liberalisation and
comparative advantage, not by vote-chasing.
Even the WTO accepts the need for safety-valves when a country
is opening up its economy. Anti-dumping measures (which can be
tried at law) are more carefully targeted measures than blunt tariffs
and quotas.
The WTO already has mechanisms for temporary protection of
industry; but these are rarely used. Anti-dumping retaliation is as
unnecessary and economically inefficient as any form of
protectionism, and would rarely pass domestic antitrust legislation.
In times of recession there is pressure to protect declining
industries. Some localities, or countries, are dependent on a single
source of manufacturing or agriculture, and allowing the free
market to take its course would prolong or deepen an economic
depression and drive huge numbers of people out of work.
Protectionism worsens depressions by cushioning firms from their
effects, preventing sufficient diversification of sources of national
income, and discouraging retraining to meet the needs of the
future. The Depression of the 1930s was in fact worsened by
restrictions placed on free trade (e.g. the USA’s Hawley-Smoot
measures), as protectionism spiraled downwards into increasing
retaliation.
Developing countries need extra help in building a competitive
economy; short-term subsidies to foreign companies are the early
stages of import-substitution and economic independence. It is
better that governments offer firms subsidies than try to cut
There is a difference between encouragement of foreign industry
into a country, and protection of domestic suppliers. Competition
will not merely be over the size of national subsidies, but also on
wage costs and looser environmental and safety regulations.
137
corners on labour standards.
Many developing economies hit a glass ceiling as they attempt to
stabilise their economies, as they are unable to diversify into
different markets. Maintaining their former colonial relationships is
the only way for them to defend themselves against large trading
blocs.
Companies in developing economies often suffer from poor
stockmarket flexibility and political uncertainty, as a capitalist
mentality needs time to develop. The solution is not more
protection, but for groups such as the EU to dissolve their barriers
to trade.
It is sensible for governments to protect domestic supplies of vital
goods, such as oil, food and steel, from the political vicissitudes of
world cartels; which is part of foreign policy and not pure
economics. To prevent this is to invade national sovereignty.
Worldwide cartels of producers have recently weakened,
especially for agricultural goods. For governments to engage in
protectionism merely against international cartels is pure
hypocrisy; national security will never be gained by the chimera of
economic self-sufficiency.
Motions
This House Would Protect Its Industry
This House Would Build Its Own Walls
This House Would Look After Itself
138
Repatriate all Illegal Immigrants
Summary: Should governments repatriate all illegal immigrants to their countries of origin?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Rose Grogan ( United Kingdom )
Rose was a member of the Scotland Team in 2005 and went on to debate for Oxford University where she convened the Oxford
Union Schools’ Debating Competition and was a member of the Debates Select Committee. She is a European quarter-finalist and
has won a number of domestic IV competitions. Rose has coached and judged debating in a number of countries, including judging
the semi-finals of the European Universities Debating Championships in Istanbul in 2007. Rose studied law at Oxford University and
has a master’s degree in human rights law from McGill University. She is now a trainee barrister at Lincoln’s Inn and teaches public
law at Queen Mary University, London.
Created: Sunday, October 04, 2009
Last Modified: Sunday, October 04, 2009
Context
Many countries such as the USA, Italy, Malta and the United Kingdom have adopted or plan to adopt repatriation policies,
sending illegal immigrants back to their countries of origin. These policies are in response to public debates about illegal
immigration and recent increases in the number of illegal immigrants penetrating national borders.
This debate is not about the benefits and detriments of illegal immigration per se, but instead discusses whether or not the
particular policy of repatriating illegal immigrants (sending them back to their country of origin) should be adopted by
governments.
The proposition may want to consider whether to propose a system of ‘voluntary’ repatriation; where illegal immigrants are
essentially offered a free flight home (see the USA policy for Mexican illegal immigrants); or a more comprehensive policy of
compulsory repatriation.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The only way to stop the problem of illegal immigration is to take a
hard-line stance and adopt policies of repatriation. Illegal
immigrants are breaking the law and are harming the interests of
citizens and legal migrants. The rules on immigration need to
come with tough sanctions to ensure that they are not exploited or
broken in the future. The only way to have an effective policy
against illegal immigration is to make it difficult for illegal
immigrants to get into and remain in the country. Repatriation is
necessary because it targets successful illegal immigrants and
ensures a comprehensive immigration policy that aims to reduce
illegal immigration.
There are many alternatives to a repatriation policy that will more
effectively target the problems caused by illegal immigration.
Countries can toughen border controls and have better systems in
place for granting asylum. Voluntary repatriation is unworkable,
even if accompanied by financial assistance, because many illegal
immigrants want to stay in the country.
Repatriation also runs the risk of putting illegal immigrants at risk
of harm when they return to their country of origin. Instead of
simply requiring the immigrants to leave, repatriation sends them
home. Many are fleeing persecution, human rights abuses, violent
crime, war and famine. Sending them home is a violation of their
human rights.
Repatriating illegal immigrants is also inhumane because many
illegal immigrants have been in the country for years. Many have
started families and will be separated from them if returned home
because children born in a country are usually granted citizenship.
There have been cases in Canada and the UK where mothers
have faced being separated from their children because they were
going to be repatriated.
Many countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy and the United
States attract illegal immigrants because they are seen as a ‘soft’
target with poor border controls and the opportunity for illegal
immigrants to remain in the country without detection. Repatriation
sends a message to potential illegal migrants that their presence in
the country will not be tolerated and that any attempt to stay in the
country illegally will be unsuccessful.
Repatriation will not stop the numbers of people coming to the
country. Illegal immigration does not occur because a country is a
‘soft touch’: very few, if any, countries have no problems with
illegal immigration. The reasons behind immigration are social,
political and economic and have nothing to do with an individual
country’s policy on illegal immigration. Those who turn to illegal
immigration are often desperate and will pay no attention to the
immigration policies of a country. A repatriation policy would be
never-ending and a waste of time and money. It would be better to
target only those illegal immigrants who pose a proven risk of
harm to society.
139
Illegal Immigration is linked to dangerous criminal activity such as
people and drug trafficking, terrorism and the sex trade. This is
both dangerous for those involved in illegal immigration but also
increases the criminal activity in a country, putting lawful residents
at risk. Repatriating illegal immigrants would lead to fewer
opportunities for criminal networks to gain entry to the country. The
state also has a duty to protect its citizens from the harms
associated with illegal immigration. Illegal immigration fuels
dangerous industries such as prostitution and the drug trade,
repatriating illegal immigrants cuts off a vital source of labour for
these industries and could contribute to the eradication of these
industries.
A repatriation policy will not effectively target this area of illegal
immigration because criminal networks will always find ways of
smuggling people into a country and evading detection. All a
repatriation policy will do is make these gangs more sophisticated
when it comes to hiding illegal immigrants.
Having a zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration will also
make it harder for those who are trafficked to escape from criminal
gangs because if they contact the authorities they will be sent
home. This gives the criminals behind people-trafficking more
power over their victims and will lead to worse living/working
conditions in illegal industries.
Illegal immigrants cost the state in money, time and resources. In
the USA studies have shown that illegal immigrants are a net cost
to the government rather than a net benefit. Illegal immigrants are
a drain on healthcare and social services such as policing and
education. They take taxpayer’s money away from those who are
lawfully entitled to use these services and put a burden on the
state. The only way to alleviate these burdens is by repatriating
illegal immigrants.
Many illegal immigrants pay taxes and actually contribute to the
economy of a country. Every time an illegal immigrant buys
something, they pay the same amount of sales tax or VAT as any
other person. In the United Kingdom, illegal immigrants also pay
income tax and national insurance if they are working. It is
impossible to prove that all illegal immigrants are a drain on the
system and so their cost to society cannot be used as a
justification for repatriation policies.
Illegal immigrants undercut the labour market by accepting low
wages and working under illegal conditions. This is harmful to
lawful residents because it takes employment opportunities away
from them and encourages employers to seek illegal labour in
order to keep costs down. Removing the illegal workforce would
increase the number of jobs available to lawful residents and force
employers to pay fair wages and provide safe working conditions.
The illegal workforce is a necessary part of the economy because
lawful residents do not want jobs such as casual labour,
agricultural or domestic jobs. Illegal immigrants often provide vital
services that would otherwise be too expensive or hard to find if
regular workers were employed e.g. cleaning, childcare and
manual labour. Goods would become too expensive to produce if,
for example, parts of the agriculture industry had to employ lawful
residents/migrants.
Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence
in the government and its migration policy. People believe that
allowing those who have no right to remain in the country to stay
on means the whole immigration system is broken. Legitimate
migrants such as refugees, students and those with visas for work
will be lumped together with illegal immigrants, and calls will grow
for all forms of migration to be restricted. Populist feeling may also
be inflamed against ethnic minorities, with increased social
tensions.
Governments need to rethink migration policies as a whole and
make an attempt to communicate the benefits of immigration to
their citizens. There need to be more opportunities for foreign
workers to operate legally, allowing them to leave and re-enter the
country as they wish. This will remove the current incentive for
many illegal immigrants to stay in their host country for life, as at
present they know they are unlikely to be allowed back in should
they ever leave.
Motions
This House would repatriate illegal immigrants
That the solution to illegal immigration is repatriation
This House would say ‘no’ to illegal immigration
This House supports the repatriation of illegal immigrants
140
Safe sex education in schools
Summary: Should "safe sex" be promoted in schools through sexual education classes? Or
are lessons that stick strictly to human biology or use abstinence-based programmes to be
preferred?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Veronica Perozo ( Netherlands Antilles )
Should safe sex be promoted in schools during sexual education classes?
Created: Thursday, May 28, 2009
Last Modified: Thursday, May 28, 2009
Context
This discussion starts from the point of view that sexual education classes should be given at schools. But does this mean that
so-called “safe sex” should also be promoted within these lessons? Safe sex is the practice of sexual activity in a manner that
reduces the risk of infection with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as Chlamydia and HIV/AIDS, typically by use of
condoms. Safe sex also includes sexual practices that do not involve penetration.
Traditionally sexual education lessons have focused on covering the biological facts about human reproduction, and warnings
against unsafe sexual practices. Often today sex education is combined with relationships education, in an attempt to place
sex in a broader emotional, social and family context. But now every day more and more people talk about “safe sex” and how
teenagers should be more informed about protection against STDs. Despite the worries some people have about whether sex
should ever be seen as entirely risk-free, every day this so-called "safe sex" is promoted more and more as a solution for the
epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases amongst teenagers. But what if the promotion of "safe sex" has the opposite effect
for which it was introduced in Sexual Education classes? Opponents argue that today sexual education and promoting safe sex
are mostly considered the same thing, while it isn't and shouldn't be. They say it is one thing to inform teenagers about sex and
it's risks, and quite another to promote and encourage them to use "safe sex" as prevention.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Parents don’t have absolute rights over their children, society has
an important stake in their upbringing and this is primarily carried
out through the school system. The costs and social impact of
unsafe sexual practices that result in STDs and teen pregnancy
are carried by society as a whole, not just the parents of those
involved. So education about safe sex is entirely justifiable. In any
case, many parents do not feel able to talk to their children about
sex, leaving them in a dangerous state of ignorance.
It isn’t the place of schools to sexualize our children in this way.
Many people believe that sex education should be left to parents,
who are best placed to decide what information their children need
and when the best time to tell them is. Even if human reproduction
has a place in the biology classroom, that is very different from
courses of “safe sex” education that promote promiscuity in a way
that often undermines the values parents are seeking to impart at
home.
Safe sex should be promoted in all schools; the more teens who
are informed the better. Not all schools promote safe sex and a
few schools don’t even give sexual education, so is it right to say
that the amount of STDs amongst teenagers and pregnant teens is
due to the promotion of safe sex? It might also be good to consider
that the amount of pregnant teens and teens with STDs are due to
lack of information given to all teenagers in the whole nation. After
all, the Netherlands, famous for its very frank sex education, has
both a higher age of first sexual experience, and much lower rates
of teenage pregnancy and STD infection than countries such as
the USA and the UK. And research shows that abstinence
education often fails – inevitably many teens who sign chastity
pledges do end up having sex, and because they have not been
taught about safe sex methods, they are much more likely to
become pregnant or infected as a result.
Instead of continuing with the promotion of safe sex, why don’t
schools just give teenagers sexual education and tell them about
the options like condoms and pills, instead of actively promoting
them and making them every time more and more attractive to
use? Shouldn’t they be promoting the best and most secure
options? The best way to prevent STDs and pregnant teens is
ABSTINENCE. So why don’t schools start by promoting that? Not
strictly abstinence until marriage, but just abstinence. If students
wait at least until their bodies are done developing fully and until
they are not in puberty, the amount of STDs will be reduced
dramatically, not only because the human body is better
developed for sex at an older age, but also because we are more
mature when we are in any kind of relationship.
We have to accept that for a wide variety of social reasons teens
are now more sexually active than ever – a development which
preceded widespread sex education and which cannot therefore
be blamed on it. Keeping children in ignorance about sex will not
stop them having sex, but it will mean that the sex they have is
riskier, resulting in unplanned pregnancies, abortions and STD
infections. Condoms, while not perfect, are widely recommended
Condoms, while better than nothing, should not be promoted so
much in schools. It is one thing to inform children of their options
and a complete different thing to promote safe sex as a lifestyle.
By making the idea of safe sex more attractive to teenagers you
are also making sex itself more attractive. You are in a way telling
them that they can be safe having sex and this has an
encouraging effect to start. By making them feel that by using
141
for the prevention of STDs. They have been shown to be effective
in reducing infection rates in both men and women. So it is
important to make the idea of safe sex more attractive to these
teenagers to prevent STDs and for teens to get pregnant. This is
why at schools teenagers should be told and encouraged to use
condoms if they are going to have sex.
these products they are protected from any risks it only makes
them more eager to start having sexual relations. They are
physically not prepared for that and the medical reasons for why
they are at greater risk is specifically related to females. A 15-yearold girl has a 1-in-8 chance of developing pelvic inflammatory
disease simply by having sex, whereas a 24-year-old woman has
only a 1-in-80 chance in that situation. And pills and condoms are
not as effective with teenagers, mainly because teens are more
apt to forget to take the pill or to tear a condom. Between 9% and
18% of teenage girls using the contraceptive pill become pregnant.
In the USA one out of every four teenage women between the
ages of 14 and 19 have at least one of the most common sexually
transmitted diseases (not including AIDS-infected teens). That is
3.2 MILLION WOMEN, according to research into the most
common STDs amongst teenagers that was presented last year at
the National STD Prevention Conference for the first time.
Ignorance is not a solution and therefore teens should be better
informed and learn more about how to have safe sex. A good way
to inform them is through their education. This is why safe sex
should be taught at schools.
There is without a doubt an STD epidemic amongst teenagers at
the moment, but for quite some time the media and schools have
been teaching these teenagers about how to have safe sex. We
must now take a hard look at the message of safe sex which is
being taught to these teens. People believe that if the teens can be
taught how to have safe sex, the number of pregnant teens and
the rate of STD infection will reduced dramatically. But they've
been teaching them this for some time now and the statistics and
our own common sense tell us something different. What if the
increasing number of teenagers that are sexually active and that
have STDs are actually the consequence of promoting safe sex to
them?
Safe sex education is a right, regardless of your religious
background. Religious groups should not be able to dictate the
curricular of state-funded schools. Teens must have access to a
range of viewpoints on human sexuality, including biological,
religious, ethical, and health perspectives, in order to help them
make up their own minds as to the right way to act. A choice for
chastity until marriage is much more meaningful, and much more
likely to be kept, if it is a positive and informed decision.
Safe sex education promotes values and practices that are
offensive to many religious groups. For example, most safe sex
education focuses heavily on condom use, which is directly
counter to Catholic teaching. And promotion of “alternative sexual
practices” can encourage people to see homosexuality as normal,
which is offensive to many Christians and Muslims. In this way
“safe sex” education forms part of a wider liberal attack on
religious belief. Not only is this unacceptable to many parents and
local communities, it is also an assault on teenage believers who
are forced to sit through these classes.
