INTRODUCTION

How can Pros and Cons help you to debate?

To debate well you need:

1 to have a range of good arguments and rebuttals

2 to develop these in a clear, detailed and analytical way
3 to deliver them persuasively.

Pros and Cons can help you with the first, and only the first, of these three. If you were
to read out one side of a pros and cons article, it would not fill even the shortest of
debate speeches. Each point is designed to express the idea, but you will need to flesh
it out. If you know your topic in advance, you will be able to use these points as a
springboard for your own research. If you are in an impromptu debate, you will have to
rely on your own knowledge and ideas to populate the argument with up-to-date
examples, detailed analysis and vivid analogies. But the ideas themselves can be useful.
It is hard to know something about everything and yet debating competitions expect
you to. It is important to read widely and follow current affairs, but doing that does not
guarantee that you will not get caught out by a debate on indigenous languages, nuclear
energy or taxation. Pros and Cons can be a useful safety net in those situations.
When using each article it is worth considering:

A Does each point stand up as a constructive argument in its own right, or is it only
really strong as a rebuttal to its equivalent point on the other side? Where there are
key points which directly clash, they have been placed opposite each other, but some
points have been used to counter an argument rather than as a positive reason for
one side of the case.
2 INTRODUCTION

B Can the points be merged or split? Different debate formats favour different numbers
of arguments. Check to see if two of the points here could be joined into a larger
point. Or if you need quantity, sub-points could be repackaged as distinct arguments.
If you are delivering an extension in a World Universities-style debate (or a British
Parliament-style one), it is worth noting down the sub-points. It is possible that the
top half of the table may make an economic argument, but have they hit all three of
the smaller economic points? If they have not, then one of these, correctly labelled,
could form your main extension.
C Look at Pros and Cons last, not first.Try to brainstorm your own arguments first and
then check the chapter to see if there is anything there you had not thought of.The
articles are not comprehensive and often not surprising (especially if the other teams
also have the book!), so it is best not to rely on it too heavily. Also, if you do not
practise generating points yourself, what will you do when the motion announced
is not in here?
D Adapt the arguments here to the jurisdiction in which you are debating.The book
is designed to be more international than its predecessor, but the writers are British
and that bias will come through.The debate within your own country may have its
own intricacies which are not reflected in the broader global debate. Some argu-
ments are based on assumptions of liberal democracy and other values and systems
which may just be plain wrong where you live.
E Is the argument or the example out of date? We have tried to write broad arguments
which will stand the test of time, but the world changes. Do not believe everything
you read here if you know or suspect it to be untrue! Things like whether something
is legal or illegal in a given country change very quickly, so please do your research.
F What is the most effective order of arguments? This book lists points, but that is not
the same as a debating case.You will need to think about how to order arguments,
how to divide them between speakers, and how to label them as well as how much
time to give to each. On the opposition in particular, some of the most significant
points could be towards the end of the list.

Debating formats

There is an almost bewildering number of debate formats across the world.The number
of speakers, the length and order of speeches, the role of the audience and opportunities
for interruption and questioning all vary. So too do the judging criteria. On one side
of the spectrum, some formats place so much emphasis on content and strategy that the
debaters speak faster than most people can follow. On the other side, persuasive rhetoric
and witty repartee can be valued more than logical analysis and examples. Most debate
formats sit in the middle of this divide and give credit for content, style and strategy.
Here are a few debate formats used in the English-Speaking Union programmes:
INTRODUCTION 3

Mace format

This format involves two teams with two speakers on each side. Each speaker delivers
a seven-minute speech and there is then a floor debate, where members of the audience
make brief points, before one speaker on each team delivers a four-minute summary
speech with the opposition team speaking first.The order is as follows:

First Proposition Speaker

First Opposition Speaker
Second Proposition Speaker
Second Opposition Speaker
Floor Debate
Opposition Summary Speaker
Proposition Summary Speaker

The first Proposition Speaker should define the debate. This does not mean giving
dictionary definitions of every word, but rather explaining the terms so that everybody
is clear exactly what the debate is about. For example, the speaker may need to clarify
whether the law which is being debated should be passed just in their country or all
around the world and specify any exemptions or limits.This speaker should then outline
their side’s arguments and go through the first, usually two or three, points in detail.
The first Opposition speaker should clarify the Opposition position in the debate;
e.g. are they putting forward a counter-proposal or supporting the status quo? They
should then outline their side’s case, rebut the arguments put forward by the first
Proposition Speaker and explain their team’s first few arguments.
The second speakers on both sides should rebut the arguments which have come
from the other team, support the points put forward by their first speakers, if they have
been attacked, and then add at least one completely new point to the debate. It is not
enough simply to expand on the arguments of the first speaker.
The summary speakers must remind the audience of the key points in the debate
and try to convince them that they have been more persuasive in these areas than their
opponents.The summary speakers should respond to points from the floor debate (and
in the case of the Proposition team, to the second Opposition speech), but they should
not add any new arguments to the debate at this stage.

