DEBATE CLUB MEMO
DEFINITION
You may be right and I may be wrong but with an effort, together we may get nearer the
truth.” - Karl Popper
Debate is a formal contest of argumentation between two teams or individuals. But more
broadly, and more importantly, debate is an essential tool for developing and maintaining
democracy and open societies. More than a mere verbal or performance skill, debate embodies
the ideals of reasoned argument, tolerance for divergent points of view, and rigorous selfexamination. Debate is, above all, a way for those who hold opposing views to discuss
controversial issues without descending to insult, emotional appeals, or personal bias. A key
trademark of debate is that it rarely ends in agreement, but rather, allows for a robust analysis of
the question at hand. Perhaps this is what French philosopher Joseph Joubert meant when he
said: “It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question without
debating it.”
DEBATE AND DEMOCRACY
"Men are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely.” - Thomas
Babington, Lord Macaulay
From its very beginnings, debate has been inextricably intertwined with the concept of the open
society. In ancient Athens, citizens gathered in forums to discuss and debate the most pressing
issues of the day before casting their votes. Such debates were an integral part of the new form of
government Athens was to bequeath to the world: democracy.
Unlike totalitarian and other undemocratic regimes where a limited set of ideas are imposed as
absolute truths, democratic societies depend upon the free and open exchange of ideas. Indeed, it
may be said that true democracy cannot exist without debate. For democracy to function, the
values that debate encourages - reason, tolerance, the careful weighing of evidence - must be
cherished and nurtured. But even within societies that restrict open discussion, debate can teach
young people that no one person or government possesses the ultimate truth.
GOALS
A debate in the classroom should:
• focus on the core elements of controversial issues
• emphasize tolerance for multiple points of view
• emphasize the development of analytical thinking skills
• instill in participants an appreciation for the value of teamwork
• provide students with the opportunity to debate many kinds of resolutions
Debate is intended to help students:
• develop a broad knowledge base
• improve argumentative abilities
• speak persuasively and extemporaneously
FORMAT
All the students are divided into three or more political parties with one of the students being its
leader. If they wish they can name their party and create a philosophy, but it isn’t necessary.
Teams are presented with a “resolution,” such as “Economic development should be valued
above protection of the environment” or “Human genetic engineering is immoral.” The team
affirming the resolution speaks first. The opposing team then must refute the arguments offered
by the affirming team and offer arguments rejecting the resolution. Both sides are given the
opportunity to present their positions and to directly question the opposing team.
The Judge is elected and assumes the following responsibilities:




to direct the discussion
to take care of the timing providing all debaters with equal chances to put forward their
case
to prevent uncontrolled quarrels and improper behaviour.
evaluate the persuasiveness of the arguments and offer constructive feedback on such
elements as faulty logic, insufficient evidence, and arguments debaters may have
overlooked. Debate teams are judged strictly on the merits of their arguments.
The list of suggested topics is distributed among the participants. The same topic can be
defended by only one party and should be opposed by the other parties by turns.
Students are given preparation time in which to
1. think about how they will defend their own motion, and
2. think about how they will attack the bills which their party has decided to oppose.
Once the preparation time ends, a parliamentary assembly begins. The Judge invites the
consideration of each bill in turn, with students making speeches in favor of the bill, and other
students making speeches against the bill. The party whose motions were defeated loses the
debate.
RULES






No research is permitted during the discussion. Once the debate begins, the participants
may not conduct research via the Internet, nor through electronic or other means.
No outside assistance is permitted. Debaters, however, are allowed to consult whatever
research materials they have brought with them to the debate.
Debaters should be able to provide sources for direct citations.
When debaters refer to any public information, they should be prepared to provide, upon
request, complete source documentation to the opposing team and to the judge.
Ordinarily, such documentation would include the name of an author (if any), the name
and date of a publication (and a page number, if available), or the URL of a Web site.
Debaters should practice intellectual honesty. Students should cite arguments and
statistics truthfully, and never fabricate sources or data.
Debate should be approached as a team activity.
As long as the speakers communicate their ideas clearly, it does not matter if they use
sheets of paper instead of note cards, or if they read parts of the speeches. However,
though it is more persuasive if speakers do not read their speeches, they should not be
marked down heavily.
THE ROLE OF TEACHERS
Teachers do not need to be specialists with extensive training in oratory or logic (although
training is certainly a plus). A teacher is not expected to pass along a body of knowledge to his
or her students the way that a chemistry teacher might. The rules and procedures of debate that
must be taught are comparatively few. The teacher's job, actually, is to foster the development of
thinking skills. The teacher is there to draw things out of the students rather than to pour things
in.
USEFUL TIPS
1. Consider road-mapping—setting out at the beginning of your speech what you intend to do
and how you intend to do it. This can keep your plan straight in both the judge’s mind and
your own.
 title all of your points, so they can be easily referred to
 give an explanation of them
 expand them, tie them to broader values, and, especially,
 give examples.
2. If you’re stuck . . .
 think of why you came up with the case in the first place
 think of different perspectives on the action (e.g. pragmatic, philosophical, political,
social, economic, etc.)
 ask yourself who are the interests affected by a particular action and how will they
benefit from your case.
3. Present 1 or 2 constructive points for opposition (explain why your side is right, not just what
is wrong with government’s case). Refute each of the points brought by your opponents –
challenge their plan or definition; question their assumptions
4. Watch out for logical fallacies. These can include:
 Slippery Slopes (After A happens, B, C, and D will too, but we won’t tell you
why…)
 False Analogies
 Appeals to Tradition (Just because something has always been a certain way
doesn’t mean it should be in the future)
 Correlation vs. Causation (Did A cause B or did B just follow it?)