Motions
That safe sex education should be a right for every student
This House believes safe sex should be promoted in the classroom
This House believes ignorance is no protection
142
Sanctions vs Engagement in International Affairs
Summary: Should we attempt to democratise states through engagement, free trade and
conciliation or by the use of punitive sanctions and belligerence?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: James Acton ( United Kingdom )
James has a PhD from Cambridge, where he was Director of Debating, and coached the England Schools Debating Team on three
occasions.
Created: Tuesday, October 03, 2000
Last Modified: Friday, April 17, 2009
Context
This issue vexed the international community throughout the twentieth century and will continue to do so for the foreseeable
future. The fundamental question is whether the best way for democratic countries to foster democracies elsewhere is via a
belligerent approach of sanctions and isolation (as against Iraq and South Africa, for example) or an approach of free trade and
conciliation (as is now being tried in the case of China). This case is generic and the arguments are broadly applicable to
numerous examples: US policy towards Cuba and Haiti, Iraq and the UN, Burma and the West, China and the WTO, Turkey
and the EU and Pakistan and the Commonwealth. Note the range of scenarios covered in this case. Even though all the major
players agree that many ‘pariah’ states, like Iraq, are mass abusers of human rights, there is strong disagreement as to the
efficacy of sanctions. Similarly while virtually no one would impose trade sanctions on China, a spectrum of opinion exists as to
how we should treat it, ranging from virtual isolation through to total free trade.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
We can broadly identify three mechanisms through which free
trade brings about democratisation. Firstly, it permits a flow of
information from Western countries. Secondly, it leads to an
increase in wealth of everybody and thirdly it facilitates the growth
of a middle class. These three factors together result in internal
pressure and consequent political change; economic freedoms
leading to political freedoms. This approach was successful in
helping to bring about the downfall of communism in the Warsaw
pact and is starting to lead to increased freedoms in China. For
example, China recently allowed amateur radio, a major step
considering the descent it can be used to create. Previous policy
directed toward China was to link trading rights, in the form of MFN
(most favoured nation) status to improvements in human rights. All
China ever did was to offer ephemeral changes whenever
necessary to preserve MFN status. It is only with unlimited free
trade that we will see deep structural changes in human rights in
China.
In order to increase their own wealth most dictatorial oligarchies
welcome free trade. Once they have been accepted into the free
trade arena the West no longer has any leverage on them. It is
true, for example, that a sanctions regime against China would be
impossible to implement but that does not mean we should
concede entirely. We should reinstate MFN as a lever and use it to
force China to improve upon its human rights record. To believe
that free trade can lead to democratisation is naïve. It is far too
hopeful to suggest that the wealth produced thereby will be
allowed to filter down to the people or even that the government
will permit a middle class. In reality free trade has acted as a
mechanism to worsen the living standards of the people in China.
Chinese industry has been put out of business by the
multinationals and those who have jobs within multinationals are
subject to dreadful conditions and horrific pay.
Sanctions are ineffective. At the time of writing, for example,
France and Russia, have openly broken sanctions against Iraq
because of their utter lack of success. The sanctions against
Cuba, Haiti and Burma have also been useless. The reasons for
this failure are twofold. Firstly, in the case of Burma, many states
have been willingly to trade with it. In the case of Cuba even
Western countries, such as the UK, have broken the US imposed
sanctions. Secondly, by keeping all available resources
themselves, the government ensures that the sanctions hit only
the people. This has, in the case of Iraq, lead to terrible suffering
of the people. By removing Pakistan from the Commonwealth, the
people have been cut off from the health and education programs
which the commonwealth provides.
Sanctions are effective as a long-term tool. They worked in South
Africa and they worked in the former Rhodesia. It is also true that
they can lead to the mass suffering of the very people they are
designed to help, as they did to the black population of South
Africa. However, Nelson Mandela himself said that the suffering
was worthwhile for the eventual victory the sanctions help win
against apartheid.
Sanctions block the flow of outside information into a country. This
permits dictators to mercilessly use propaganda to strengthen their
own position. It is impossible for the people to believe such
propaganda is false when there are no competing external claims.
Sanctions send a strong message to the people of a country that
the Western world is on their side and will not just remain
compliant by dealing with an oppressive regime as if it had done
nothing wrong.
143
Motions
This house would put trade relations above human rights
This house believes in free trade
This house would make money not war
This house would engage, not estrange non-democratic nations
144
Science: a Threat to Society?
Summary: Science has shown itself capable both of killing and curing – on balance, for which
does it have more potential?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Richard Mott ( United Kingdom )
Created: Tuesday, August 07, 2001
Last Modified: Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Context
As the 21st century dawns, science is pushing back the boundaries of human knowledge and understanding further than many
people feel comfortable with. Both cutting edge technologies, such as cloning, and other more established procedures, such as
in vitro fertilisation, have sparked moral outrage and accusations of ‘playing God’ from certain sections of society. And, of
course, the global stockpile of nuclear weapons is just one illustration of the possible danger introduced by scientific advances.
Science has shown itself capable both of killing and curing – on balance, for which does it have more potential?
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Science gives man the ability to ‘play God’, and to interfere in
things that we know nothing about. Cloning of animals has already
occurred, and maverick scientists have recently announced they
will attempt the cloning of humans. Such meddling is irresponsible
and potentially dangerous, and it is taking place in the name of
scientific advancement.
Talking of ‘playing God’, aside from assuming the existence of a
deity that many people in this day and age do not believe in,
implies a violation of set boundaries. What boundaries ? Set by
whom ? Any attempt to define them runs into problems of
definition. In actual fact, the proposition is simply afraid of things it
knows nothing about. There is nothing wrong with the principle of
scientific advance; the accusation that we are meddling in areas
we do not understand is a call for better regulation of scientific
enquiry, not its abolition.
Science has greatly increased the capability of men and women to
kill each other. Wars which used to be fought face to face on the
battlefield, with comparatively few casualties, are now fought from
miles away in anonymity. Stockpiled nuclear weapons give man
the capability of obliterating the entire world ten times over, and at
certain points in history, such as the Cuban missile crisis, the
world has stood on the brink of destruction.
Science does not kill; man does. Science cannot be blamed for the
flaws in human nature, and suffering cannot be attributed to it any
more than religion or philosophy, both of which have caused wars.
In fact, the example used by the Proposition illustrates how
science brings with it accompanying responsibility; Mutually
Assured Destruction (MAD) ensured that wars such as the Cold
War were bloodless events.
Science has perverted the fundamental basis of human relations.
The word ‘society’ itself comes from ‘socialisation’ – the idea of
interaction and communication. With the advent of inventions such
as the Internet, television and computer games, we are now
communing with a lifeless collection of microchips, not each other.
On the contrary, science has greatly increased the ability of people
to communicate. Telephones and email enable people on opposite
sides of the world to stay in touch where before they would have
had no possible way to do so. The Internet allows people
unprecedented access to information – anything from sports
scores to debating crib-sheets. And any study of pre-industrial
society will show that computer games appear to have taken the
place previously held by recreational violence.
Science is despoiling the natural world. Electricity pylons ruin the
countryside, acid rain from coal and gas-fired power stations kills
fish, and animals are cruelly experimented upon in order to further
research. Not only does science give us the potential to destroy
each other, it takes a massive toll on out natural surroundings.
Any consideration of the modern world will reveal the fallacy of the
proposition’s argument. Modern medicines have more than
doubled our life expectancy, and enabled children to be vaccinated
against diseases which before hand had ensured a massive rate
of infant mortality, whilst the population could not be fed without
fertilisers and pesticides to increase yields and machinery to
collect them efficiently. Science and technology are essential to
modern existence. Like any of mankind’s inventions, it must be
treated with care and not abused, but it is ludicrous to condemn it
in itself as a menace.
Motions
This House believes science is a threat to humanity
This House fears science
145
This House believes that scientists are dangerous
146
Security vs. Liberty
Summary: Are security measures justified to the extent that civil liberties can be sacrificed?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Kumar Bekbolotov ( Oman )
Created: Wednesday, November 13, 2002
Last Modified: Monday, July 24, 2006
Context
The events of September 11th 2001 forced governments all over the world to take extraordinary measures to enhance the
security of their citizens. Heightened security measures, such as those in the US, include unparalleled airport checkpoint
procedures, face recognition devices in public places, tracking, monitoring and identification through thumb printing of certain
categories of visitors, random searches of Internet content by intelligence officers, the ability to demand records on somebody
from any business or organisation, the use of wiretaps and the ability to intercept and read email, and eavesdropping on
conversations between a lawyer and their client. The possible use of racial profiling to target “suspicious individuals” for more
thorough searches and questioning is also being seriously discussed, although apparently not in operation. Most of these
measures are associated with loss of privacy; liberty has also directly been infringed through the detention without charge or
trial of non-citizens, on the grounds they do not enjoy the same rights as citizens, the designation of US citizens as enemy
combatants and their indefinite detention, and by trying suspects through military tribunals rather than in a normal court with
judge and jury.On the one hand, extraordinary security measures are required to counteract the imminent threats of terrorism
that has become much more cunning and resourceful over the last decade. On the other hand, the introduction of these
measures comes at the expense of sacrificing some of our most cherished civil liberties and rights as citizens. No doubt, there
is a trade-off between security and liberty, but what is the ideal balance between them?
Arguments
Pros
Cons
There is a large threat to our security. The current level of
international tensions is likely to increase, leading to more and
more dissatisfaction with American policies, which in turn may
result in more terrorist attacks. The nature of contemporary
terrorism has become far more frightening with fundamentalists
ready to commit suicide, and fears that terror groups are seeking
access to biological, chemical and nuclear materials. Oldfashioned terrorism has transformed into high intelligence
networks of hard-to-track terrorist cells. It is not possible to curb
terrorism without curbing some of the rights of citizens.
There is not enough evidence to show that terrorism has evolved
into something more threatening since the 1960s and 70s.
Governments are likely to take advantage of anti-terrorist mania
and seize the moment to strengthen their regimes. Modern
government bodies fighting terrorism are sophisticated enough to
counteract terrorism with little use of 'draconian' measures. It is not
acceptable to curb citizen rights because of isolated events.
Negative cases of security abuse are few. In any wide-scale
attempt to fight terrorism there are bound to be a few cases of
abuse of security measures. Therefore it is not a good idea to shut
down all security measures under a pretext that they violate rights.
The majority of the measures are intended to safeguard those civil
liberties instead of abusing them.
Many evil events in history started with good intentions and few
cases of injustice. Allowing even a few abuses as an acceptable
side effect of improved security will change the tolerance level of
the public and lead to a belief that rights such as the presumption
of innocence and habeas corpus (which prevents the state from
imprisoning someone without charging them with a crime and then
trying them) are a negotiable luxury. Furthermore, abuses of the
system are likely to victimise certain minority groups (e.g. Muslims,
Arab-Americans) in the same way that Japanese-Americans were
persecuted in World War II, something about which Americans are
now rightly ashamed.
The USA is at present far better than most countries in its regard
for civil liberties. New security measures do not greatly
compromise this liberty, and the US measures are at the very least
comparable with similar measures already in effect in other
democratic developed countries, e.g. Spain and the UK, which
have had to cope with domestic terrorism for far longer than the
USA.
If the US, the example-setting country of cherished civil liberties,
allows the loss of its liberties to terrorism, it will show that terrorists
have succeeded in forcing us to change our way of life. Lots of
apparently minor measures can quickly add up to a significant loss
of liberty. Other countries will take their cue from the US and use
security as an excuse for a crackdown on political opposition
movements and minority groups (examples of this can be found in
Russia, China, Hong Kong, India, Liberia and the Central Asian
republics). Rights mean nothing if they are ignored and eroded as
soon as hard cases come along.
147
It is possible to keep a balance between international travel
facilitation and security maintenance by introducing electronic
means of customs control. Reinforced cockpit doors, sky
marshals, bomb-detection machines, and information technology
such as positive bag matching systems are steps in the right
direction, as history proves. In September 1970 the hijack of El Al
flight 217, a Boeing 707 flying from Amsterdam to New York,
failed: the aircraft had a re-enforced cockpit door, and armed sky
marshals on board were able to thwart the terrorists. More recently
in September 2002 an attempted hijack of a Saudi airliner flying
from Sudan was similarly prevented by armed security officers on
board.
The great increase in international travel requires faster and more
efficient work from customs services all over the world. Heightened
security measures make control procedures slower and cause lots
of frustration among travellers, particularly those who are on
business trips. There have been lots of cases when customs
officers were not able to finish check in processes prior to the
scheduled time of the departure of an aircraft. As a result, flights
are delayed or the clients are left behind. It is, of course, of a great
inconvenience for travellers, but also hugely costly for the air
companies who are obliged to change the ticket. Recently many
new security devices has been introduced in an attempt to fight
with terrorism. Terrorists and smugglers, however, are becoming
more and more inventive and knowledgeable about how to carry
through the prohibited articles aboard without being detected by
those machines. Security persons themselves recognise
inefficiency of the devices they have introduced as a method of
fighting with terrorism. Others fear that terrorists will no longer
have to smuggle weapons or explosives on to a flight to succeed
in hijacking an airliner, but can do so by overcoming an armed “sky
marshal” and using their weapon.
Random searches that have caused so much frustration among
travellers are not random in fact. People labelled with 'S'
(suspicious passenger) on their ticket are those who are subjected
to a thorough search. The software that runs on the airline's
reservation system, called Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS), selects passengers whose carry-on
and checked bags will require additional security screening.
CAPPS also selects passengers at random, which helps to ensure
passengers' civil liberties by guaranteeing that no individual or
group of individuals is automatically targeted from the selection
process.
Fruitless random searches of elderly women, toddlers, and
uniformed airline pilots have become mainstream in U.S. airports
as more and more innocent passengers are treated like suspects
rather than customers. Some of the red flags for CAPPS system
are person’s last name; methods of payment (tickets paid in cash
are highly suspect); whether a rental car is waiting. Those criteria
that one can find online are very vague, do not allow the targeting
of real suspects but harass many.
Governments have a duty to their citizens to protect their rights to
security of person and freedom from fear. Laws designed to
enhance security are not only passed by democratically elected
governments, but also enjoy popular support as measured by
opinion polls and in the outcomes of subsequent elections. Once
the threat of terror has been dealt with, liberty can be given greater
emphasis and security measures relaxed once again.
Governments are likely to use terror as a convenient excuse for
tightening laws and restricting freedoms in order to crack down in
areas such as immigration, drug smuggling, fraud, etc, with
insufficient public debate. Such an erosion of liberties has a longterm impact and, in practice, is unlikely ever to be reversed as it is
not the nature of state bureaucracies ever to give up power.
Democratic mandates are insufficient reason to erode liberties; a
key purpose of civil liberties is to protect minorities from the
tyranny of the majority.
Motions
This House believes that security is the most important goal.
This House would trade liberty for security.
This House supports a rights to security.
This House believes in life and the pursuit of happiness.
148
Sex Offenders, Naming and Shaming
Summary: Should sex offenders be named and shamed?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Richard Mott ( United Kingdom )
Created: Monday, November 06, 2000
Last Modified: Monday, August 17, 2009
Context
At the moment, in the UK for example, a national register of sex offenders exists, which is only accessible to the police for the
purposes of criminal detection. There have been calls for such a register to be made public in the interests of public safety,
along the lines of ‘Megan’s Law’ in the US. ‘Megan’s Law’ was named after Megan Kanka, a seven year old girl who was
sexually assaulted and murdered; the law says that all local law enforcement agencies are obliged to reveal to members of the
public a list of sex offenders who live under their jurisdiction. The most recent campaign for such a register in the UK was in the
aftermath of the Sarah Payne murder, the calls for ‘Sarah’s Law’, and the ‘News of the World’s’ controversial mass printing of
the names and addresses of sexual offenders that followed, which resulted in many attacks on the person and property of
those listed.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Sex offenders, even more so than other forms of crime, are prone
to re-offending upon release from prison. Therefore, to protect
society, they should be required to register with a local police
station, and their names and addresses should be made available
to the public. Police would also supply this information to relevant
parties, such as schools and nurseries, who will be consequently
far more alert to any risk. Parents would find this information
invaluable in ensuring their children’s safety, and it would cut the
rate of sexual crime by those freed from prison. In the end, we
have to protect our children at any cost.
This proposal is a fundamental violation of the principles of our
penal system, which are based on the serving of a set punishment
before being freed. This registration imposes a new punishment
for an old crime, and, inevitably, will lead to sex offenders being
demonised by their neighbours, and possible forced to move out.
In the UK the publication of addresses by the ‘News of the World’
led to widespread hate campaigns and violence, sometimes
against innocent people with similar names, or people living in a
house listed in the newspaper as that of a sex offender. Such a
risk cannot be tolerated; we cannot as a society revert back to
mob rule in place of justice.
Crimes of a sexual nature are among the most abhorrent and
damaging that exist; they can ruin a child’s life. As the offenders
responsible for these offences cannot be incarcerated for ever,
and must be released at some point, extra precautions must be
taken to ensure they pose no threat to the public.
The proposition are muddying the waters. Psychological
evaluations can determine accurately whether an offender is still a
risk to society or not. If they are, they should not be released. If
they are not, they should be freed and allowed to live a normal life.
A register eliminates this distinction, and stigmatises those who
have genuinely reformed. We have a penal system at the heart of
which is the principle of reforming offenders, and it is ludicrous to
simply ignore the possibility of change.
A national register would allow police to track down re-offenders
faster, thus increasing the success rate and the speed at which
they are brought to justice. It would also provide a strong deterrent
against re-offence in its own right.
Police work can be aided by a register that is only available to law
enforcement agencies; making it public adds no advantage.
Indeed, it might be counter-productive as the abuse that offenders
would have to suffer might drive them underground, thus causing
the police to lose track of them.
A national register would benefit sexual offenders directly, as they
would be on local registers of counselling and psychological help
groups, who would be more able to offer help.
This is spurious; offenders should have access to these services
anyway, regardless of whether their names are available to the
general public or not.
Motions
This House supports a national register of sex offenders
This House would name and shame
That the government should introduce Megan's law
That we have a right to know
149
150
Space Exploration
Summary: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Bobby Webster ( United Kingdom )
Bobby Webster is a former World Schools Debating champion, and has taught debating on five continents. Currently working for
Demos, the UK's leading independent think-tank, he is also a film-maker in his spare time.
Created: Monday, November 06, 2000
Last Modified: Thursday, October 23, 2008
Context
The space programmes of both the USA and the USSR became perhaps the most important prestige projects of the Cold War.
From the launch of Sputnik - the first artificial satellite - in 1957, through to the first human space flight by Yuri Gagarin in 1961,
the first moon landing in 1969, and beyond, both superpowers invested huge amounts of money in order to outdo each other in
the so-called ‘space race’. At the time, this was a convenient project to choose: while it allowed the two nations to compete in a
supposedly peaceful area, proving their scientific achievements, the work on rockets also fed directly into work on the intercontinental ballistic missiles which would allow them to strike at each other with nuclear weapons in the event of war.
Since the end of the Cold War, however, the future of space exploration has become less clear. Russia no longer has the
resources to invest in a substantial space programme; without an enemy to compete with, the USA has also cut back on its
exploration programmes. The emphasis is now on missions which are ‘faster, better, cheaper’ – grand projects such as the
Voyager missions of the late 1970s seem unlikely to be repeated. In particular, the American commitment to manned
exploration of space has diminished, especially after the 2003 Columbia disaster, when all seven astronauts on the Space
Shuttle died during reentry. President Bush has committed NASA to a return to the moon with a long term aspiration of an
expedition to Mars, but this seems unlikely to be realised with NASA's present resources. On the other hand, China has been
developing an active space programme in recent years with several manned flights, while India is also beginning to launch its
own rockets.
The proposition in this debate will be proposing a renewed commitment to the exploration of space; the opposition focuses on
the practicalities, and the fact that money may be better spent elsewhere.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Mankind must always struggle to expand its horizons. The desire
to know what lies beyond current knowledge, the curiosity that
constantly pushes at the boundaries of our understanding, is one
of our noblest characteristics. The exploration of the universe is a
high ideal - space truly is the final frontier. The instinct to explore is
fundamentally human; already some of our most amazing
achievements have taken place in space. No-one can deny the
sense of wonder, world-wide, when for the first time a new manmade star rose in the sky, or when Neil Armstrong first stepped
onto the moon. Space exploration speaks to that part of us which
rises above the everyday.
High ideals are all well and good, but not when they come at the
expense of the present. Our world is marred by war, famine, and
poverty; billions of people are struggling simply to live from day to
day. Our dreams of exploring space are a luxury they cannot
afford. Instead of wasting our time and effort on macho prestige
projects such as the space programme, we must set ourselves
new targets. Once we have addressed the problems we face on
Earth, we will have all the time we want to explore the universe;
but not before then. The money spent on probes to distant planets
would be better invested in the people of our own planet. A world
free from disease, a world where no-one lives in hunger, would be
a truly great achievement.
The exploitation of space has directly changed our world. Satellites
orbiting the Earth allow us to communicate instantaneously with
people on different continents, and to broadcast to people all over
the world. The Global Positioning System allows us to pinpoint our
location anywhere in the world. Weather satellites save lives by
giving advance warning of adverse conditions, and together with
other scientific instruments in orbit they have helped us
understand our own world better. Research into climate change,
for example, would be almost impossible without the data provided
by satellites.
Satellite technology has of course had a beneficial effect on our
world. However, there is a huge difference between launching
satellites into Earth orbit, and exploring space. Missions to other
planets, and into interstellar space, do not contribute to life on our
planet. Moreover, satellites are largely commercial - they are
launched by private companies, and are maintained by the profits
which they lead to. True space exploration could never be
commercial, and requires huge government subsidies - the
Voyager missions alone cost just under $1 billion. This money
could be much better spent elsewhere.
Space exploration has also led to many indirect benefits. The
challenge and difficulty of the space programme, and its ability to
draw on some of the finest minds, has brought about great leaps in
technology. The need to reduce weight on rockets led to
miniaturisation, and so to the micro-chip and the modern
These spin-off advantages could come from any ‘blue-sky’ project
- they are a result of the huge amounts of money and manpower
devoted to the space programme, giving people the resources
they need to solve problems, rather than a result of the
programme itself. For example, many of the leaps forward in
151
computer. The need to produce safe but efficient power-sources
for the Apollo missions led to the development of practical fuelcells, which are now being explored as a possible future powersource for cleaner cars. The effects of zero-gravity on astronauts
has substantially added to our knowledge of the workings of the
human body, and the ageing process. We can never know exactly
which benefits will emerge from the space programme in future,
but we do know that we will constantly meet new obstacles in
pursuit of our goals, and in overcoming them will find new
solutions to old problems.
miniaturisation were in fact the result of trying to build better
nuclear missiles; this is not a good reason to continue building
nuclear weapons. It would be far better to devote similar resources
to projects with worthier goals – for example cancer research, or
research into renewable energy sources. These too could have
many spin-off benefits, but would tackle real problems.
Space exploration is an investment in the future. Our world is
rapidly running out of resources. Overpopulation could become a
serious worldwide threat. In this position, it would be foolish to
ignore the vast potential of our own solar system – mining
resources on asteroids or other planets, or even the possibility of
colonising other worlds. If we fail to continue to develop the ability
to take advantage of these possibilities, we may in the future find it
is too late.
Space exploration is a waste of resources. If we wish to tackle the
problems of over-population, or of the depletion of resources, we
must deal with them on the Earth instead of chasing an elusive
dream. There are practical ways in which we can deal with the
problems of our planet, and we must pursue them with all the
resources and all the political will we have available.
Motions
his House would explore the universe
This House would explore the Final Frontier
This House would reach for the stars
152
Stem Cell Research / Therapeutic Cloning
Summary: Should medical research involving the use of human stem cells be permitted?
Should clinical treatments that utilise these cloned cells be allowed?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Rob Weekes ( United Kingdom )
Rob won the World Universities Debating Championships in 2002.
Created: Thursday, October 04, 2001
Last Modified: Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Context
The manipulation of the human embryo and the application of cloning technology are relatively novel developments. Research
involving human embryos has only been permitted in the United Kingdom since 1990. In 2001 the United Kingdom Parliament
narrowly approved the cloning of human embryos for a limited range of research purposes. In August 2001 President George
Bush is reported to be contemplated a similar degree of freedom for US biotechnology programs. The issue was thrust upon
the public conscience by the landmark achievement of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh in 1997. The successful cloning of
‘Dolly’ the sheep from an adult cell utilised the technique known as ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer’. The nucleus from a somatic
cell was fused with an unfertilised egg from which the nucleus had been removed. Human ‘therapeutic’ cloning concerns the
applications of nuclear transfer technology that do not lead to the creation of an entire human. The scientific object is the
cloning of embryos in order to produce identical cell lines, the removal of which destroys the embryo. The passage of an
electric current across each cell should allow development as a specified somatic or body cell. The purported medical benefits
reside in the possibility of bodily repair. Neurons killed by degenerative diseases such as Huntingdon’s Chorea or Alzheimer’s
Disease could be replaced by genetically identical cells. Transplant operations are currently hindered by the risk of potentially
fatal rejection of the transplanted organ. Cloned cell lines could eliminate this hazard by operating as a ‘solvent’ between the
foreign organ and the body. Removal of the rejection reaction may facilitate the process of ‘xeno-transplantation’ whereby
animal organs can be used in human bodies. One of the ethical focuses of this debate concerns the loss of thousands of
embryos, and thus the creation and destruction of future human life, which is inevitable in any programme of research or
treatment involvin
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The motivation for all medical research is consequentialist (i.e.
primarily seeking beneficial outcomes). Although the research
procedure will involve the creation and destruction of thousands of
embryos, the resulting benefits will outweigh the cost in human
material. Once the research goals have been achieved, the use of
embryos in the treatment phase can be greatly reduced. The likely
consequences of curing people of fatal neurodegenerative
diseases, and ensuring the success of transplant surgery are
worth the cost.
There is no moral guidance provided by merely hoping that a good
final consequence will result. Medical research should be
governed by moral concerns, and specifically the duty owed by
every human being towards another. However much sympathy we
feel for sufferers of terminal diseases, we cannot tolerate the use
of human embryos as means to the end of The stem cell research
project is inherently contradictory ; lives would be created and then
destroyed, in order to save another life. There is no overall good
consequence when life must always be destroyed.
We already accept the creation and destruction of ‘spare’ embryos
for cycles of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment. IVF facilitates the
creation of human life. Stem cell treatments will allow the saving of
existing human life. The infertile will still survive. The sufferers of
Huntingdon’s Chorea, or those who urgently require an organ
transplant, will not.Thus the moral argument in favour of allowing
stem cell treatment is even stronger than in respect of IVF.
The loss of embryos in IVF is a ground for condemning IVF
treatment. It is not a reason for allowing another procedure that will
sacrifice much more potential life. Moreover, IVF is already a
technology that is the number of embryos that are ‘wasted’
annually by IVF is far in excess of the number predicted by
scientists when the practice was made legal. The Nuremberg and
Helsinki Declarations were drafted in order to protect humans from
the horrors of experimentation envisaged by Nazi eugenicists. The
same duty is owed to pre-human subjects.
The creation, storage and destruction of embryos can be strictly
controlled. In the United Kingdom, the Human Embryology and
Fertilisation Act 1990 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Authority (HFEA) require the licensing of each project involving the
use of embryos.The 1998 report of the HFEA, ‘Cloning Issues in
Reproduction, Science and Medicine’, was informed by the views
of the national scientific community and was crucial to the passing
of legislation to permit stem cell research in the United
Kingdom.There should be no fear of ‘Frankenstein science’.
The value of scientists regulating other scientists is highly
questionable. The HFEA is a body composed of experts in the field
of embryology and is accountable to Parliament only by the means
of annual reports.The much publicised case of Diane Blood, in
which she sued the HFEA for the return of gametes that were
being stored on her behalf, suggests that the body is distant from
public feeling and subject to proper review only by the courts.The
media fears of mad scientists free to manipulate and destroy
human life may be overstated. However, there is a significant risk
153
that research projects will destroy thousands of embryos with little
monitoring and with even less scientific gain.
We must appreciate that the moral status of the embryo is distinct
from that of the foetus. In the United Kingdom, the embryo is not
recognised as having any rights at law until the fourteenth day
after creation, when the ‘primitive streak’ becomes visible.There
would seem to be no reason to recognise that life begins at the
stage of embryo creation. The accepted test for clinical death is an
absence of brain stem activity. Yet the foetus first acquires a
functioning brain six weeks after the embryo has been created.We
cannot condone the ‘wastage’ of human embryos. However, we
must be wary of regarding the loss of an embryo as the loss of
human life.
The embryonic human should have the same moral status as the
foetus or the child or the adult.The primitive streak was chosen by
the Warnock Committee as a purely arbitrary point after which
experimentation on human embryos would become unlawful.There
is no accepted physiological point at which the embryo suddenly
becomes more ‘human’ than before.The fact that the embryo looks
different from the foetus and from the adult is not enough to prove
that the embryo is not a human being. It would be remarkable to
predicate humanity on physical appearance. The status of a
human being does not depend upon whether he is physically
familiar or attractive.
Human embryos cannot be regarded as equivalent to human
beings on the ground that they could develop into adults. Between
fifty and seventy per cent of embryos are lost naturally through
failing to implant in the wall of the uterus. The potential of an
embryo to develop does not itself make it human. As Peter Singer
has observed, this approach would mean that every sperm and
ovum should be treated as microscopic human beings. Moreover,
until approximately 14 days after fertilisation, the embryo can split
into two or more genetically identical embryos. How can we
consider an embryo to be an ‘individual’ that lives or dies, when it
could naturally develop into twins or become nothing at all?
The proper test of humanity should concern whether the embryo
has the potential to organise itself into a ‘living human
whole’.Every embryo has this capacity. The sperm and the ovum
do not have the potential of self-organisation. Together these
gametes have the slight potential of achieving fertilisation.The fact
that embryos are lost naturally does not imply that is morally
appropriate for scientists to destroy embryos. As Paul Ramsey has
stated, man has no right per se to mimic the actions of nature. For
example, the possibility that a rock might fall naturally and hit my
friend, does not mean I have a right to throw a rock and hit my
friend.
The requisite research cannot be achieved without the use of the
stem cells that are found in embryos. Research into adult cells has
yielded very little progress on account of the difficulty of
‘reprogramming’ an adult cell to develop as the particular neuron
or tissue cell that is required.It is possible that greater
understanding of human cells will increase the utility of adult cells
in the future. For the present, resources should be concentrated
on stem cell research.
There is no necessity of utilising embryo stem cells. Research has
continued for many years into the use of adult stem cells. These
cells are replaceable and could be used for the purposes of
treatment and research without the destruction of embryos.
Motions
This House would allow stem cell research
This House supports therapeutic cloning
That the government should do more to support research into therapeutic cloning
154
Sudan: increased military presence in
Summary: Should the international community send more military troops to Sudan? Should the
USA do more to support UN peacekeeping in Darfur?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Anca Pusca with additional material by Nathan Ketsdever ( Romania )
Anca has recently finished a PhD on the role of illusions in the post-communist transitions. Anca has been part of the international
debate program for over 10 years, starting up as a debater in one of the first debate clubs in Romania and continuing as a coach and
trainer. Nathan Ketsdever is a debate coach at the Catholic University of America in Washington D.C.
Created: Sunday, January 15, 2006
Last Modified: Thursday, November 02, 2006
Context
The latest conflict in Sudan began in February 2003 in the Darfur region of the country as the result of an uprising of two rebel
groups, the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), against Khartoum’s Arab-dominated
government and the Janjaweed militias, suspected of being hired and armed by the government. The stated political aim of the
SLA and the JEM has been to compel the government of Sudan to address underdevelopment and the political marginalization
of non-Arabs in Darfur, which is in the west of Sudan. In the background of this most recent conflict, however, lies a 16 year old
civil war between the government and different rebel groups, mostly in the south of Sudan, with heavy civilian casualties on
both sides. This conflict was only recently settled with a peace agreement brokered by the US in January 2005.
An outgrowth of those years of conflict has been the militarization of many of the communities in Sudan, including those in the
Darfur region who have needed to protect themselves. As these communities came into conflict with each other, and the
government of Sudan sided with some against others, the conflict became increasingly two sided and aligned along adopted
political identities such as ‘Arab’ and ‘black’. As the military government has supported the ‘Arabs’ against the ‘blacks’ through
the use of the Sudanese armed forces and the arming of nomadic militias called ‘Janjaweed’, the violence has come to engulf
much of the Darfur region.