 Straw Man (Misrepresenting an argument in order to make it look weaker than it
is)
TOPICS
I BRITISH TRADITIONALISM
Topic 1
Summary
Context
Reform of Licensing Laws in the UK
Should the opening hours of pubs and bars be extended?
Motions
This House Would Extend Opening Hours in Pubs
This House Would Call Time on Last Orders
The Brewers’ and Licensed Retailers’ Association: News
The Portman Group (speaks on behalf of the alcohol industry): News
Alcohol Concern
Useful Sites
Current legislation limits the opening hours of public houses. Publicans are forced to close at
a certain hour at night (11pm), after which if customers wish to continue their night out, they
must go to nightclubs, which have late licensing. Many people argue, for a variety of
reasons, that the government should extend opening hours, even to twenty-four hour
opening. In opposition, there are an array of arguments, based in concern for public safety
and the right to impose restrictions when it is beneficial to society and the people involved.
Topic 2
Summary
Reform of the House of Lords
Should the House of Lords continue in its present form? Or should it
become a partly or entirely elected chamber?
Context
The state of the Lords has been the subject of much recent debate. Britain’s second
chamber primarily serves the purpose of scrutinising the bills sent to it by the House of
Commons. It is expected to oversee what goes on in the democratically elected Commons,
acting as a kind of watchdog. The controversy centres on its composition; it has a large
number of hereditary peers (recently reduced to ninety by New Labour’s first stage of
reform), who are there purely because of their ‘noble’ birth. In addition, the rest of the
chamber is made up of appointees; there are no elected members of this chamber. The
recent Wakeham report recommended that an elected element be phased in gradually,
whilst at the same time reducing hereditary peers. It remains to be seen what form the
second phase of reform of the Lords will take.
Motions
This House calls for a reformed House of Lords
This House demands a fully elected Lords
The House of Lords Homepage
ElectoralReform.Org
The Centre for Republican Democracy
Useful Sites
Topic 3
Summary
Context
Disestablishing the Church of England
Should we disestablish the Church of England?
Motions
This House Would Disestablish the Church of England
This House Does Not Want a National Religion
Chuch of England
Simon Hughes' Bill to Disestablish the Church of England (Conservative
MP)
ChurchNet.Org: News
Useful Sites
Since the sixteenth century, the Church of England has enjoyed a position of constitutional
privilege in the country. The head of the Church of England is the reigning monarch; its
highest-ranking clergyman is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Despite a deep-rooted decline
in religious practice, the Church continues to enjoy its status as England’s ‘established’
religion, with all the privileges that imparts – including seats for senior bishops in the
House of Lords. This last honour is unique to the Church of England; the most prominent
figures in England’s other faiths are excluded. As religious belief has declined, and
England has become an increasingly multi-cultural state, so too have calls for the
disestablishment of the Church become more vocal.
Topic 4
Summary
Context
Privatisation of the NHS
Should the NHS be privatised?
Motions
This house would privatise the NHS
This house would pay for its health care
Centre for Policy Studies
Benefits Agency Medical Services: Privatisation (BBC)
Your NHS: HomePage
Useful Sites
With the current social climate boasting a distinct air of discontent with the National Health
Service there is a certain justification in calling for the privatisation of health in the UK, in
accordance with American policies. The reputation of the NHS has taken a severe battering
over the past few decades, with critics citing it’s funding problems and bureaucratic
mismanagement – the pride of the British nation is now crumbling and the case for complete
overhaul of the present approach is indeed controversial.
Topic 5
Summary
Context
University Tuition Fees
Should students in higher education be charged tuition fees?
Motions
This House supports tuition fees
This House would make students pay.
This House values education
Universities UK
NUS (National Union for Students)
Higher Education Funding Council
Department for Education and Skills
AimHigher (Student finance advice site)
Liberal Democrat party campaign to end fees
Education Guardian collection of articles on tuition fees
Telegraph collection of articles
Useful Sites
Originally, UK students were supported by a maintenance grant from the government, which
went towards payment for necessities such as food and accommodation. The last
Conservative government replaced this system with a student loan, to be paid back after the
student graduated and reached a set income. Tony Blair’s Labour government kept this loan,
but added in a tuition fee for each student (currently £1050 per year ) to go towards the cost
of their further education, which can be paid after the education, if necessary, in the same
way as the loan. The introduction of tuition fees sparked a huge backlash, with many
students refusing to pay them on principle. The proposition are therefore defending their
introduction. The debate over which system preferable can often turn into a debate over
whether university education is a right or a privilege. It should also be noted that many
statistics can be produced by both sides for number of applications, percentage of
applications by class etc, but as these are all for the very short term they may not be
completely reliable.
Topic 6
Summary
Context
Devolution
Is devolution (in Scotland and Wales) to be regretted?
Motions
This House regrets devolution
This House believes that devolution has weakened the Union
Scottish Parliament Website
Welsh Assembly Website
Scottish Parliament Website: History of Scottish devolution and facts
relating to jurisdictions
Scottish Parliament Website: Comprehensive guide to Scottish devolution
Archive of Scottish support for Devolution
Useful Sites
After the British general election of 1997, the Labour government arranged for a referendum
on its proposals, which were set out in a White Paper of July 1997, ‘Scotland’s Parliament’.
The Scottish referendum, held on 11 September 1997, produced clear majorities for the two
propositions about the creation of a Scottish Parliament and its having certain tax-varying
powers. Following this result, the Scotland Bill was introduced in Parliament in January
1998 and became law as the Scotland Act in November that year. The Parliament took on
it’s full powers and functions on 1 July 1999.In July 1997, the Government published also
its White Paper, ‘A Voice for Wales’, which outlined its proposals for devolution in Wales.