The crisis in Darfur became very serious in 2004 with more then two million people fleeing their homes, nearly 400,000 people
dead, and thousands more civilians suffering from rape, torture, hunger and disease. The international response to the crisis in
Darfur has been relatively slow, with UN authorizing sanctions in late 2004 and the African Union (AU) organizing peace talks
and sending a small number of troops (after an intial deployment of 2000-3000 troops, some 7000 are present on the ground
now). Although a peace agreement between the two major rebel groups and the government was signed in March 2005, the
ceasefire was never respected.
What to do about the Darfur is an issue that is vexing the international community. The United States has labeled the conflict a
‘genocide’ but the UN has not. The term of the African Union's peacekeeping force is set to expire at the end of September
2006 and the Sudanese government has refused to accept a UN Peacekeeping force.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
On September 9 2004, the US government declared the crisis in
Darfur a case of genocide. Under the 1948 Genocide Convention,
this declaration requires the U.S. and the international community
to take action to prevent further bloodshed and to punish those
responsible. To avoid another Rwanda, the international
community should send more troops to Sudan.
The U.S.A and the international community have already taken
action in Sudan, committing money to humanitarian aid and
encouraging a regional solution to the conflict through peace talks
and the presence of regional troops sent by the African Union
force. Focusing on diplomacy, although more time consuming,
promises to provide a long-term solution to the conflict.
Increasing the current African Union military force of 2000 or so to
7000 is not enough for an area the size of France. Even if they
were present in vastly greater numbers, AU soldiers lack the
vehicles, communications equipment, and experience to deal with
the problem. The USA and the rest of the international community
should and could commit more military forces to the area to protect
civilians against rape, torture and murder, and to prevent the
destruction of their homes and villages, while at the same time
supporting the continuation of peace talks.
The presence of western troops in civil war type conflicts has often
proven to be inefficient and, in some cases, to complicate the
situation by involving more parties in the conflict. The failures of
military intervention in Somalia and Haiti are only two examples of
such cases. Western intervention would be seen to be taking the
side of the rebel groups, removing any incentive they have to
negotiate, and against the Sudanese government, which would
immediately gain support throughout the Islamic and Arab worlds.
In any case, the USA has also made it clear that it does not want a
Western military presence in the region, thus the likelihood of more
western forces is very low.
By contrast, regional efforts are better than major international
ones. Only the countries in the region can know enough about
what is going on and the local situation to adequately address it.
155
Also, countries that are farther away from the Darfur are less likely
to see the value of a sustained commitment to the region,
especially when their soldiers are being killed.
There is a moral imperative to intervene in Sudan and if a military
intervention is the only efficient way of protecting humanitarian aid
and allowing displaced peoples to return home without fear, the
international community should do it. After the Rwandan genocide,
we cannot stand by and risk another such disaster. President Bush
has declared “Not on my watch”, and in order to live up to that
statement and maintain US credibility on human rights around the
world, the US must take real concrete steps to end the violence in
the Darfur. To fail to do so would be to send a green light to
human rights violators around the world saying ‘do your worst, we
won’t stop you.’
Given the inefficiency of the African Union forces currently on the
ground, it is clear that military intervention is not the most efficient
way of intervening. Unfortunately, in today’s world, moral
imperatives are often shaped by domestic security concerns, such
as the war against terrorism in the case of the USA. By hosting the
Sudanese intelligence chief (a government official very likely to
have been involved in planning genocide in Sudan) in Washington
DC in June 2005, the US sent a clear signal that its moral
commitment lies with its own interests (the catching of suspected
terrorists) rather than that of the Sudanese people.
A large-scale military intervention would allow for the conflict to
end sooner, forcing both sides to negotiate, saving thousands of
lives and allowing reconstruction efforts to begin. The civil war in
the South of Sudan lasted on and off for decades, and Darfur has
the potential to be just as bad if decisive action is not taken
quickly.
There are no guarantees that a military intervention would be
successful, particularly given the historical nature of the conflict in
Sudan. While the conflict might be temporarily suppressed by a
military presence – which we argue is not even likely to be sent without a reconciliation effort, the hatred will continue to lurk in the
background. The military presence is not likely to be sustained
over time, because of lack of funds and commitment. At the worst,
Darfur could become another Iraq, attracting foreign islamist
fighters in support of the Arab side and against western
intervention.
Diplomacy does not work. Despite a series of attempts to bring the
different groups together, the latest peace talks have failed. The
rebel groups are not consistent in their demands and will not trust
any promises from the Sudanese government. The disrespect for
the ceasefire signed in March 2005 is the latest example of the
failure of diplomatic efforts in this conflict.
The success of diplomacy is not easily measured, particularly in
situations like this. The peace talks organized by the African Union
have shown that there is a strong regional commitment to ending
the conflict in Sudan, as well as that the parties (the two rebel
groups and the government forces) are willing to sit down at the
same table. The signing of the ceasefire, although not respected,
should be considered a first step in the diplomatic efforts, which
often take time. A conflict that has been building for over 16 years,
will certainly take more than a few years to undo.
The new conflict developing in the East of Sudan risks turning the
entire country into a conflict ridden place, thus sentencing even
more civilians to death. Given the emergence of this new conflict,
there is a clear need to act now.
If anything, this new conflict points to the risk of sending more
troops into the region, and involving them in a war they are not
likely to win, given the increasing number of parties and regions
involved. Sending more foreign troops into a region engulfed by
war might result into more blood on our hands.
Motions
This House would send more troops to Sudan.
This House believes in a moral imperative to intervene militarily to stop genocide
This House prefers military intervention over diplomacy in cases of genocide
Resolved: that a UN Peacekeeping force should be sent into the Darfur
Resolved: that UN Security Council Resolution 1706 should pass
That the United States should back strong action against the Sudanese government's failure to halt genocide in Darfar
156
Term Limits for Elected Representatives
Summary: Should we place restrictions upon the length of time served in office by elected
representatives?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Alastair Endersby ( United Kingdom )
Alastair learnt to debate at the Cambridge Union but discovered his real talents lay in coaching when he started teaching. He has
twice coached England teams in the World Schools Debating Championships. Alastair currently teaches History and Politics at
Bishop Wordsworth's School in Salisbury, England. He is the Editor of Debatabase.
Created: Wednesday, November 01, 2000
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Context
Limiting the term in office served by elected politicians has been a controversial issue in a many countries since the early
1990s, although not for the same reason. In a number of countries, for example most of Latin America, politicians can only
serve one term at a time in an elected office. There are usually no restrictions upon serving in a post for a second time,
providing a period out of office has elapsed since the previous term, and politicians are free to stand for other offices instead,
so a state governor might serve a subsequent term as a senator before returning to run for the state governorship again. In
several such countries there has been considerable debate over whether such limits are a good thing (often prompted by the
perceived success of a particular President, e.g. Cardoso of Brazil or Uribe of Colombia) and constitutional amendments have
been proposed, and sometimes passed, relaxing the restrictions. In other countries, particularly the USA (where only the
President’s term is limited by the constitution, to two terms), the debate has been over whether limiting all representatives to
two consecutive terms in an office would be desirable. This proposal was part of the Republican’s 1994 “Contract with
America” (it failed to pass the Senate) and has been enacted at local level through referenda in a number of states in the
1990s, although many of these initiatives have later been ruled unconstitutional. In any debate on this issue, those in favour of
term limits will need to clarify the exact form their proposals will take: should the limit be to one term or two, can politicians
subsequently stand again for a post they once occupied, should all elected offices be covered by the restriction?
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Term limits ensure that politicians do not become corrupted by
power and lose touch with the people and principles which got
them elected in the first place. Representatives who spend too
many years in office, living in the national capital far from their
constituents and surrounded by lobbyists and party managers,
easily become part of a professional governing class, remote from
the concerns of normal people. Term limits would recreate a class
of citizen-legislators, who see politics as a brief chance to make
their country better, rather than as a long-term comfortable career
for themselves.
Experience counts in politics, where even the most able new
office-holder or representative will take many months or even
years to get to grips fully with their new job. Policy issues and
legislative bills are necessarily complicated and the public is best
served by a system which allows some continuity of service
through democratic re-election for experienced politicians. If such
politicians become too divorced from the concerns of their voters,
then they will lose their next re-election campaign; indeed, it is the
regular need to fight such campaigns which ensures accountability
and keeps politicians in touch with grass roots opinion.
Term limits will overcome the advantage that incumbents have in
any re-election campaign, regardless of the relative abilities and
policies of them and their opponents. These advantages stem from
name recognition and from the greater access to funding that
incumbent candidates have from business and lobbying groups (in
country’s where such funding is legal and where individual
campaign expenditure is not tightly controlled).
Term limits are an insult to the intelligence of voters, who in a
democratic system are perfectly at liberty to get rid of an
unsatisfactory incumbent through the ballot box. Preventing a
potentially popular candidate from standing again simply removes
the right to make important political decisions from the electorate.
If incumbents do seem to be unfairly advantaged in some
countries, it is because of other aspects of their political systems,
e.g. lack of state funding for political parties or of controls on
campaign expenditure, not because re-election is allowed.
Elected representatives’ judgement (and even their honesty) may
be damaged by the regular need to prepare for costly re-election
campaigns. This forces them to do the popular thing rather than
the right one, to act in the narrow interest of their constituents
rather than in the national one, and to pander to big business or
other lobby groups in order to secure funding.
Corruption is actually more likely to occur in a system with term
limits, as there is no incentive for an office-holder or representative
to do their best for the voters, whom they will not need to face
again. Indeed, less honest politicians may become more criminally
corrupt, seeing the need to profit from their position as quickly as
possible. Alternatively, they may cosy up to big business in the
hope of landing lucrative lobbying jobs when out of office.
Term limits would bring fresh faces, talents and experiences into
Amateur politicians, thrown into legislatures by the enforced early
157
the political process, including those of many people who would
now consider a political career. It would ensure that most law and
policy makers would have experience of the “real world” outside
party political machines and academia, and bring more first-hand
knowledge of business and industry into government.
retirement of more experienced politicians, are likely to be naïve
and easily exploited by lobbyists for business and other interest
groups. Term limits are also likely to affect the relationship
between the legislative and executive branches of government, as
the power of the Head of State and civil service can no longer be
balanced effectively by experienced parliamentarians, able to call
the government to account and investigate its actions.
Motions
This House would impose term limits
This House would clean up politics
This House calls for the return of the citizen-legislator
This House believes a new broom sweeps clean
158
Terrorists should be treated as prisoners of war
Summary: Should those suspected of or convicted for terrorist offences receive the same
protections as those which apply to prisoners of war?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Jo Box ( United Kingdom )
Jo has an undergraduate degree in Law from Cambridge and is currently studying for the LLM. She is a European Debating
Championships Semi-Finalist, John Smith Mace Finalist and former Director of Debating at the Cambridge Union Society.
Created: Sunday, October 04, 2009
Last Modified: Sunday, October 04, 2009
Context
The Geneva Convention 1949 details a number of protections which states must extend to enemy combatants from the
opposing country captured during times of war. These include prohibitions against all forms of violence including torture,
humiliating and degrading treatment, and the passing of sentence without a properly constituted court hearing. In addition,
medical treatment must be provided to those who need it and prisoners must be allowed to send and receive letters, enabling
continued contact with their families. However, these protections only apply to soldiers of recognised armies. The global “war
on terror” has pitted America and its allies against Al-Qaeda, the Taleban, and other non-state groups adopting irregular
warfare strategies. When captured, their members (or suspected members) are wearing no uniform and represent no
sovereign state, posing problems for those holding them. The controversial treatment of terror suspects when captured by the
West in other parts of the world has been repeatedly highlighted by international media organisations and human rights groups.
Guantanamo Bay is a particularly disturbing example, but it is undoubtedly reflective of the way that terrorists are treated in
other, less visible parts of the world.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Terrorists are engaged in a war like any other: they unite to
undertake military action in favour of a specific cause. The fact that
they do not represent one individual nation and that they are not at
war with a specific list of states does not undermine this: Al
Qaeda, for example, has clear goals including eliminating
American influence within Muslim nations, destroying Israel and
re-establishing the Caliphate. The fact that we may not views
these causes as worthy or legitimate is irrelevant: we do not
assess the merits or legitimacy of a conflict between states before
deciding whether to apply the Geneva Convention. It should
therefore apply equally to soldiers and terrorists.
Terrorists are not engaged in a war. Their actions are aimed at
destruction of civil society and of nations across the globe.
Furthermore, the Geneva Convention has no role to play here. It
exists to control wars between nations in a way which respects
human dignity and minimises long-term harm. Wars between
nations have a foreseeable end, and the Convention is an
important means of aiding reconciliation and cooperation in the
future: it is harder to build a relationship with a state which has
brutally tortured your soldiers upon capture. However, a war
against terrorists will often have no end: it is inconceivable, for
example, either that Al Qaeda will successfully achieve the
reestablishment of the Caliphate or that the West will quash all
terrorist activity. Reconciliation and future cooperation are
meaningless here.
Even if we think the terrorist cause is illegitimate we have a moral
duty to respect a basic level of humanity. There are certain acts,
such as torture, to which no individual should be subjected,
regardless of their own behaviour. The Geneva Convention is
about universal respect for human dignity. Civilised nations can
and should be expected to act in a humane manner.
There is no moral duty to respect the dignity of these individuals.
States should do whatever possible to protect their own citizens.
The Geneva Convention is about reciprocity: it is in the interest of
our own citizens to treat enemy combatants is a humane manner
so that if our soldiers are caught they will receive similar treatment.
There can be no guarantee of reciprocity from ‘terrorists’ as a
whole, or even specific terrorist groups given the cellular nature of
the organisations and the disparate nature of the command
structures. Furthermore, terrorists specifically use poor treatment
of hostages as a tool in their campaign. Given this, it is in the
interests of our own citizens to use whatever means possible to
fight terrorism; compliance with the Geneva Convention
undermines this.
Poor treatment affirms terrorist ideology: regardless of what is
morally right, it would be beneficial to treat terrorists in the ways
Treating captured terrorists well would not aid the war on terror.
Most of the terrorism encountered today aims to destabilise states
159
prescribed by the Convention. Terrorist ideology is often
predicated on the behaviour of those countries against which it is
targeted. Treating captured terrorists or terror suspects in a way
that ignores their human dignity, only reinforces perceptions of the
West.
for ideological reasons. Treating captives well will not stop Al
Qaeda wanting to re-establish the Caliphate and so will not
remove the ideological reasons for attacking certain states.
Poor treatment acts as a recruitment tool: stories of Guatanemo
Bay or Abu Ghraib fuel terrorist propaganda and act as a useful
recruitment tool. Members of Islamic groups, who were initially
uncertain about the legitimacy of terrorist activities may be
sufficiently horrified by acts of torture of sexual humiliation that
they are more easily converted to these extreme views. In
addition, such behaviour can be used to justify terrorist actions to
less radicalised members of certain communities.
Poor treatment is not a significant recruitment tool: whilst some
people may be encouraged to join terrorist groups as a result of
such behaviour, those who are outraged by human rights abuses
in this context should be equally concerned about the violation of
human rights which occurs when a terrorist detonates a bomb, or
flies into a building, killing large numbers of innocent civilians. The
ideology invoked exists independently of the way in which
suspects are treated, as discussed above, and indoctrination with
such beliefs is the real tool in the recruitment process.
Harsh interrogation of captives is rarely effective. Those who are
prepared to die to advance their cause are unlikely to yield
information, no matter how much they are threatened or tortured.
Where captives do provide information, they often state simply
what they think that the interrogators want to hear, rather than
anything that is true. In addition, given the cellular nature of many
terrorist organisations, those captured often have very little useful
information to begin with. Even if they have been involved in a plot,
they may only have information about a very small part of that plot.
Compliance with the Geneva Convention does undermine our
ability to get valuable information: the Convention not only
prohibits torture, but also mental coercion, threats, insults or
disadvantageous treatment in the pursuit of intelligence. Each form
of interrogation is valuable in certain circumstances. For example,
torture may not be effective to collect evidence about a plot from
scratch, but it may be an effective means of forcing suspects to
disclose one or two specific details. Disadvantageous treatment or
threats may also provide useful incentives for suspects,
particularly those concerned about the welfare of their families. In
a ticking bomb scenario, a state which fails to take such actions is
arguably responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians which
occur as a result.