These proposals were endorsed in the Welsh referendum of 18 September 1997.
Subsequently, Parliament passed the Government of Wales Act 1998, which established the
National Assembly for Wales.Since devolution was passed the debate surrounding whether
Scotland and Wales should have devolved Parliaments has continued to evoke controversy.
Four years on the issues are still pertinent and debate over the success of the schemes or
even whether the situation should be changed is very interesting. In the arguments below,
the proposition side are arguing that devolution has been a mistake.
Topic 7
Summary
Context
Bill of Rights
Should the UK have a Bill of Rights ?
Motions
This House calls for a British Bill of Rights
This House would write down its rights
This House believes its rights should be readable
The Human Rights Act
Charter 88
Human Rights Web
Useful Sites
Many countries have a Bill of Rights, or similar constitutional document. This lays out
certain fundamental (‘inalienable’) rights that citizens of the country possess. These have
typically included the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture.
The UK at present has a ‘virtual’ constitution, which is made up of the hundreds of legal
precedents accumulated over the years. It has been proposed to make this into a proper,
written Bill of Rights. However, a number of problems are posed by the idea of introducing
such a Bill into the UK. Firstly, does the concept of a ‘right’ make any sense, both on its
own and in relation to other people ? And if it does, then how should ‘rights’ be decided and
laid down ? The proposition will not only need to mount a defence of ‘rights’, but explain
how they will be framed and subject to change. This topic has been written from the point of
view of someone debating the issue in the United Kingdom. The same arguments could be
applied in similar ways in other countries that did not have a Bill of Rights.
Topic 8
Summary
Abolition of Sex Education
Should the practice of sex education classes for children under the age of
consent in Britain’s schools be abandoned?
Context
Sex education has been taught in varying forms in the UK since the First World War. Of
late, it has – both sides of the debate agree – become more… open, on the one hand, or
crude, on the other. Is this right? Should we abandon the attempt to teach sex education, and
leave it to parents?
The parameters of this debate can be bickered over (Taught what exactly? At what age?) but
the most interesting and productive debate is whether we should have sex education at all..
The case discussed here is for and against abolition and although specific details are focused
upon the UK situation, the arguments will apply elsewhere.
Motions
This House would abolish sex education in schools
This House would leave it to the parents
This House would preserve innocence
This House believes the state should stay out of the bedroom
BMJ: Limits of Teacher-Delivered Sex Education
Carnal Knowledge: The Sex Ed Debate
“Sex etc”: a website by teens for teens
Sexuality Information and Education Council of Canada
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
Sexwise Online
Useful Sites
Topic 9
Summary
Context
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOS)
Should Anti-Social Behaviour Orders be scrapped?
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) were introduced in the UK by the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 and have been available in England and Wales since April 1999. They
were ‘reinforced’ by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. The 1998 Act defines anti-social
behaviour as behaviour that "caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to
one or more persons not of the same household." They stop people from doing stated things
or going to stated places. They last for a minimum of two years, but can last longer. Those
given ASBOs can be ‘named and shamed’ in local media, and sometimes are. Orders have
been granted for abusive behaviour, vandalism, flyposting, and harassment as well as more
the more celebrated exotic problems such as elderly people incessantly playing
gramophones. Whilst ASBOs are civil orders, criminal penalties can result from breaching
them.
Motions
Useful Sites
This House believes Anti-Social Behaviour Orders should be scrapped
This House believes that ASBOs have failed
This House would not use civil penalties against criminal acts
Wikipedia on ASBOs
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (introduced ASBOs)
Home Office overview of ASBOs (includes statistics)
Examples of ASBOs issued
Asbo Concern
Liberty
Politics.co.uk pages on Antisocial behaviour, with links
Children's Rights Alliance
Topic 10
Summary
War Powers for UK parliament
Should the prerogative power to commit British armed forces to armed
conflict abroad be removed from the UK Prime Minister and placed instead
in parliament?
Context
Although the UK is a democracy, historical precedent dictates that it is the monarch who
appoints “Her Majesty’s Government” and chooses “their” Prime Minister. In practice the
government and Prime Minister have to command a majority of MPs in the elected House of
Commons, so democratic accountability is clear – the leader of the largest party in the
Commons is asked by the Crown to form a government. Nonetheless, there are many powers
of the Prime Minister and their government which derive from their appointment by the
Crown, rather than from their mandate from the people. These prerogative powers stretch
back to the powers of the Crown in the medieval period, and include the appointment of
bishops, dissolution of parliament, signing of treaties, and the power to declare war. All of
these can be exercised by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Crown without seeking
parliamentary approval. For example, when in 1939 war was declared on Nazi Germany,
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain took the decision with a small number of colleagues
and announced it to the House of Commons – there was no vote.
In recent decades Britain has undertaken a number of major military deployments around the
world, and the right of the Prime Minister to do this without consulting parliament has
increasingly come under question (as have other prerogative rights). Partly in recognition of
this, Tony Blair asked parliament’s approval to commit troops in both 2002 (Afghanistan)
and 2003 (Iraq), but these votes were sought voluntarily and Blair’s government was
reluctant to see them as establishing a precedent for the future. Nonetheless, private
members bills on removing the prerogative power of declaring war were put forward for
discussion (notably by ex-Cabinet minister Clare Short in 2005), and a committee of the
House of Lords published a weighty report advocating change in 2006. In 2007 Blair’s
successor as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, announced that he favoured reform of the royal
prerogative in a number of areas, and as part of a wider constitutional review. Seeking “to
make a more open 21st century British democracy which better serves the British people”,
Brown committed the government to change and a consultation document was published in
October 2007 outlining issues and options for reform of war powers.
Motions
This House calls for a War Powers Act
That the prerogative power of the Prime Minister to declare war should be
abolished
This House would give war-making powers to parliament
UK Government Consultation Document
Useful Sites
Unlock Democracy
Guardian article with case for increasing parliament’s powers
Guardian article with case against extending parliament’s powers
Liberal Democrat position
Guardian article
House of Lords report and government response (2006)
University of Strathclyde working paper putting contemporary debate into
historical and constitutional context
Thoughtful blog discussion
II AMERICAN DIVERSITY
Topic 1
Summary
Context
US Role in World Stability
Is the USA a threat to world stability or a political force for good?
Motions
This House fears the US
This House would disown Uncle Sam
This House believes that the world’s policeman should be locked up
Historical and current perspectives on US territorial and cultural
imperialism
Americans against world empire
Database of information on multinationals and their dangers
PoliSci.com – political reference desk
Stanley Foundation: Framing a New Global Vision
Atlantic Council: Military Transformations
Useful Sites
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.
Topic 2
Summary
Bilateral vs Multilateral Aid
Should the USA prefer to give aid money bilaterally (directly to individual
countries or projects) or multilaterally (channelling it through United Nations
agencies, World Bank, NGOs, etc.)?
Context
The giving of international aid has been taking place for decades, but the higher levels of
international aid we know today are largely a phenomenon of the post-World War II era.
Contrasting models of foreign aid giving are provided by programs like the Marshall Plan,
involving bilateral aid arrangements with each of several European countries, and by the
multilateral arrangements created by the Bretton Woods process (the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank). Historically, bilateral aid dominates the foreign aid landscape.
The major economic powerhouses—mostly former colonial powers and the United States—
provide the bulk of foreign aid. Contributions by multilateral organizations such as the IMF
and the World Bank have been controversial for their focus on economic development and
the sometimes severe austerity measures they impose upon recipients. Because aid in both
contexts is often tied to loans, critics have argued that aid has merely led to the dependence
of developing countries on the developed world. Recently, countries such as the United
States and the United Kingdom have increased their contributions to NGOs or non-
governmental organizations that provide help with a variety of different needs in recipient
countries. Despite these changes, citizens and politicians in both the United States and
Europe seem to be experiencing an increased level of “aid fatigue,” questioning the value of
the continued expense.
Motions
Useful Sites
In its relationship with the UN, the USA should favour multilateral rather
than bilateral aid
The United States should channel its international aid through UN agencies
This House favours multilateral aid
This House would club together
This House would not go it alone
Provides a series of links to summaries of arguments about the advantages
and disadvantages of bilateral and multilateral aid packages
An extensive document by the Congressional Budget Office on the role of
aid in international development, including a discussion of bilateral and
multilateral models
An article by the UN Department of Public Information regarding the
gradual shift of aid from major donor countries to NGOs
A centralized resource for aid reports on various recipient countries and
regions and analysis of different aid formulas
Briefing paper with a detailed discussion of the history of aid and the
strengths of bilateral and multilateral aid
The official website of the US government’s aid granting agency
Topic 3
Summary
UN Peacekeepers and the USA
Should the United States participate in UN peacekeeping operations and, if
so, should the United States permit its troops to serve as UN troops (rather
than as US troops under an independent command)?
Context
The United Nations has engaged in peacekeeping operations for several decades, most
heavily in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The number of those operations dropped when US
support became constrained by Presidential Decision Directive 25 that established specific
and more restrictive criteria for US involvement. The UN Security Council later adopted
similar criteria. The type of operations conducted by the UN has evolved from truce and
cease-fire monitoring to more aggressive actions, such as disarmament of combatants, and
more managerial operations, such as election monitoring.
The Bush administration has sought to scale down US commitments to peacekeeping,
reducing the number of troops in Bosnia and Kosovo and refusing to supply troops for the
peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan (separate from those troops hunting Al Qaeda).
While there have been occasional small-scale exceptions, most notably in the UN’s
Macedonia operation (under Clinton) and its operation in Georgia (under Bush), the US
government has not been in the practice of allowing its soldiers to operate under UN
command. This has even extended to the practice of not wearing Blue Helmets or UN
insignia. While this attitude has some basis in actual public policy arguments, it is in part an
acknowledgement of an attitude among many isolationists (and others) in the USA that the
UN is a dangerous institution bent on the spread of world government at the expense of
national sovereignty. These critics see the UN as a failed institution, full of corruption that
US soldiers should not concede their identity to.
This topic addresses the related questions of (1) should the United States participate in UN
peacekeeping operations and (2) should the United States permit its troops to serve as UN
troops (rather than as US troops under an independent command)? Regardless of how the
proposition is worded (e.g. whether your debate specifically focuses on the wearing of “Blue
Helmets”) the two questions are closely related, as nearly every US discussion of
peacekeeping involvement addresses the initial fundamental issue of whether it is
appropriate for US soldiers to engage in nation-building or peacekeeping exercises.
Motions
The US should send US soldiers to serve in UN peacekeeping missions
US soldiers on peacekeeping missions should serve under UN command
Useful Sites
This House would wear blue helmets
Pages from America’s UN Mission, presenting myths and facts related to
the US-UN relationship
A paper that argues why the United States is an ineffective peacekeeper,
regardless of who is in command
Congressional Research document that reviews US financial participation
in peacekeeping operations and provides a good history of these
operations
Statement regarding the scandal with peacekeepers in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo by an American organization with historical
objections toward peacekeeping operations
Links to a Congressional Research Service document advancing
arguments about what the appropriate role of the United States should be
in UN operations
Useful article on the pros and cons of US involvement, as well as the
involvement of other major powers
An example of advocacy by American groups who oppose the UN in its
entirety, and peacekeeping involvement specifically
Topic 4
Summary
USA leaving UNESCO
Should the USA leave the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation?