It might be desirable to treat detainees as criminal suspects and
put them through a trial process, sentencing those against whom
credible evidence exists and releasing the rest, but this has not
happened. Instead detainees in Guantanamo and elsewhere are
now in legal limbo with little prospect of ever getting out. Giving
them prisoner of war status is a much better solution. As the
terrorist threat recedes in individual countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia),
hostilities can be judged to have finished and their prisoners can
be repatriated and rehabilitated into society.
Prisoners of war can be detained for the duration of hostilities, and
are only entitled to return home at the end of the war. Given the
open-ended nature of the war on terror, it is very likely that treating
terrorist detainees as POWs will mean they are never released.
Better instead to treat them as criminals accused of terrorist
offences, and to put them through a proper trial process.
Motions
This House would treat terrorists the same as prisoners of war
This House believes that the Geneva Convention should apply to terrorists and suspected terrorists
This House believes that the war on terror should be conducted like any other war
That we should treat terrorist suspects as prisoners of war
160
Torture in Interrogation
Summary: As the stakes of the war on terror are raised, are the US' use of torture, and its
attitude towards UN's Geneva convention justified?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Jacob Russell
Jacob Russell, a Harvard University graduate, is currently a journalist in New York City.
Created: Thursday, June 23, 2005
Last Modified: Thursday, June 29, 2006
Context
One of the “battles” within the U.S. war on terrorism has concerned the use of torture against suspected terrorists. Many
policymakers contend that torture is at times the most effective method for obtaining critical information that might help
maintain national security. Noted jurists like Alan Dershowitz have argued that regulated torture may be a necessary way to
protect Americans. However, opponents counter that such interrogation methods violate the basic human rights provisions of
the Geneva Conventions, binding U.N. protocols concerning the laws of waging war (to which the U.S. is a party), as well as
the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Meanwhile, prominent leaks like the so-called White House “torture memos” and
international incidents in the war on terror like the Abu Ghraib prison scandal have put the media spotlight on U.S. treatment of
detainees in the war on terror.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Many with experience doing interrogations have found that
aggressive tactics are the best, and sometimes the only, way to
obtain information—information that might lead to the arrest or
conviction of other terrorists, or might protect against a future
attack against Americans. Often such information is needed
quickly so that action can be taken. Moreover, the U.S. has a track
record for using such methods of interrogation in a regulated,
studied way that do not constitute “torture” in the conventional
sense; for instance, methods that will cause permanent damage to
vital organs or permanent emotional trauma have never been
sanctioned by the U.S. government.
Information obtained from torture is suspect at best; studies have
shown that given psychological pressure individuals will say a wide
variety of things without regard for the truth. Moreover, it is
important for closure and safety that criminals be brought to
justice, but evidence obtained from torture may be inadmissible in
the courtroom.
Such interrogation methods are applied to those the U.S.
government has strong reason to believe have engaged in terrorist
activities against Americans. Extralegal activity like theirs requires
a strong response. These are bad people, trained terrorists who
will stop at nothing to kill innocent U.S. civilians. Those who would
heavily restrict interrogation methods would have the U.S. lose the
war on terror.
Every human being, no matter how heinous a crime they are
suspected of committing, has human rights. Article 5 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: “No one shall be
subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment.” (Moreover, U.S. domestic law—and in particular the
fifth and eighth amendments to the constitution—may preclude
torture as well.)
The Geneva Conventions do not apply to interrogation of terrorists
and suspected terrorists held by U.S. soldiers because they are
not prisoners of war. They are illegal, enemy combatants, not
subject to such protection.
Verbal sleight of hand does not mean individuals captured in the
war on terror are not prisoners of war. Moreover, in many cases
they are merely suspected of links to criminal activity (and, as past
experience has indicated, often wrongly so). Extralegal military
tribunals conducted behind closed doors without proper due
process rights leave the U.S. on shaky moral ground.
The U.S. is hardly alone in its use of such interrogation practices,
and has a good record compared with other nations'. Moreover,
“torture” is a loaded word that does not accurately differentiate
between the studied interrogation practices of U.S forces and the
human rights abuses committed in many developing nations.
The U.S. should set the standard for international human rights,
rather than meet the average. Furthermore, permitting low-level
and under-trained U.S. troops to engage in unsupervised
interrogation activities is a recipe for disaster. Incidents like the
Abu Ghraib scandal demonstrate how quickly the U.S.’s reputation
can suffer from such illicit treatment of prisoners.
Motions
The US should not use torture as an interrogation method in the war on terror.
The US should consider detainees in the war on terror as prisoners of war subject to the protections of the Geneva
161
Conventions.
162
Trade vs Aid
Summary: Should the developed world focus on enabling trade or donating aid as a way to
help the developing world?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Christopher Ruane ( Ireland )
Created: Wednesday, November 30, -0001
Last Modified: Thursday, October 30, 2008
Context
Foreign aid had grown significantly in absolute terms (if not as a percentage of GDP in the case of many developed countries)
but this has shown up a paradox – as aid to Africa has grown, the continent has actually become poorer rather than better off.
This is often contrasted with Asia. Immediately after the Second World War, Africa and Asia were both Third World areas. Yet
Asia – largely without the sort of foreign aid directed at Africa – has developed a strong economic infrastructure and become a
developed area. This raises the question of what foreign aid achieves and whether on balance it is a positive or negative
influence. The debate has been crystallised by the focus on the Millennium Development Goals on increasing aid from the
developed world to the poorest countries, and by the failure of the Doha round of World Trade Organisation talks to agree a
new global trading system that might have benefited many developing economies.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Trade is a long-term basis for international co-operation. The other
partner in a trading relationship is likely to represent an ongoing
market for goods or services. So when a developing country has
the capacity to engage in trade with another country, there is a
strong likelihood that that trade will blossom into an ongoing
trading partnership. This will allow a firm basis for a flow of cash or
goods into the developing country, largely independently of
whether the developed country is doing well or badly economically
at a given moment. This can be contrasted to the flow of aid. It
tends to be less predictable, both because it is manipulated for
political reasons and also because it can be quite ephemeral and
so, if the developed country goes through a bad economic time,
the aid budget makes an easy target for a reduction in spending.
Aid is linked to need not the ability to engage in trade. Trade
rewards those who are able and willing to engage in trade. This
involves a number of elements – as well as having the rights sorts
and quantity of goods and services and being willing to sell at the
desired price, a country may need to meet certain other criteria of
a purchasing country. For example, that country may make
demands in terms of corruption, human rights, political support at
the United Nations, or any other of a large number of possible
preconditions for a trading partnership. This will suit some
countries in the developing world. But for others it will act as a bar
to trade. They will therefore not receive the redistribution of wealth
that is claimed for the global trading web. In this way, trade can
distribute its benefits very unevenly. By contrast, aid can in theory
be more evenly distributed and can be targeted against identified
need rather than against the ability to compete in a trading
marketplace.
Trade allows developing countries to retain their dignity. Aid is
often seen as quite a patronising concept, no matter how
necessary it may be argued to be. It is, like most forms of charity,
one party acknowledging its own superiority and aiding the other
party not on merit but out of a sense of wanting to help. This can
be deeply embarrassing for the receiving country and for its
people; indeed this is often cited as one of the reasons why
African countries are reluctant to take a full part in international
affairs – partly because they feel that their silence or support has
been “bought” with aid money. A trading relationship would allow
them to be much more equal partners in the international
community, and so gain the benefits of inward investment and
payment for trade without many of the negative aspects
associated with an aid programme.
Not all countries are able to trade successfully. Some countries
lack the ability to trade, for example because they do not have the
raw resources or materials in quantities that make their exports
viable. In the absence of deep government coffers, they would be
the first to fall were other countries to engage in a trade war to
keep their exports out. So the basic assumption of the international
trade argument – that trade is open equally to all countries – does
not reflect the reality of the situation.
Trade allows a fair impression of the international order to be
created. One of the problems of the current aid system is said to
be that it creates an impression amongst receiving countries and
their people that the west is a wealthy, free-handed donor which
provides what seem like huge sums of money by local standards.
The impression can also be that this is given without too much
concern about corruption or indeed without moral judgement, since
Aid allows for money in a given country to be allocated well
against need. At the micro- level as well as the macro, trade is an
inefficient distributor of resources in a developing country. Under it,
most if not all of the benefit of the trade will stay with a small elite
of people who are often amongst the richest in the country in the
first place. They may then move the money offshore again.
Alternatively, if it remains within the developing country, it may well
163
many of the people who administer aid may be seen as morally
ambiguous collaborators within authoritarian regimes. This
influences developing world expectations of the first world. As well
as leading to a sense that there is some sort of right to aid, it can
also distort values of openness, self-help and honesty. It
encourages many people in recipient countries to consider
migrating to the source of this wealth, since they assume that it
must be a rich place where all can prosper. When the reality turns
out differently, this can cause problems on all sides.
simply be used to buttress their own position in a way which
further entrenches their social and economic position. So, the
benefits of trade flow to few people and often they are the least
needy. Aid, by contrast, may be targeted against specifically
identified groups or areas on the basis of need, often being given
through local groups, such as churches, mosques, health clinics,
etc.
Trade provides developing countries with an important basis for
their own improvement. To gear up to be successful trading
partners, developing countries often need to go through a number
of key changes. As well as developing their own economy and
their manufacturing or service sectors, they may need to build
trade infrastructure in other ways. For example, increased trade
would focus their attention on such things as good governance,
the benefits of a broadly stable currency and internal security.
Although such developments may come about as a facilitator for
trade, in the best case scenario they may be seen as structural
changes which will have a trickle-down benefit for the broader
society in the underdeveloped country.
The opportunities for trade are severely limited because of barriers
imposed by the international system. The arguments made by protrade proponents are often couched in the rhetoric of market
economics. Yet the international trade arena represents anything
but a free market. Instead, tariffs, taxes, subsidies, regulations and
other restrictions operate to disadvantage some countries.
Because of their weaker bargaining and economic power, it is
typically developing not developed countries that are on the losing
end of this equation. The agricultural protectionism of the EU and
USA, in particular, means that developing countries are unable to
compete fairly.
Aid money is often mispent, even when handled honestly. By
imposing solutions from outside, it favours big projects, "grand
gestures" and centralisation - all of which may be inappropriate,
only benefit a small number of people, and suffer from intended
consequences. By contrast, the profits of trade trickle down to the
whole population, giving people the power to spend additional
income as they choose, for example by reinvesting it in worthwhile
local industries and enterprises.
Exposing fragile developing economies to free trade is very risky.
There is a short term danger that a flood of cheap (because of
developed world subsidies) imports will wreck local industries who
are unable to compete fairly. In the longer term economies may
become dangerously dependent upon "cash crops" or other
commodities produced solely for export (e.g. rubber, coffee,
cocoa, copper, zinc), rather than becoming self-sufficient. Such
economies are very vulnerable to big swings on the international
commodity markets, and can quickly be wrecked by changes in
supply and demand.
People naturally want to trade with each other, seeking to turn
their particular resources or skills to their advantage. All too often
trade is limited not because government action is needed, but
because the government actually gets in the way with restrictive
rules and statist controls. For example, regardless of their terms of
trade with developed nations, developing countries could all
become more prosperous if they removed the barriers they have
erected to trade with each other. Putting the emphasis on trade
rather than aid redirects attention from what developed states
should or could be doing for the developing world, to what
developing countries can and should do for themselves.
Trade does not exist in a vacuum. It needs a wider infrastructure to
support it, e.g. roads, railways, ports, education to produce
capable civil servants to administer trading rules, etc. Without
foreign aid, developing countries are not able to develop this kind
of support, and so cannot participate effectively in international
trade. Aid is not always in the form of money - it may also be given
through expert advisors who help countries prepare for the
challenges of globalisation.
Motions
This House prefers trade to aid
This House believes that open borders are better than open pockets
This House would give developing countries a hand up, not a hand-out
This House believes that foreign aid harms the Third World
164
Unhealthy food, banning from schools
Debatabase Junior Topic
print this page
Discuss topic
Summary: Should unhealthy foods be banned from schools?
Introduction
Author: Debbie Newman ( United Kingdom )
Created: Sunday, April 06, 2008
Last Modified:
Context
Obesity is the condition of being very overweight, to the point where your health suffers. Doctors usually say that someone with
a body mass index above 30 is obese. There is an increasing problem with obesity in the developed world, and this often starts
in childhood. Some people have argued that unhealthy school meals and vending machines are partly to blame and that they
should be banned. In the UK the TV chef Jamie Oliver ran a high profile campaign to rid schools of unhealthy (junk) food, and
the British government has started to take action as well. Local and national groups are also lobbying for change in America
and a number of other countries. However, many people argue that schools are the wrong places to target and that it does not
solve the problem.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that
includes rising childhood obesity. In the UK it is predicted that over
20% of 2-15 year olds will be obese by 2010. It is important to fight
obesity as it causes many health problems and can lead to early
death through heart diease, diabetes and strokes.
Obesity is a growing problem that we should take seriously. But
the way to solve it is not to limit the choice of food in schools as
children will just fill up on unhealthy food outside of schools.
Instead we need to increase the amount of sport and exercise in
schools and educate children about eating healthily. At the same
time we should encourage parents to provide a balanced diet for
their children.
Schools can play an important role in combating obesity as people
tend to get into habits about how they eat when they are young.
Schools can help to make those habits healthy ones. If you don’t
eat fresh food and vegetables at home, you might not get to try
them and then you are unlikely to cook them for yourself later.
Schools can introduce young people to healthy food.
Schools need to teach pupils about how to make healthy choices
and what makes a balanced diet. They need education on what’s
good for you but then need to be given the chance to choose for
themselves between an apple and a chocolate bar. Otherwise as
soon as they’re out of school, they’ll still eat three chocolate bars
because you haven’t changed their mindset. They may even eat
more junk food on purpose as an act of rebellion. So schools
should serve a range of food, not just salads and other “health
foods”, in order to provide such a choice.
Bad diet can lead to childhood obesity, and other problems caused
by unhealthy eating such as poor concentration, tooth decay and
vitamin deficiencies. Schools can play a part in fighting these
problems by providing healthy lunches in their canteens. Even if
this is only one of the meals in a child’s day, schools can have a
good effect on the overall diet of their students. If children are
eating grilled chicken, vegetables and fruit at lunch rather than
fried chicken, chips and cakes, that will have a positive effect on
their health, and their schoolwork will improve too.
A balanced diet includes small amounts of sugar, fat and salt –
how do you decide what is healthy and what is not? Portions are
key to a healthy diet. If pupils are very active and involved in sport,
they may need to eat a lot of calories. You have to teach children
and their parents to make responsible choices for themselves. The
upbringing of children is mostly down to parents – the state
shouldn’t take the job on through its schools.
There is a good past example for schools getting involved in diet.
Traditionally schools have given out free milk and fruit to try and
make sure that children get enough calcium and vitamins, in case
they are not getting enough at home. In the UK school meals were
first made available by a reforming Liberal government a hundred
years ago as a way of improving the health of the nation.
There is a difference between providing something healthy as a
free extra and limiting children’s access to food at lunchtime. You
won’t make a difference with school meals if a child can just have
an extra Macdonald’s burger or three more chocolate bars on the
way home if they are hungry. If a school wants to make a
difference, they should have more compulsory PE lessons to
improve children’s fitness levels.
Schools teach healthy eating in Food Science and then undermine
that by having vending machines full of chocolate and crisps
outside the classrooms. We wouldn’t let schools have cigarette
machines, so why let them sell food which is bad for your health?
The difference between cigarettes and unhealthy foods is that
even smoking occasionally is bad for your health, whereas eating
fat, sugar and salt in moderation is not bad for you. It’s important
to learn about how to make choices for a balanced diet.
165
If children try healthy food at school, they can take their knowledge
home and introduce new food to their family. If a family always has
frozen pizzas, they could suggest that they have other Italian food
too, such as pasta and tomato sauce.
If children don’t eat healthily at home they are more likely to avoid
healthy school dinners. Instead they will bring an unhealthy
packed lunch or go out of school for junk food in the lunchhour.