Context
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation was founded on the
16th of November, 1945 and is based in Paris, France. Its stated goal is ‘to build peace in the
minds of men.’ UNESCO has a humanitarian agenda – it pledges to work towards particular
Millennium Development Goals, in particular, it wishes to
* halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty in developing countries by 2015
* achieve universal primary education in all countries by 2015
* eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education by 2005
* help countries implement a national strategy for sustainable development by 2005
* to reverse current trends in the loss of environmental resources by 2015.
However, the organisation is allegedly misused to promote particular political aims. The
Reagan administration said that UNESCO “politicized virtually every subject it deals with,
has exhibited hostility toward the basic institutions of a free society, especially a free market
and a free press, and has demonstrated unrestrained budgetary expansion.” The USA
withdrew from the organisation in 1983 and only rejoined in 2002 - a decision which
surprised many both at home and abroad, and which remains controversial.
Motions
This House calls for the US should leave UNESCO
This House believes rejoining UNESCO was a mistake for the USA
This House opposes UNESCO
UNESCO
US State Department Vision Statement on Multilateral Diplomacy,
including the decision to rejoin UNESCO
Wikipedia (includes a list of all Directors-General)
The Heritage Foundation disagreed with rejoining and here presents a
comprehensive case against
Article against the USA rejoining UNESCO #1
Article against the USA rejoining UNESCO #2
US Secretary of Education on the decision to rejoin UNESCO
United Nations Association of the USA
Useful Sites
Topic 5
Summary
Production and use of Landmines in the United States
Should the USA discontinue the production of landmines, and sign the
Ottawa Convention?
Context
The 1997 Ottawa Convention banned the use and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines. One
hundred and thirty-five nations have signed the convention – the USA has not. The
Convention's aims became official United Nations policy with General Assembly Resolution
53/77. The Ottawa Convention requires those that do so to abandon the use of landmines
within ten years, and also requires the destruction of the signatory's stockpile of landmines.
Motions
This House believes the US should cease production and exportation of
landmines and sign the UN convention
This House would sign the Ottawa Convention
This House would ban landmines
Adopt-a-landmine
International campaign to ban landmines
Pro-landmines article
The Ottawa Convention
Human Rights Watch
BBC Online article and debate
Statement of US Government policy
Useful Sites
Topic 6
Summary
Context
International Atomic Energy Authority and the USA
Should future US counter-proliferation efforts be directed through the IAEA?
At the end of the Cold War, believing that the nuclear threat had finally receded, much of
the world breathed a collective sigh of relief. Victory in the Cold War, however, sowed the
seeds of a new threat: that of nuclear proliferation (the spread of nuclear weapons). In recent
years this topic has never been far from the headlines. In 2003, Iraq's nuclear program was
given as one justification for the second Gulf War. In the 2004 US Presidential election
campaign, both President Bush and Senator Kerry identified nuclear proliferation as the
single biggest security threat facing the United States. At the time of writing (October 2005)
a debate about how to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is raging. Only last week
the international body set up to prevent proliferation, the International Atomic Energy
Authority (IAEA) and its Director, Mohamed ElBaradei, were awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize in recognition of their work.
The cornerstone of the international law concerning nuclear weapons is the NonProliferation Treaty (NPT). Every state in the world except India, Israel, Pakistan and North
Korea are signatories. North Korea was a member but withdrew in 2003. Under the NPT,
five states (China, France, Russia, the UK and the US) are recognised as having the right to
possess nuclear weapons. These states are known as the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS). The
other states, the non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS), have promised not to acquire nuclear
weapons. In return, they have 'the inalienable right' to use nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes. One cause of proliferation is that civilian nuclear programs can be used to make
the fuel for a nuclear bomb (the hardest part of any nuclear weapons program). Specifically,
there are two routes for making reactor fuel: uranium enrichment (in which uranium ore is
refined) and plutonium reprocessing (in which plutonium is separated from used reactor
fuel). However, exactly the same processes can be used to refine the product still further and
make weapons-grade material.
The IAEA was set up to monitor civilian nuclear programs and ensure that they are used for
legitimate purposes. The IAEA inspects nuclear facilities and, if it believes that a state is
using them to build a nuclear weapon, then it must report this to the United Nations Security
Council. The US has recently become frustrated with IAEA efforts and has started to work
outside the framework of the NTP. In particular, President Bush has proposed that
enrichment and reprocessing facilities should be denied to states that do already possess
them. He has also started the Proliferation Security Initiative, an informal arrangement
between the US and its allies to share intelligence and intercept suspect cargoes at sea. Note
that the US essentially views these actions as a supplement, rather than an alternative, to the
NPT and IAEA. Nobody would deny that the IAEA has had some successes, and few in the
US are keen to abandon the NPT entirely; rather this debate is about whether it is effective
for the US to take additional action to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Motions
Useful Sites
This house believes that international law does not offer the best route to stop
the spread of nuclear weapons
This House believes that future US counter-proliferation efforts should not
be directed through the IAEA
This House prefers coalitions of the willing
Arms Control Today
IAEA
Text of the NPT
Carnegie Endowment Website
Some useful background material from the US State Department
Acronym Institute's minisite on the subject
Topic 7
Summary
Millennium Development Goals and US leadership
Should the USA provide more leadership towards meeting the United
Nations Millennium Development Goals?