Figures show that since the Jamie Oliver campaign in the UK,
demand for school dinners has gone down by 20%. So there is no
quick fix to encourage healthy eating and school meal campaigns
may even be unhelpful. Tackling obesity properly will mean
changing our food culture and that will involve the media,
advertisers, food retailers and educators all playing a part.
Motions
This House would ban unhealthy food from schools
This House would ban unhealthy vending machines from schools
This House believes that schools should do more to tackle childhood obesity
That schools should do more to promote healthy eating and lifestyles
166
United Nations: A Failure?
print this page
Discuss topic
Summary: Should the United Nations be judged a failure?
United Nations: Organization which attempts to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development,
and social equity.
Issues: arms control, peacekeeping, human rights, humanitarian aide, and treaties.
Structure:
General Assembly = main deliberative assembly of country representatives
Security Council = decides certain resolutions for peace and security. Has 5 permanent members with veto power US China France
Britain Russia. Has 10 regional, rotating seats with 2 year terms.
The Economic and Social Council = promotes international economic and social cooperation and development
The Secretariat = provides studies, info and facilities needed by the UN
The International Court of Justice = the primary judiciary (war crimes etc)
A very important topic but not one which always produces good debates, as it tends to degenerate into example-swapping. Both sides
should consider what the aims of the United Nations are and establish criteria for analysing whether it has satisfied these.
Pros
Cons
Fail to prevent wars
The main objective of the United Nations at its founding was to
prevent future wars and suffering on a mass scale. As millions
have died in hundreds of conflicts around the world in more than
fifty years since the UN’s establishment, it must be condemned as
a failure.
UN Mediates Conflicts
Despite horrific suffering in many countries, the world has avoided
another devastating global conflict in which tens of millions might
die, and for this the UN can take much credit. It has also resisted
aggression in regional conflicts in Korea and the Middle East,
helping to deter future invasions, and acted as an intermediary in
making peace in many other conflicts, e.g the Iran-Iraq war.
Consider how much more violent the world might have been
without the United Nations.
Fail to prevent human rights abuses
Another key objective of the United Nations has been to promote
human rights worldwide, yet these continue to be violated by many
regimes, often on a horrific scale, as in the genocidal civil wars in
the Balkans and Central Africa in the 1990s. Given that voting
rights in the UN General Assembly are not linked to a regime’s
human rights record, and that gross human rights abusers such as
China sit on the UN Security Council, it is no surprise that the UN
has failed in this part of its agenda.
UN Mediates International Conflicts, not Internal Conflicts
Human rights abuses usually take place within states, often in civil
wars, so the UN has no mandate to intervene directly against them
– as it was explicitly set up with a policy of non-interference in
internal affairs it is unfair to count this a failure. Nonetheless, it has
placed human rights on the international agenda, making billions
of people aware of what are considered norms and shaming many
regimes into improving their policies. Even China makes great
efforts to claim its human rights record is better than that of
countries such as the USA, albeit differently defined.
Slow Bureaucracy
The UN suffers from a bloated bureaucracy, in which seniority is
not linked to ability, resulting in painfully slow decision-making and
operational failure in such crises as Rwanda and the former
Yugoslavia. Some UN organisations, such as UNESCO have been
viewed as so corrupt countries such as the USA and the UK have
withdrawn from them, while the US Congress has long withheld
part of the dues it owes to the UN in protest against corruption and
money-wasting.
Failure of Individual Countries, not UN
Errors in strategic decision-making are not the fault of the UN
secretariat but of its masters in the Security Council. There have
been past abuses, but these are used as a stick to beat the UN
with by those, principally in the USA, who are against the UN for
other reasons. In recent years considerable progress has been
made in improving the efficiency and meritocratic nature of the
secretariat, although this has been hampered by the failure of the
USA to pay its dues, which are needed to compensate those made
redundant by restructuring.
Veto Power is Abused
There are also institutional problems associated with the General
Assembly and the Security Council, whereby GA resolutions with
widespread support can be stymied by a single veto from one of
the Permanent 5. This has led to unilateral action by countries
such as the USA and organisations such as NATO, undermining
the authority of the UN, and to a lack of credibility for the UN in
dealing with issues such as Israel and Palestine, where the USA
among the P5 has strong interests.
Veto Use is Avoided
Since the end of the Cold War UN decision-making has been
much improved, as key votes in the Security Council are no longer
likely to result in deadlock between eastern and western blocs. In
any case, P5 countries try to avoid using their veto power if at all
possible, due to the negative image this creates at home and
abroad. Instead the Security Council acts as a forum in which
positions can be explained and compromises hammered out, even
if action is not necessarily collectively authorised. Clearly the
workings of the Security Council could be changed to diminish the
importance of the P5, and to make action easier to take, but this
does not in itself render the unreformed UN a failure.
167
Other Organizations Promote Progress, MAD keeps Peace
Much of the international progress made since 1945 has not
involved the UN at all. The Cold War and mutually assured
destruction kept the peace between the great powers, while
institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, GATT and the WTO
have functioned independently of the UN in promoting greater
prosperity.
UN a Forum in Crisis, UN Agencies Promote Health & Edu.
Other organisations have also been important in bringing greater
peace and prosperity to the world, but none have the authority the
UN derives from the participation of almost every state in the
world. In international crises the Security Council is the forum for
discussion, deal-making, arbitration and understanding. The UN
has also made huge contributions to global progress through its
agencies, particularly those dealing with refugees, the World
Health Organisation and Unicef. By its efforts smallpox has been
eliminated, healthcare improved and education promoted. Such
programmes are not often noticed, but the UN’s responsibility for
them should be seen as a key part of its success.
Motions
This House believes the United Nations has failed
This House would put the UN out of its misery
This House has no confidence in the UN
168
US farm subsidies, abolish
Summary: The US should abolish agricultural subsidies
print this page
Discuss topic
Context
A subsidy is a monetary payment on behalf of the government, without goods or services in return. For years now, the United
States Federal Government has subsidized its farming industry, with a notable step up in spending in the late 1990s - either a
necessary response to lower market prices or a victory for the well-organized farm lobby in Washington, depending upon your
point of view. Subsidies were $23 billion in 2005, although other forms of support for farming, such as tariff protection from
competition add at least another $20 to the value of the government’s support. The result has had mixed reactions, both
domestically and internationally.
At home criticism is focused upon the cost of subsidies, and upon the way in which much of the federal spending goes to the
biggest farm businesses rather than to small family farms. Subsidies are also blamed for overproduction, with negative
environmental impact. The farm lobby maintains that without subsidies US agriculture would fact an uncertain future, with
negative social and economic effects on the country as a whole.
Internationally the farm subsidy programmes of the US, EU, Japan and other developed countries have been much criticized
by anti-poverty campaigners who allege that they damage farmers in developing countries who are unable to compete.
Subsidies and other farm support have become a sticking point in the Doha round of World Trade Organization talks, with
developing countries rejecting US and EU offers to reduce direct subsidies as insufficient.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Government intervention in the marketplace contradicts the values
of free-trade advocated by the USA. Our complex series of
agricultural subsidies, price supports, regulations and protective
tariffs means that farming in the US functions as a command
economy - in effect, we have a socialist agricultural system.
Furthermore, such subsidies violate international agreements
negotiated and signed by the US, such as the World Trade
Organization, and the North America Free Trade Act (NAFTA).
This tarnishes US credibility.
A subsidized farming industry helps to create the most stable
farming infrastructure possible. Agricultural commodities are
subject to great swings in price due to weather conditions and
market volatility. Without government support to smooth the impact
of market fluctuations, huge numbers of American farmers would
be pushed into bankruptcy, forced off the land and into
dependence on welfare. This would have knock-on effects on the
whole economy of the US heartland, and would devastate the
social structure of small-town America. Unless the United States is
happy to stand by while this happens, we must continue to support
farm programmes which guarantee farmers a decent return on
their labor and give American agriculture a secure future.
Subsidies are expensive and represent a burden on the American
citizen as taxpayer and consumer. The USA spends $44 billion on
farm support payments every year, all of which comes out of the
pockets of hard-pressed American families. Factory laborers or
service-sector workers don’t get such state hand-outs at public
expense - why should farmers?
For the reasons given above, market prices for agricultural
produce can vary greatly from year to year. Without government
support to smooth out fluctuations, consumers would sometimes
be faced with price spikes when harvests were poor (or because
many farmers had been driven out of business, reducing supply).
As family income is pretty fixed, price spikes for basic foods such
as bread, breakfast cereal, meat, beans, dairy products and even
beer could really affect the standard of living enjoyed by many
Americans. Even if such high prices only occurred occasionally,
their possibility would create general uncertainty about future
levels of disposable income. This could be very damaging to
consumer confidence, and so to the economy as a whole.
Subsidies cause poverty, both domestically and internationally by
maintaining the prices of goods at an artificial level that does not
reflect the cost of production. When these subsidized exports
compete on the global market, agricultural companies can sell
product for less than production cost. For example, the onion
industry in Jamaica once thrived on the domestic level. However,
thanks to the artificial economics created by US subsidies,
American corporations have flooded the Jamaican market with
cheap produce and put the local onion producers out of business.
Artificial pricing also slants international trade against farmers in
poor countries. For example, it is much cheaper to grow cotton in
West Africa than in the USA. This should enable West African
farmers to export their cotton profitably, to the benefit of both
themselves and their countries’ developing economies. However,
American subsidies encourage overproduction in the United
The United States is not responsible for the international poverty
caused by agricultural subsidies. Even if the USA were to stop
funding its farming industry, other developed nations practices
would continue to distort international markets. The European
Union subsidizes its own farmers $100 billion annually for produce
exports, compared to only $44 billion in the USA. Farmers in both
Norway and Switzerland receive approximately 70% of their farm
revenues from government payments, compared to less than 20%
for US farmers. Japan protects its farmers with a whole array of
nationalist subsidies and tariffs. Any unfortunate effects on small
country farmers will not cease if the United States were to
abandon its subsidizing practices. Indeed, the USA’s share of
world food exports has been either flat or falling for over 25 years,
so it is unfair to blame US agricultural support programmes for the
current problems of developing countries.
169
States, and allow US cotton farmers to sell their fiber abroad at a
discount. Both these effects drive down the global price of cotton
and remove the best chance the West African states have of
trading their way out of poverty.
Reform will never effectively turn the tables in subsidy distribution.
Large-scale agri-businesses have the power to manipulate policy
through lobbying and campaign contributions in order to ensure
they can maintain their comfortable government issued subsidy.
Small family farms cannot compete with these rich agrocorporations, who can spend millions of dollars lobbying to stop
legislation that would reform current problematic subsidy
expenditures. This is exactly why the Grossley-Dorgan Bill was
never enacted and implemented. As any system aimed at
channeling federal money to agriculture will be open to these
abuses, it would be far better to end subsidies completely,
supporting poorer farming families instead through welfare benefits
and tax credits.
Even adamant anti-subsidy advocates agree that abolishing
current financial assistance will not be beneficial in the end.
Reform of current subsidizing policies is better than eliminating it
altogether. Small farmers are in dire need in the USA, and
eliminating the percentage of their income derived from federal
support would have devastating effects to the smaller American
farms. Legislation that has been tabled such as the Rural America
Preservation Act and the Grossley-Dorgan Bill needs to be
passed. These and other policies would help by capping the
amount given to the largest agricultural corporations, and fix the
loopholes that allow them to receive unjust amounts of the subsidy
pie. These policies will also help conservation and preservation of
pristine natural resources, while keeping current farmland healthy,
but not encouraging monoculture, something current subsidies do.
Domestic subsidization of agriculture harms international human
right to livelihood. Agriculture is the backbone of most developing
countries, and ranges from 50%-80% of their economy. In
contrast, the USA relies on agribusiness for a mere 1.5% of its
economy. If 50-80% of the businesses of a poor country are
unable to sell, they are unable to spend, which further exacerbates
their financially conundrum. In turn, subsidies deny livelihoods
abroad by not allowing local farmers a chance to compete on the
market, whereas before subsidies they would be able to, and also
since the farmers (50-80% of the economy) have no income, they
are being denied the ability to afford education and other job
opportunities. Even more negatively, denying poor farmers a
legitimate living will only encourage some of them to turn to illegal
crops, such as coca and opium poppy, instead.
American food subsidies are actually good for the developing
world. The kinds of food stuffs which are exported to the poorer
countries are staples like wheat, maize, milk products and sugar.
Our subsidies ensure that these basic foods are available more
cheaply to consumers in poor countries than they would be
otherwise, so their limited incomes can go further and they can eat
better. Nor are these exports undermining local producers - often
the produce we sell in the developing world grows better in the
USA than it does in their local conditions. And in any case, the key
to their development doesn’t lie in producing such capital-intensive
commodity crops, but in exporting labor-intensive produce in which
they have a comparative advantage, such as prepared vegetables,
palm oil, cut flowers and cocoa.
Unless the United States moves to end agricultural subsidies,
there is no chance that a global trade deal can be struck. Already
the Doha round of the World Trade Organization (supposedly a
priority for the Bush Administration) is years behind schedule,
stuck in acrimonious bickering between the US, the EU and a
developing world bloc. Any deal will require developed countries to
greatly reduce their agricultural protection, including subsidies to
their farmers, in exchange for market opening for a wide range of
goods and services worldwide. Such a deal is hugely in the wider
economic interest of the United States, as more open markets
would allow American companies to compete more effectively in
many countries where tariffs and other protectionist barriers now
restrict them. By promoting greater prosperity in the developing
world, it would also benefit the United States, as wealthier
consumers will wish to buy high-value goods and services from US
companies, boosting our own prosperity in turn. Such a prize is
within our grasp, but it will require brave leadership from the US
administration.
Agricultural producers in the USA recognize the gains that could
be made in a successful Doha round, but there are also risks to be
considered. Any worthwhile deal would have to balance the loss of
income to farmers (through a reduction in federal support for
agriculture) with the profits to be made through increased exports
as tariffs fall internationally. Such a deal cannot be achieved if the
US administration “gives away the farm” by unilateral cuts in farm
support - such a move would remove any leverage the USA has in
the negotiations and would provide no incentive for our
competitors to reduce their own subsidies and tariffs. Our best
position is to keep our existing programmes of agricultural support
until other countries make binding commitments to a WTO
settlement from which all can benefit.
Motions
The US should not allow subsidized farms to export
Agricultural subsidies do more harm than good
This House calls for the end of US farming subsidies
170
US Role in World Stability
Summary: Is the USA a threat to world stability or a political force for good?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Richard Mott ( United Kingdom )
Created: Tuesday, August 07, 2001
Last Modified: Friday, August 28, 2009
Context
The USA has been described as ‘the world’s policeman’. But should we be that trusting of it? After all, the USA has notably
failed in some areas to use its influence and resources for the common good, and its policy can fluctuate between isolationism
and over-bearing intervention. Should the USA be feared or welcomed by the international community? The proposition should
note that this isn’t about disliking Americans as individuals. This debate, when approached from a range of angles, can
combine arguments about the USA’s political and military interventions in global affairs and arguments about its cultural
influence around the world.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The US is primarily an isolationist country. This is a disastrous
tendency to be held by a power as large and as influential as
America. This is because America’s sheer size means that it
cannot simply ‘withdraw’ from international events; it’s support is
always noticeable by its absence if it fails to come. With power
comes responsibilities, and these have not been met by America.
George W. Bush’s recent repudiation of the Kyoto treaty to
concentrate on domestic power production is a recent example of
how America harms the world in this way; other examples include
the problems various presidents have faced in passing
international legislation such as the ban on chemical weapons
through the Senate.
This is unfair. Other countries routinely put their own interests
before international ones, and act unilaterally. In these
circumstances what is more striking is not America’s failure to be a
force for good in the world, but rather the way in which it has acted
to promote peace and justice. The Kosovo war, in which America
acted to halt a genocide being perpetrated on the inhabitants of
Kosovo by Serbs, and the Iraqi war, in which American force was
crucial in stopping the illegal invasion of Kuwait, are both
examples of this force for good Others include its continuing
protection of the right of self-determination of the Taiwanese, and
its intervention in the Bosnian war of 1996. The US is perhaps the
only force that can broker a peace deal in the Middle East, and its
attempts to do so must be commended.