Context
In September 2000 189 Heads of State and Government signed the UN Millennium
Declaration, committing their nations to work to "free our fellow men, women and children
from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a
billion of them are currently subjected." The Declaration contained a blueprint for doing this
by 2015 through eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which would form the basis
for international efforts. In summary, the Goals are:
1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2. Achieve universal primary education
3. Promote gender equality and empower women
4. Reduce child mortality
5. Improve maternal health
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7. Ensure environmental sustainability
8. Develop a global partnership for development
Motions
The USA should provide more leadership towards meeting the United
Nations Millennium Development Goals
This House believes meeting the Millennium Development Goals requires
stronger US leadership
This House calls for more US commitment to achieving the Millennium
Development Goals
This House moves to increase the amount of aid the United States is granting
to Africa
This House believes the increasing foreign aid to Africa is the only solution
to achieving the MDGs
Useful Sites
UN Millennium Development goals
Millennium Campaign in the USA
UN Human Development reports
Heritage Foundation Research Paper: The U.N.'s World Summit is Wrong on
Development Assistance
Millennium Challenge Corporation
United Nations Association of the USA on the Millennium Development Goals, with
useful links
Global Policy Forum, with a range of very useful links
Global Governance Initiative of the World Economic Forum
Net Aid
EU site on the Millennium Development Goals
BBC website overview of the Millennium Development Goals
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
OneWorld.net's Perspectives Magazine
The Millennium Development Goals
The Millennium Initiative
"Aspirations and Obligations" - a somewhat skeptical view from economist.com
Topic 8
Summary
US support for Global Fund
Should the USA increase its financial commitment to the Global Fund to
better fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria?
Context
AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis kill over six million people worldwide each year, most of
them in poor countries with limited resources. As well as the direct human suffering and loss
these three killer diseases bring, they also help to keep poor countries poor by greatly
reducing the ability of sufferers to work productively, both in the labour force in support of
their families or in education. AIDS in particular can devastate poor communities by killing
mostly adults (over 3 million in 2002, and rising), leaving many orphans and overburdening
social structures. In developed countries public health systems generally have the
infrastructure and funding to treat those suffering from such illnesses, and to operate
prevention strategies (e.g. the USA has allocated $17.5 billion for Fiscal Year 2005 for
domestic programmes against HIV/AIDS). Yet in the developing world such help is often
either unavailable or unaffordable, and even in richer countries, able to pay for courses of
antiretroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS costing thousands of dollars a year, there is still no
vaccine against HIV.
To address these challenges the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was
set up in 2002. Although independent of other international bodies such as the United
Nations, it works closely with the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS to deliver
programmes in over a hundred countries worldwide. To date (October 2005) the Global
Fund has spent over $1.5 billion on programmes which are treating an extra 220 000 people
suffering from AIDS, as well as over 1 million people with malaria and 600 000 with
tuberculosis. It is now seeking $7.1 billion to fund programmes through to 2007. This
money comes from donor states as well as private business and charities, but inevitably most
is supplied by individual countries who pledged their support when the Fund was
established.
So far the United States has provided a third of the Global Fund's contributions (European
countries have collectively donated just over 50%), but there is uncertainty as to whether the
Bush Administration and Congress will provide an appropriate share of future funding.
There is also controversy over American priorities in putting billions more dollars into USrun international anti-AIDS initiatives, which have been seen as by-passing the Global Fund
and undermining its work through conflicting policies.
Motions
The USA should increase its financial commitment to the Global Fund to
better fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria
This House calls on the USA to do more to fight killer diseases
This House would do more to back the Global Fund
Useful Sites
The Global Fund (with excellent links)
AIDSPAN (watchdog group for the Global Fund)
UNAIDS
World Health Organisation
All.Africa.com story on problems in Uganda #1
All.Africa.com story on problems in Uganda #2
Friends of the Global Fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria
Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS
Foreign Affairs article on US AIDS Policy
AVERT.org on President Bush's AIDS initiative
US State Department on The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
Office of the US Global AIDS Coordinator
The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief: First Report to Congress
Health GAP - NGO critical of US Policy on AIDS
United Nations Association of the USA comment on US policy to combat malaria
United Nations Association of the USA
UK Consortium on AIDS and International Development
Clinton Foundation on bulk purchasing of drugs
Topic 9
Summary
Intervention of Failed States
Should the USA work together with the UN to prevent the collapse of thirdworld states?
Context
Definitions vary, but a failed state is usually thought of as one where any government has
broken down to the point where it can no longer provide any services to the people. Most
importantly, this means that law and order has collapsed, with the government losing its
monopoly over the legitimate use of force. Often large areas of the country are in the control
of non-government forces, perhaps through civil war but often as a result of lawlessness and
banditry. Recent estimates by Foreign Policy and the Fund for Peace (see web links) suggest
that up to 2 billion people worldwide live in insecure states where government has either
failed or is fragile, and are exposed to varying degrees of violence as a result.
The most complete example of a failed state is perhaps Somalia, where no government has
been able to take effective control of the country since the death fifteen years ago of Siad
Barre, its dictator. Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Cote D'Ivoire provide other
commonly-discussed examples. States recovering from recent collapse could include
Liberia, Sierra Leone and Angola, although in none of these is recovery certain, while
Cambodia, Mozambique, Lebanon and East Timor provide examples of relative longer-term
success after periods of failure. Today many observers are gloomy about the futures of
countries including Zimbabwe, Nepal, Guinea, Afghanistan, Chad, Sudan, Bolivia and Iraq,
as well as the Palestinian Authority.
Civil warfare is a big element in the failure of states, but this can include situations where a
government has lost control of a significant area of its territory but can function at least
minimally effectively elsewhere - examples of this could include Russia (with Chechnya),
Colombia, Sudan and the Philippines. The question of how the outside world should respond
to such civil wars is addressed in another topic; this one will focus upon states in which
widespread collapse of government institutions is threatened, and on whether and how the
USA and global community should act to prevent failure.
Motions
The USA should work together with the UN to prevent the collapse of thirdworld states
This House would save failing states
This House believes the USA should do more to prevent failed states
Foreign Affairs
Global Policy Forum with links a range of articles
Centre for Defense Information resources centre on failed states
Foreign Policy index of failing states, with links
Global Guerillas - blog with good links
Brookings Institution Paper
Useful Sites
Topic 10
Summary
Context
Reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine in Broadcasting
Should the Fairness Doctrine be reintroduced in the USA?
Until twenty years ago broadcasters in the USA had by law to follow the federal
government’s “Fairness Doctrine”. This rule, formally introduced in 1949, required radio
and television stations to give “ample play to the free and fair competition of opposing
views”, so that listeners and viewers received a range of opinions and individual stations
were not able to promote particular viewpoints to the exclusion of all others. The doctrine
was also supported by Congress in legislation, although there is argument over whether this
required the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate broadcasters in this
way, or simply allowed them to do so if they judged it necessary. A 1969 Supreme Court
case found that the Fairness Doctrine did not infringe the constitutional freedom of speech.
In 1987 the Reagan Administration’s FCC judged that the Fairness Doctrine was an outdated
and unnecessary interference in the broadcasting business and it was repealed. Congress
made an attempt to reimpose it but President Reagan vetoed this and the doctrine has never
been brought back since.
Since the Fairness Doctrine was removed in 1987 talk radio has become much more
prominent, bringing a brash and lively style of political debate into many American homes
(and cars). Conservative viewpoints dominate their agenda, and hosts such as Rush
Limbaugh make no attempt to hide their own political opinions or to provide a platform for
views which disagree with their own. Such stations are now seen as hugely politically
influential, with loyal audiences which they can mobilise to lobby, vote and protest on key
issues. This was particularly seen in the collapse of immigration reform in 2007, when some
Republicans as well as Democrats began to call for talk radio to be reined back, perhaps
through the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.
Motions
Useful Sites
This House would reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine
This House calls for “fair and balanced” broadcasting
That broadcasters should be required to provide ample play to the free and
fair competition of opposing views
Federal Communications Commission
National Public Radio (NPR)
Columbia Journalism Review
Economist article
Rush Limbaugh
Air America Radio
Wikipedia entry with good links
PBS interview with Congresswoman Louise Slaughter
FAIR: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
National Review article
Pew Research Centre
Centre for American Progress report
III EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
Topic 1
Summary
Context
European Defence Force
Should the European Union have its own standing army?
Motions
This House believes in a European Defence Force.
This House Believes that Europe should defend itself.
Polis.Net: Pan European Defence Force
Useful Sites
In recent years, there has been much discussion regarding the concept of a European
Defence Force (sometimes referred to as the “Euro Corps” or EDF). Such a standing armed
force would be drawn from EU member-nations and operate under EU control, in contrast to
the existing NATO grouping which has the United States as a prominent and influential
member. As is often the case with matters of national and regional defence, there is much
controversy as to whether the European Defence Force is a good idea. Debates on the Euro
Corps can often revolve around the proposed role of NATO in the post-Cold War era, and it
is important to realise that the significance of the EDF may resonate beyond the borders of
the European Union.
Jane's Defence Section
Topic 2
Summary
European Common Agricultural Policy
Should the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy be scrapped in
favour of free trade?
Context
The Common Agricultural Policy, or CAP, is a complex system of subsidies paid by the EU
to farmers. Member states have to contribute to a central pool, which the EU then divides, as
it sees fit. Some of these subsidies are actually paid to farmers to stop them farming their
land, in order to keep the amount of food on the market low and therefore maintain a good
price for food. The main proponents of scrapping the CAP have been the more economically
liberal countries, such as the UK, whereas the more socialist countries have been its biggest
supporters. In this debate the proposition advocates a complete scrapping of the CAP. The
fundamental proposition theme is that the introduction of a free market to European
agriculture can only be good for the consumer. The opposition advocates the use of
interventionist policies. So this debate is an instance of the classic clash between ‘laissezfaire’ and interventionist ideologies.
Motions
This House Would Scrap the CAP
This House Demands an End to EU Protectionism
Wyn Grant's Common Agricultural Policy Page
Europa: The European Union's Homepage: Agriculture
Useful Sites
Topic 3
Summary
European Federalisation
Should the European Union become a federal superstate, with consequent
loss of national sovereignty for member countries?
Context
At a minimum a federal Europe would involve the loss of national vetoes and a considerable
strengthening of the powers of the EU Commission, probably with direct Europe-wide
elections for an EU Federal Government (perhaps with a President on the U.S. model?). A
European Government would be responsible for defence, foreign policy, economic policy,
agriculture and external trade, immigration, and the central taxation and justice systems
needed to support these functions – much as the federal governments of states such as the
U.S.A, Canada, Germany and Australia are at present. Federalism implies a strong degree of
subsidiarity, with power devolved to the lowest appropriate level, rather than a very
centralised state (such as France or Britain were before reforms in the 1990s). This implies
that the current states within the EU, while losing overall independence, would retain
considerable powers over issues such as culture, education, law and order, infrastructure,
and the taxation and justice systems required to support these, as the states within the U.S.A
do today. The location of powers over welfare, pensions and other social issues is less clear,
as is the federal government’s relationship with the existing European Central Bank.
Devotees of subsidiarity would, however, also wish national governments to devolve other
existing powers downwards to their regions and local authorities, further weakening the role
of today’s national politicians within a future federal Europe. It is, therefore, very important
for a Proposition on this topic to clarify what kind of federal Europe is at issue.