The Opposition’s arguments are laughably naïve. Surely what is
most evident in America’s foreign policy is not the desire to be a
‘force for good’ but a flagrant self-interest, and an amazing
domination of foreign policy by domestic policy interests. The
intervention in Kuwait was governed more by the desire to secure
valuable oil supplies than to protect liberty. Indeed, a large
proportion of Iraq’s arms were American imported, during the
phase when America was seeking to counterbalance Iran.
America’s support for Israel is one of the main factors that has
ensured its survival in an area where many observers suggest it
should not exist at all. History provides a litany of occasions that
the US has acted self-interestedly, for example its aggression
towards Cuba.
Granted, America may sometimes act in a self-interested fashion,
but what country does not ? The ‘self-interest’ the Proposition has
claimed America embodies has prevented protected liberty before
- if American’s intervened to save Kuwaitis and Kosovans, and
lives were saved, who can complain ? What do the underlying
motives matter in a field where no action is ‘pure’ ? American
commitment towards liberty, freedom and justice has been an
overwhelming force for the good. As long as these ideals are
upheld, America must be considered a friend.
America aggressively markets its culture around the world, serving
to homogenise different and vibrant unique local traditions and
individual national styles with a bland standardised American
export. A traveller can go virtually nowhere now without finding
Starbuck’s coffee, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, and Marlboro cigarettes
being consumed in place of local products. American films now
eclipse all other countries film-making efforts, leading to the
domination of Hollywood that has created the current vacuousness
in cinema. This is cultural imperialism of the first order.
This argument is completely spurious. There is no secret
‘masterplan’ to turn the entire world into a subset of the USA. All
there is is the natural desire of companies to expand and make
profit, and to condemn American companies alone for this is
absurd. No-one forces people who live in Delhi to eat a Big Mac,
or Parisians to visit EuroDisney. They do so because they want to,
and surely this is not the fault of the USA.
Motions
This House fears the US
171
This House would disown Uncle Sam
This House believes that the world’s policeman should be locked up
172
US Military Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
2/15/2010
Context
Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the common term for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to
discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members or applicants, while barring those that are
openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. The restrictions are mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone
who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the
United States, because "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and
discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." The act prohibits
any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any
homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed
forces. The "don't ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service
member's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though credible and articulable evidence of
homosexual behavior may cause an investigation. Violations of this aspect through persecutions and harrassment
of suspected servicemen and women resulted in the policy's current formulation as don't ask, don't tell, don't
pursue, don't harass.
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Supporters insisted it was needed to maintain military
morale and raised the prospect of a rise of HIV infection
among service members if gays are allowed to serve
openly.
Gay soldiers do not undermine unit morale and
cohesion A 2006 Zogby International poll of military
members found that 72% of respondents who had
experience with gays or lesbians in their unit said that the
presence of gay or lesbian unit members had either no
impact or a positive impact on their personal morale,
while 67% said as much for overall unit morale. 73% of
respondents said that they felt comfortable in the
presence of gay and lesbian personnel.[3]
Unhealthy homosexuality undermines military readiness Robert
Maginnis. "Gays in the Military Debate". Human Events. October 4, 2007 "The other component of combat effectiveness is readiness, medical and
personnel. In 1993, the Army’s surgeon general conceded that the
homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy. A Navy study has found that HIV
infections within the force have declined since passage of the 1993 ban.
This has likely saved the taxpayer medical costs. It is significant that HIV
positive service members, although retained in the military, may not be
deployed overseas or on ships."
Gays in the military would harm military leadership. Gays in the
military would adversely affect the chain of command in the military, as
certain relationships would become less trustworthy and tensions would
undermine the authority of leaders and the willingness of troops to follow.
Military should not end "don't ask don't tell" during
war "EDITORIAL: Please don't ask again." Washington Times. October 13,
2009: "The most recent Military Times survey showed that 58 percent of
military respondents oppose a policy change, and 24 percent said they
would either leave the military (10 percent) or consider terminating their
careers after serving their tours of duty (14 percent). [...] the White House
isn't close to having military support for ending 'don't ask, don't tell.' The
Obama team could be justifiably concerned that pushing change would be
seen as a dangerous distraction at a time when the president is having
difficulty formulating a strategy for the war in Afghanistan."
Troops should be judged on ability, not sexual
orientation President Barack Obama said in a January
2009 statement to the Stars and Strips military
newspaper, "The key test for military service should be
patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve
[,not sexual orientation]."
Gay activism in the military undermines
professionalism. John Luddy. "The Military Gay Ban:
Why Don't Ask, Don't Tell Don't Work". Heritage
Foundation, Executive Memorandum #359. July 1, 1993 "Political activism elsewhere in society suggests that
weakening the ban would be followed by quotas and
lawsuits if homosexuals were not promoted in
representative numbers. This would destroy the cohesion
Don't ask don't tell harms retention, strains
deployed troops. Bob Barr. "Don't Ask, Who Cares." The
Wall Street Journal. June 13, 2007: "The U.S. has fired
over 11,000 people under the current policy, and in the
process has lost over 1,000 service members with
'mission-critical skills,' including 58 Arabic linguists.
Researchers at the UCLA School of Law have found that
lifting the ban could increase the number of active-duty
173
of a military unit, and erode the military's successful
merit-based promotion system."
personnel by over 40,000. Because the military can't fill
its slots [, it has lowered its standards, extended tours of
duty and increased rotations, further hurting morale and
readiness."
Homosexuality is simply incompatible with the principles
of military services, which include a focus on the mission,
service, discipline, bodily integrity, and control over one's
impulses. Homosexuality does not appropriately reflect
these principles. This sentiment was reflected in an article
signed by Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., a former commandant
of the Marine Corps; Adm. Leighton W. Smith, a former
commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe; Gen. Charles A.
Horner, who commanded U.S. aerial forces during the
1990-91 Gulf War; and Adm. Jerome L. Johnson, a former
vice chief of Naval Operations. They wrote, succinctly,
"homosexuality is incompatible with military service".
Don't ask don't tell" costs the military gay
recruits. Bruce Maiman. "Obama needs to dump 'Don't
Ask, Don't Tell' now." Examiner. October 12, 2009:
"Researchers at the UCLA School of Law have found that
the ban has discouraged nearly 45,000 Americans from
joining and remaining in the armed forces. That's an
increase in active-duty personnel by more than the
number of troops General Stanley McChrystal says we
need in Afghanistan. Where are those supporters of "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell" who want the president to follow General
McChrystal's advice?"
"Don't ask don't tell" does not actively pursue
gays. Letter from the American Center for Military
Readiness. March 3, 2009 - "Don't ask don't tell was
formulated in response to President Clinton's direction to
the secretary of defense to find a way to enable
homosexuals who wish to serve to do so. The policy
removed the question: 'are you homosexual?' from the
uniformed services enlistment application form ('don't
ask'); asserted that open admission of homosexuality or
homosexual conduct were a basis for discharge ('don't
tell'); and charged military leaders not to pursue
suspected homosexuals without clear evidence of conduct
or open admissions."
"Don't ask don't tell" makes gays second class
citizens. Anna Quindlen. "The End Of An Error".
Newsweek. April 4, 2009 - "When it became law in 1993,
the policy was sold as an attempt to allow gays to serve if
they did not discuss their orientation or participate in
homosexual acts—that is, if they lived a life of pretense
and self-denial not required of straight counterparts.
Shame and second-class status were therefore built into
the deal, and unsurprisingly led to a reality in which
exemplary soldiers were harassed, investigated and
expelled based on "evidence" as negligible as friendly
banter or thoughtless gossip."
Citizens decide if gays should be allowed to protect
them. Cal Thomas. "Don't ask don't tell, and don't
legitimize." Salt Lake City Tribune. October 15, 2009:
"The place to start is whether citizens of this country,
through their elected representatives and the military
leaders named by them, have a right to determine what
type of service members best serve the interests, safety
and security of the United States. I contend we do. The
military should not be a test lab."
Homosexuality is no choice, should not be banned in
militaries. Many gay members of the military make the
following argument as to why it is illogical that
homosexuals would choose: "I wish I could decide who I
fell in love with; if someone thinks I would consciously
choose such a life where I am forced to live in hiding and
fear, knowing the bulk of the population is against you, is
just crazy. I can’t help who I am.' 'Why would I choose to
suffer like this?' Ultimately"
174
Women in Combat
Summary: Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the armed forces?
print this page
Discuss topic
Today, women can serve on American combat ships, including in command roles. However women are not permitted to
serve on submarines or to participate in special forces programs such as Navy SEALs. Women enlisted soldiers are barred
from serving in Infantry, Special Forces, Artillery and Armor, however female enlisted members and officers can hold
staff positions in every branch of the Army except infantry and armor. Women can however serve on the staffs of
infantry and armor units at Division level and above, and be members of Special Operations Forces. Women can fly
military aircraft and make up 2% of all pilots in the U.S. Military. Although Army regulations bar women from infantry
assignments, some female's are detailed to accompany male infantry units to handle searches of Iraqi women.
EXAMPLES OF WOMEN IN US MILITARY:
In 2003, American soldier Jessica Lynch was captured while serving in Iraq. When surrounded by Iraqi soldiers, she attempted to defend herself, but her M-16 jammed.
In the same action, Lori Piestewa, a U.S. soldier, died after driving her Humvee through enemy fire in an attempt to escape an ambush, earning a Purple Heart. She had
just rescued Jessica Lynch, whose vehicle had crashed.
Also in 2003, Major Kim Campbell was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for landing her combat damaged A-10 Thunderbolt II with no hydraulic control and
only one functional engine after being struck by hostile fire over Baghdad.
In a recent scandal, U.S Army Reservists Lynndie England and Sabrina Harman were convicted by court martial of cruelty and maltreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib
prison.
SGT Leigh Ann Hester, awarded the Silver Star for direct combat
SGT Leigh Ann Hester became the first woman to receive the Silver Star, the third-highest US decoration for valor, for direct participation in combat. Female medical
personnel had been awarded the same medal, but not for actual combat. She was a team leader of Raven 42, a Military Police squad that broke up an ambush roughly
three to four times its strength. Specialist Ashley Pullen received the Bronze Star. The squad leader, SSG Timothy Nein, had originally received the Silver Star, but his
award was later upgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross. SGT Jason Mike, the unit's medic, also received the Silver Star.
In Afghanistan, Monica Lin Brown, was presented the Silver Star for shielding wounded soldiers with her body, and then treating life-threatening injuries.[64] As of
November 2008, the U.S. military has only one woman, Ann E. Dunwoody, with the rank of four-star general.[65]
Arguments
Pros
Cons
This position upholds equality between the sexes. As long as an
applicant is qualified for a position, one’s gender is arbitrary. In
fact, critics often mention that women cannot meet the
performance targets set for their positions. This is rank hypocrisy.
In the American army, for example, performance targets are
regularly calibrated for age and position. A forty year-old senior
non-commissioned officer faces a much easier set of targets than
his 20 year-old subordinate, yet both are deployed in an active
combat role. The twenty-year old woman will outperform her NCO
in physical tests: it is easy to recruit and deploy women who are in
better shape than many men we send into combat. In any case,
the modern high technology battlefield increasingly means that
technical expertise and decision-making skills are more valuable
than simple brute strength.
Women are equal to men in the armed forces, but they are not the
same as men. While the vast proportion of jobs in the armed
forces are open equally to men and women, there are some to
which women are just not physically suited. While some women
are able to meet the absolute physical requirements for front-line
combat such as carrying a wounded soldier, throwing grenades or
digging a trench in hard terrain, most are not. One expert estimate
put the number of physically excellent candidates in the USA at
200 a year. While integration of women into combat is possible for
those qualified, the small number versus the additional logistical,
regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integration do not
make it a worthwhile move.
Allowing a mixed gender force keeps the military strong. The allvolunteer forces are severely troubled by falling retention and
recruitment rates. Widening the applicant pool for all jobs
guarantees more willing recruits. Not only does it help military
readiness, it forestalls the calamity of a military draft. Without the
possibility of active combat duty, many patriotic women will be put
off enlisting, as they know they will be regarded as second-class
soldiers. And as combat duty is usually regarded as necessary for
Men, especially those likely to enlist, maintain traditional gender
roles. On the one hand, men are likely to act foolishly to protect
women in their combat units. On the other, this will take the form of
harassment and resentment of women’s presence in a heavily
masculine military subculture. As more women enter the armed
services, abuse incidents rise. At the three US service academies,
one in seven women report being sexually assaulted, and fully half
have been sexually harassed. Both these problems make create
175
promotion to senior officer positions, denying female personnel
this experience ensures that very few will ever reach the highest
reaches of the military and so further entrenches sexism.
tensions and affect morale, and so weaken the military in combat
situations.
Women, some studies have shown, can perform as well as, if not
better than men. In active combat, several Soviet women
distinguished themselves as fighter aces-the elite of combat
aviators. The Israelis make frequent use of women as snipers and
sniper-trainers. The Rand Corporation studied increased
deployment of women in all three branches of the United States
military throughout the 1990s. They wholeheartedly endorsed
further integration, having found no ill effects from expanding the
roles of women in the different services over that period.
Much has been made on integration’s effect on morale and
readiness. While the kind of widespread infighting caused by
‘competition for female affection’ claimed by alarmists is unlikely in
the face of military discipline, the maintenance of active combat
relationships does weaken the will to fight. In addition to the
regular masculine plague of drug use and violence, women
already serving in the navy and air force often end up pregnant.
Up to 10% of active duty women personnel in the US armed forces
are unavailable for call-up and duty due to pregnancy. The British
Royal Navy has also found this a problem since allowing women to
serve equally on warships.
Of the more than twenty nations who have expanded their roles for
women to positions where they might see combat, none of them
have repealed their orders. Regardless of the issues about
whether women are as well-suited to combat as men, they are
clearly good enough that many countries rely on their services.
The threat of increased abuse of women prisoners is a serious
one. Male prisoners also contend with the threat of torture and
rape, but it is quite possible that misogynistic societies will be more
willing to abuse woman prisoners. The threat of female prisoners
of war being misused in this way may adversely affect the way in
which their captured male comrades react to interrogation. And in
a media age the use of captured female soldiers in propaganda
broadcasts may have a different effect on the television audience
back home, perhaps weakening the nation’s determination and
commitment to the war effort.
This debate is largely becoming purely philosophical and
unrealistic. Perhaps the only thing to take from the grossly
misreported Jessica Lynch case is that the idea of a ‘front line’ in
guerilla warfare is a fiction. These conflicts are ‘Low Intensity’
conflicts, defined by the US Military as “... a political-military
confrontation between contending states or groups below
conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition
among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of
competing principles and ideologies... It is waged by a combination
of means, employing political, economic, informational, and
military instruments.” The front line is nowhere, and everywhere. In
late June of 2005, two women marines were killed and about a
dozen injured in a pair of suicide attacks. In the modern world of
combat, women serving in the military are exposed to “front-line
risks”. People show broad support for women serving in the armed
forces, and it has not wavered as warfare has changed, a clear
sign that the necessity of women serving in combat is recognized.
Biological arguments can be enlisted in the case against women in
front line combat. Pregnancy is already a problem in the military,
reducing unit readiness. However, if women were to see greater
deployment and presence in the armed forces, it would only
worsen the problem. Especially with national guard soldiers who
build lives and families at home, pregnancy is much more likely to
be a problem than with active-duty woman soldiers. Likewise, it
can be a means of avoiding call-up. Men have even used this
tactic during the Vietnam War: Unpleasant as the thought may be,
Dick Cheney conceived a child the day after the draft was to be
expanded to married men without children. When women face
active duty call-up or a draft, some will do the same.
Women are vitally needed for Low-intensity conflicts. LICs require
tasks to “win hearts and minds” such as intelligence gathering,
medical assistance, policing, and mediation, as well as the ability
to kill an opponent in close combat. Cultural differences and
demographics mean that woman will be vastly more effective in
some circumstances than men. For example, the job of many of
the female marines killed and injured in June 2005 was to search
women for explosives at checkpoints to avoid the near-universal
sense of humiliation engendered by a member of the opposite sex
conducting an intimate bodily search. Allowing women to serve
also doubles the talent pool for delicate and sensitive jobs that
require interpersonal skills not every soldier has. Having a wider
personnel base allows militaries to have the best and most
diplomatic soldiers working to end conflict quickly.