Motions
This House would create a United States of Europe
This House believes in a federal Europe
This House would pursue an ever closer union
This House would go deeper
Committee of the Regions: Speech by Romano Prodi: "Reshaping
Europe"
The Federal Trust
The European Party
The Bruges Group (British eurosceptic organisation)
The European Movement (British pro-integration organisation)
Useful Sites
Topic 4
Summary
Expansion of NATO
Should NATO Expand to the East ? Will the proposed NATO expansion
consolidate or eliminate stability in Europe ?
Context
The decision whether to enlarge the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation from its present
membership of 19 States to include the States of Eastern Europe, the Baltic and other
members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) stems from the admission of
Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary at the Madrid summit of the alliance in 1997. The
subsequent 50th anniversary summit in Washington DC in April 1999 brought strong
statements of support for NATO enlargement. In adherence to the pledge made in the
Republican Party’s ‘Contract for America’, President Bush has maintained the impetus for
enlargement through speeches made during his official trip to Europe in June 2001. In
response, NATO Secretary General George Robertson has affirmed that NATO expects to
proceed to further enlargement at the November 2002 summit in Prague.However, the
debate has received more critical attention in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. Russia holds a pivotal role in the alliance against terrorism and
President Vladimir Putin has evinced significant willingness to cooperate with American
strategy in Afghanistan. The question is whether the US and NATO States are prepared to
risk this novel alliance for the enlargement of their Cold War one. The discussion turns on
the persuasiveness of the threat posed by Russia now and in the future, and conversely the
view taken of the stability of the myriad republics of the CIS.
Motions
This House Supports NATO Expansion
This House Would Expand to the East before Russia
This House Believes that Bigger is Better for NATO
Report to the US Congress on the Enlargement of NATO
Useful Sites
Topic 5
Summary
EU Membership for Turkey
Should the European Union commit itself to including Turkey in the future,
offering it a starting date for accession negotiations?
Context
Turkey has had a trade agreement with the European Union for nearly forty years, and first
applied for membership of Europe’s premier club over thirty years ago. Until recently these
requests were politely resisted; Turkey was never turned down outright but the EU made it
clear that massive political and economic reforms would be needed before entry could even
be considered. In 1999, however, EU leaders unanimously accepted Turkey as a candidate
country, but would not set a date for beginning negotiations about entry. Since then the EU
has entered into entry negotiations with many Central and Eastern European states, but has
continued to refuse to do the same yet for Turkey. This has led to Turkish suspicion that the
EU is not really serious about ever including it. This suspicion seemed to be confirmed in
November 2002, when Valery Giscard D’Estaing, a former President of France who now
heads the EU’s Constitutional Convention, declared that Turkey was an Asiatic nation that
should never be allowed to join the European Union.
Motions
This House believes the EU should begin negotiations with Turkey.
This House would set a date.
This House would look east.
Turkey's Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Abhaber: Turkey News Online
Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen’s Association
European Info Centre on EU-Turkish relations
European Association of Turkish Academics
American Hellenic Institute
EU Commission (Turkey information)
Centre for European Policy Studies
Useful Sites
Topic 6
EU Constitution
Summary
Context
Should the European Union (EU) adopt a Constitution?
Motions
This House would adopt an EU constitution
This House would vote "Yes" for the EU constitution
This House would be a good European
The European Union
The European Convention
Centre for European Reform
Up-to-date European news
The Federal Trust for Education and Research
Statewatch: monitoring the state and civil liberties in the EU
Centre for European Policy Studies
Useful Sites
The debate about whether the EU should adopt a constitution has been protracted and
controversial. It is both a practical debate (does the EU need a constitution?) and a more
abstract debate (is the EU the kind of entity/organisation that should adopt a constitution?).
In July 2003 the Constitutional Convention, created at the behest of the European Council
and headed by former French President Valery Giscard D’Estaing, adopted a Draft Treaty
Establishing a Constitution for Europe. After much debate, on 18 June 2004 the European
Council agreed to accept an amended version of this text, and submitted it to national
parliaments for ratification. In many member states the constitutional treaty will also be the
subject of direct popular votes in referendums. The arguments for and against an EU
constitution rest on complicated issues of law, sovereignty, political philosophy and the
efficiency and effectiveness of the EU’s institutions and procedures.
Topic 7
Summary
Context
EU Working Language
Should the EU introduce one working language?
Motions
This House believes that EU language policy should be reformed
This House believes that the EU should speak one language
This House would tear down Europe's tower of Babel
European Union On-line
Language Futures Europe
Language Rights and Obligations
Eurolegal Services
Multilingualism In The European Union And Its Costs
Useful Sites
After recent enlargement the European Union has 20 languages with equal rights as official
and working languages (Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German,
Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak,
Slovene, Spanish, and Swedish). That means that all of them can be used in communication
within and with the EU institutions and translation of all the regulations, directives, as well
as draft documents must be ensured for each and every one of them. Estimates say that after
enlargement 2.5 million pages a year will have to be translated for the European
Commission only.
The EU does not so far have a language policy in the usual sense. Language policy has by
tradition been the realm of individual members, but many Council of Europe statements aim
at determining guidelines for language policies. Council Regulation No. 1 grants each of the
above stated languages the status of an official and working language while allowing the
institutions some flexibility in selecting their own individual language regimes. Yet it does
not provide any real long term solution for dealing with the practical problems the EU faces
every day. In 2004 EU enlargement has increased the problems and with several countries,
each with their own official language, waiting for future admission (Bulgaria, Romania,
Turkey, Croatia, and Macedonia) many say that the EU is becoming an unmanageable tower
of Babel and are pushing for a reform in language policy.
The arguments below deal with the question of introducing one working language for EU
business. The affirmative side argues that while all 20 should remain official languages, the
EU should for practical reasons introduce only one working language for use within EU
institutions.