The presence of women on the battlefield can increase the odds of
physical abuse and sexual trauma as well. A prevalent theme in
many nationalist conflicts is to extinguish the bloodlines of the
enemy culture, and to proclaim that the enemy is trying to do the
same to them. This manifests itself, especially in the different
Balkan conflicts, as mass murder of the men of the village and a
systematic rape of the women. It is unlikely that women from a
third intervening power in this situation will be treated any
differently if that kind of fearsome mentality has already set into
the minds of combatants.
Motions
Women should be allowed to serve in combat roles in the armed forces
This House would allow women to serve on the front line
This House calls for equality in the military
This House believes female soldiers should not receive special treatment
176
World Bank: Success or Failure?
Summary: Should the World Bank be deemed a success or a failure?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Rob Weekes ( United Kingdom )
Rob won the World Universities Debating Championships in 2002.
Created: Sunday, October 13, 2002
Last Modified: Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Context
The World Bank system was created as an integral element of the post-World War II Bretton Woods system of international
and multilateral institutions. The Bank was designed to avoid future world wars by ensuring an open international trading
system and global financial stability. Public loans could be offered for economic development that would otherwise be
unavailable to countries with poorly developed industries. The loan strategy has gradually evolved from the support of public
infrastructure projects such as roads, railways, and power plants, to the provision of capital for other inputs necessary for
development, namely the maintenance of educational and health services. The World Bank group comprises 4 agencies; the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD); the International Development Association (IDA); the
International Finance Corporation (IFC); and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). This discussion focuses
upon the structure and record of the IBRD and IDA. Although legally distinct entities, the agencies share a single staff, produce
one annual report, and are governed by the same board of executive directors who approve the loans.The IDA raises the
majority of its funds from triennial contributions by the donor countries. ‘Credits’ are then lent to the poorest countries in the
world to be repaid over a period of 35 to 40 years. No interest is charged on the loan, but a service charge of 0.5% applies. By
contrast, the IBRD finances its lending operations from shares purchased by the donor countries that facilitate borrowing on
international capital markets.The debate about the function and success of institutions such as the World Bank is a crucial
component of any broader discussion of the pervasive late twentieth century trend of globalisation. If globalisation in the form
of foreign direct investment in developing countries and through liberalised international trade does not assist these poorer
states to grow econo
Arguments
Pros
Cons
The public infrastructure projects funded by the IBRD have
consistently been recognized as unmitigated disasters. Notably,
Brazil’s Polonoroeste road-building project set a significant portion
of the Amazon rainforest on fire; the Sardar Sarovar dam project in
India uprooted 240,000 Indians and was condemned by the World
Bank’s own panel of investigators; the Singrauli coal projects also
in India were described as the "lower circles of Dante’s inferno".
Internal reports suggest that one-third of World Bank financed
projects are failing. Canada has called on its G7 partners to
undertake a value-for-money audit of the loan portfolio. The
current investment strategy has attracted similarly severe criticism
from the ‘Bretton Woods Commission’ that comprises the most
powerful bankers and financiers in the world. The mere fact that
the directors of the Bank have finally recognized that development
is not guaranteed by the financing of large construction projects
does not show that it will succeed where its past projects have
failed. The Bank has neither the expertise nor the mandate to
become an education and health charity. Moreover, this ‘mission
creep’ creates a risk that the Bank may be duplicating the role of
existing UN agencies and non governmental organizations
(NGOs). UNESCO and UNDP are currently capable of
implementing the majority of the strategies that the Bank has
suddenly arrogated to itself.
It is not necessary to deny that some of the infrastructure projects
supported by the IBRD, from the road-building schemes in the
1980s to the dam construction programmes of the 1990s, failed to
reduce poverty and caused a degree of environmental damage.
However, the appointment of James Wolfensohn as President of
the World Bank in 1995 has heralded a new and bright dawn for
the group. The Bank has successfully adopted a growing role in
the spheres of biodiversity, ozone depletion, narcotics, crime,
corruption, and postconflict reconstruction, particularly in the
Balkans and West Bank. The new objectives of the World Bank
will undeniably improve the quality of lives of the populations of
developing countries. The funding of programmes to facilitate the
halving by 2015 the number of people living in absolute poverty;
the achievement by 2015 of universal primary education in all
countries; and the establishment of gender equality in primary and
secondary education by 2005 will offer tangible assistance to
development, unlike the construction of roads and dams. In
addition, the Bank has pledged to reduce infant and child mortality;
ensure universal access to reproductive health services; and to
reverse the loss of environmental resources.
The World Bank investment policy consolidates the position of the
corrupt, inefficient and antidemocratic regimes of many developing
countries. The Bank has evinced willingness to deal directly with
almost any government without sensitivity to their human rights
record. Given that developing countries are both shareholders and
The World Bank correctly prioritises economic development over
other social values. The ‘Washington consensus’ reached in the
early 1980s following the debt repayment crisis in Latin America
requires that loans are offered in exchange for government
commitments to economic reform. The liberalization of capital
177
clients in the Bank, the agencies are unlikely to admit that loans to
a particular regime will not achieve any benefit until a reformed
government achieves power. The negotiation process between the
Bank and the regime is invariably closed and the circulation of
Bank reports restricted to the participants. The poor are
disenfranchised from the very institution supposed to support their
development.
markets, the adoption of realistic exchange rates, and tax reform
does assist the impoverished of any society. To withhold such
dramatic financial benefits on account of the human rights record
of the government would serve only to punish the poor for the
actions of their unelected leaders. The democratic deficit suffered
by the poor of these countries is more than ever being rectified by
the involvement of international and local NGOs in the loan
process.
The loan strategy of the IBRD is inherently risky. Donor countries
are able to make triennial contributions without necessarily being
able to underwrite the 93% potential additional cost of each share.
The default of Mexico on repayment of its debts in 1982 indicates
the weakness of reliance on ‘callable’ liabilities. Only 3% of the
Bank portfolio is set aside to protect against the loss of revenue
from defaulting debtors. By way of contrast, JP Morgan sets aside
funds equivalent to 100% of the sum borrowed, and the Canadian
government insists on a minimum of 35% for the operation of
lending operations of investment banks. Moreover, the risk of
default and thus the exposure to full liability is routinely disguised
by the process of ‘debt round tripping’. Where default appears
imminent, the IBRD seeks the direct transfer of funds from rich
country donors. Alternatively, the IBRD can seek debt restructuring
through the Paris Club of creditors; the issue of new IBRD loans to
refinance the old ones that come due; or even the transfer of
cheap, interest free IDA credits to repay the IBRD loans. In short,
the shift of credits from one side of the World Bank to the other, or
the creation of additional loans does nothing to balance the books.
Debtor countries are simply encouraged to borrow or beg their way
out of deficit.
The strategy for financing the loans of the IBRD is remarkably
efficient. Member countries purchase shares in IBRD but pay to
the Bank only 7% of the cost of shares. The remainder is ‘callable’
as a promise to pay if necessary. These contingent liabilities for
donors allow the IBRD to raise the vast majority of money required
for its operations from international capital markets of Europe,
Japan and the United States. The reduced cost of the shares and
the capacity of the Bank to raise commercial finance rather than
rely solely on contributions of donor countries, guarantees that the
capital contribution expected of the donor countries remain
reasonable. Furthermore, the irresponsible fiscal policies of
developing countries is not rewarded by the Bank. From the mid1990s, compliance with codes of ‘best practice’ is mandatory in
order to receive loans. Thus, developing countries are obliged to
institute systems of banking regulation and supervision, corporate
governance and accounting that facilitate repayment of the loans
and the attraction of foreign direct investment.
The contribution of donor countries to the World Bank is a poor
investment. The Bank purchased advertisements in American daily
newspapers that proclaimed; ‘World Bank : A Good Investment’
and asserted that the US companies received $1 in contracts for
each dollar the United States contributes to the IDA. However, a
US Treasury study showed that US companies in fact received
only $0.23 in procurement for every dollar paid into IDA.
Consequently, in 1997 the US refused to provide its assessed
contribution to IDA. The inefficiency of the World Bank
infrastructure suggests that US companies could receive a better
financial return and have a more instant impact upon local
development by direct investment in the developing countries.
The World Bank should not seek its justification in being a
financially sound investment for the donor countries. The broadest
objective of the Bank is the alleviation of poverty and long term
economic development, not generating a turnover for its
shareholders. The shareholders benefit from finding an efficient
agency to distribute the funds that have been earmarked for
donation in the form of foreign aid rather than overseas
investment. As commentators have noted, to argue that aid helps
the domestic economy is like saying a shopkeeper benefits from
having his cash register burgled so long as the burglar spends part
of the proceeds in his shop! In any case, the IBRD represents a
very favourable investment for donor countries that more than
offsets the lower returns from IDA. For example, Germany
receives $29.22 in contracts per taxpayer dollar contributed to IDA,
and Japan $6.54 for the equivalent payment. The World Bank
encourages direct investment in developing countries and bilateral
investment treaties between these countries and the donor States.
However, the Bank infrastructure is necessary in order to ensure
donations are spread evenly across the developing world and
applied to long term and sustainable projects. Private profit is not a
sufficient motive to guarantee development.
Motions
This House believes that the World Bank has failed.
This House believes that the World Bank is an obstacle to development.
This House believes that the World Bank is morallybankrupt.
178
Zero Tolerance for Crime
Summary: Is zero tolerance policing (strict and set responses to all crimes by police) a good
way of reducing crime?
print this page
Discuss topic
Introduction
Author: Sebastian Isaac ( United Kingdom )
Created: Monday, April 23, 2001
Last Modified: Monday, August 24, 2009
Context
Crime rates and particularly the rates of violent and gun related crimes are rising in most rich countries. Targets for blame
include higher drug use, higher inequality and greater availability of weapons. While Liberal politics tends to favour
rehabilitation and structural improvement to combat crime the right wing has always seen criminality as a rational choice that
can be combated by deterrence. Zero Tolerance policing aims to stop serious crime by clamping down on the minor crimes like
graffiti that the practitioners believe lead to further crimes and using custodial sentences for first offences. It includes set
responses to particular crimes by the police although the courts maintain some discretion. Zero Tolerance is not necessarily
exclusive of urban regeneration, social investment or community policing. Its exponents, however, often rule them out because
of their political philosophy. For important figures in the argument for zero tolerance note Charles Murray (aide to Margaret
Thatcher), Rudy Giuliani (mayor of New York) and Lee Kuan Yew (founder of modern Singapore).
Arguments
Pros
Cons
Zero Tolerance policing provides a powerful deterrent to criminals.
i) It creates a far greater awareness of police presence because
there are more officers on the ground. Research shows a direct
link between this perceived chance of detection and crime rates. ii)
Strict punishments provide another firm deterrent because they
make it clear that the consequences of detection will not be a
minor irritant. iii) Convicts are less likely to re-offend because zero
tolerance catches them early on in the escalating cycle of crimes
and provides the ‘short, sharp shock.’ There is a clear message
that crime will not be tolerated. If a law is to exist at all then it
ought to be enforced. Otherwise they will be held in contempt.
Minor offenders, gang members, and the poor are extremely
unlikely to be aware of the punishments for the crimes which they
commit so deterrence doesn’t have much effect there. Many
crimes are a product of necessity (through poverty and drugs) and
therefore can be reduced only by structural changes to the society,
not by threatening punishment. The idea of a ‘short sharp shock’ is
unconvincing. Labelling people as criminals at an early age
actually causes them to perceive themselves as such and gives
them fewer other options by placing them outside mainstream
society. This leads to ‘deviance amplification’ where convicts
increasingly commit more serious crimes as a result of their
contact with law enforcement.
Zero tolerance policing is extremely effective at reducing smallscale drug use and dealing by patrolling and arresting. By cutting
off the dealer on the ground we can best target the businesses of
big suppliers. Big busts have a minimal effect. Drug use is a huge
cause of further crime. Pushing creates no go areas where
criminal acts flourish. Addiction creates a need for money that can
usually only be solved by theft.
Arresting small-scale pushers (many of them addicts) and users is
targeting the victims to stop the crime. As well as being unfair it is
ineffective. As long as there is a demand there will be drug dealing
and demand can only be stopped by rehabilitation. This does not
occur in prison. It is in big drug syndicates (which we won’t have
the resources to combat if everyone is patrolling) that drug dealing
is associated with violence.
Zero tolerance also allows for a sound rehabilitative role. A
custodial sentence, particularly for juveniles, takes them out of the
atmosphere (often surrounded by drug use and living in poverty
and or abusive homes) that encourage criminality. Rehabilitation
through the prison system is not just a possibility but a central
tenet of all penal codes. Education and discipline are both vital to
our prisons. The large number of police on the ground also allows
for a supervisory role in the community after the prisoner is
released to reduce reoffending.
Prison sentences contribute to a far higher tendency to re-offend.
It would be nice if they had a rehabilitative role but we have to look
at the reality. Juveniles sent to prison are less employable
afterwards so more likely to resort to crime. They meet established
criminals in prison who both encourage the lifestyle and teach
necessary skills for criminal behaviour. Prison often fosters
resentment of the police and the courts and anyway the
harassment of juveniles associated with zero tolerance already
creates an extremely antagonistic relationship with the police.
Zero Tolerance improves the standard of policing. It reduces
corruption and racist treatment because the individual officers are
not given the scope to decide their actions on a case by case
basis. Their response is set and therefore cannot be changed by a
personal whim. It also reduces the kind of gung-ho policing that is
increasingly common. It takes officers out of their cars and places
them back into the community where they have contact with
In reality Zero Tolerance gives the police almost limitless power in
poor communities. They are able to stop and search, and harass
individuals constantly. Everyone who carries marijuana cannot be
arrested so in reality certain vulnerable groups, usually ethnic
minorities, are targeted and labelled as criminals. New York saw a
vast growth in complaints over police racism and harassment after
zero tolerance and Liverpool’s system was closed down because
179
individuals. Chases and shootouts actually become less common
under zero tolerance.
of corruption and unacceptable aggression by police officers.
Zero Tolerance is vital to regenerate urban environments. There is
no point building in inner cities if we don’t protect these resources
from graffiti and vandalism. Zero tolerance reduces the amount of
dead ground used for drug dealing and so returns parks and open
spaces to the community. Unless businesses are protected from
vandalism and petty crime it is usually uneconomic for them to
return to the worst areas and they are vital to raising the standard
of living. Zero tolerance policing is often seen to lead to the return
of public transport to deprived areas because it can be protected.
Urban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting
crime and it occurs entirely independently of zero tolerance. For
every city where the two have both been associated with a falling
crime rate (New York) there is an area where regeneration has
worked on its own to solve a crime problem (Hong Kong, Brixton in
London). The most important element of urban regeneration is the
way individuals come to take pride in their area. This is far more
likely when it is not associated with police persecution, antagonism
with the government and constant fear of arrest. No police
presence is sufficient to properly defend a business which has not
fostered good relations with the local community.
We can afford zero tolerance. Protecting businesses and creating
a reputation for low crime and sound policing attracts inward
investment and immigration both to a country as a whole and to
individual areas. The cost to a country of theft and vandalism per
year is a significant chunk of GDP. Deterrence reduces the
number of crimes that police are forced to investigate and although
prisons are expensive the reduction in recidivism should start to
empty them in time. The most important question is whether we
believe it is worth spending a percentage of our tax dollars to
guarantee our safety. Most electors in most countries say this is
not just worthwhile but their spending priority.
The enormous expense of zero tolerance in money and manpower
and prisons actually makes policing worse. Either we have to
throw limitless money at doubling the number of officers (it is
almost impossible to recruit and train so many even if we could
afford it). Or we have to divert officers away from investigations
and serious crime prevention in order to put them back on the
pavement. This reduces detection of important crimes in return for
catching graffiti artists. Even when reported crime rates drop this
does not prove that zero tolerance achieves anything because it is
corporate crime, large scale drug dealing that is ignored and these
are rarely reported. A patrolling officer might pass a burglary every
18 years and probably wouldn't notice it.
Motions
This house believes in zero tolerance policing
This house would clamp down
This house believes in strict punishment
180