Points of information
In this format, points of information (POIs) are allowed during the first four speeches
but not in the summary speeches. The first and last minute of speeches are protected
from these and a timekeeper should make an audible signal such as a bell ringing or a
knock after one minute and at six minutes, as well as two at the end of the speech to
indicate that the time is up.To offer point of information to the other team, a speaker
should stand up and say ‘on a point of information’ or ‘on that point’.They must then
wait to see if the speaker who is delivering their speech will say ‘accepted’ or ‘declined’.
4 INTRODUCTION

If declined, the offerer must sit down and try again later. If accepted, they make a short
point and then must sit down again and allow the main speaker to answer the point and
carry on with their speech. All speakers should offer points of information, but should
be sensitive not to offer so many that they are seen as barracking the speaker who has
the floor.A speaker is recommended to take two points of information during a seven-
minute speech and will be rewarded for accepting and answering these points.

Rebuttal
Apart from the very first speech in the debate, all speakers are expected to rebut the
points which have come before them from the opposing team.This means listening to
what the speaker has said and then explaining in your speech why their points are
wrong, irrelevant, insignificant, dangerous, immoral, contradictory, or adducing any
other grounds on which they can be undermined. It is not simply putting forward
arguments against the motion – this is the constructive material – it is countering the
specific arguments which have been put forward.As a speaker, you can think before the
debate about what points may come up and prepare rebuttals to them, but be careful
not to pre-empt arguments (the other side may not have thought of them) and make
sure you listen carefully and rebut what the speaker actually says, not what you thought
they would. However much you prepare, you will have to think on your feet.
The mace format awards points equally in four categories: reasoning and evidence,
listening and responding, expression and delivery, and organisation and prioritisation.

LDC format

The LDC format was devised for the London Debate Challenge and is now widely
used with younger students and for classroom debating at all levels. It has two teams of
three speakers each of whom speaks for five minutes (or three or four with younger or
novice debaters).
For the order of speeches, the rules on points of information and the judging criteria,
please see the section on the mace format’. The only differences are the shorter (and
equal) length of speeches and the fact that the summary speech is delivered by a third
speaker rather than by a speaker who has already delivered a main speech.This allows
more speakers to be involved.

World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC) style

This format is used at the World Schools Debating Championships and is also
commonly used in the domestic circuits of many countries around the world. It consists
of two teams of three speakers all of whom deliver a main eight-minute speech. One
speaker also delivers a four-minute reply speech.There is no floor debate.The order is
as follows:
INTRODUCTION 5

First Proposition Speaker

First Opposition Speaker
Second Proposition Speaker
Second Opposition Speaker
Third Proposition Speaker
Third Opposition Speaker
Opposition Reply Speech
Proposition Reply Speech

For the roles of the first two speakers on each side, see the section on ‘the mace format’,
above.The WSDC format also has a third main speech:

Third speakers
Third speakers on both sides need to address the arguments and the rebuttals put
forward by the opposing team.Their aim should be to strengthen the arguments their
team mates have put forward, weaken the Opposition and show why their case is still
standing at the end of the debate.The rules allow the third Proposition, but not the third
Opposition speaker to add a small point of their own, but in practice, many teams prefer
to spend the time on rebuttal. Both speakers will certainly want to add new analysis and
possibly new examples to reinforce their case.

Reply speakers
The reply speeches are a chance to reflect on the debate, albeit in a biased way. The
speaker should package what has happened in the debate in such a way as to convince
the audience, and the judges, that in the three main speeches, their side of the debate
came through as the more persuasive. It should not contain new material, with the
exception that the Proposition reply speech may need some new rebuttal after the third
Opposition speech.
Points of information are allowed in this format in the three main speeches, but
not in the reply speeches. The first and last minute of the main speeches are pro-
tected. For more information on points of information, see the section on ‘ the mace
format’.
The judging criteria for the WSDC format is 40 per cent content, 40 per cent style
and 20 per cent strategy.
The main features of the format as practised at the World Schools Debating
Championships are:

• The debate should be approached from a global perspective.The definition should

be global with only necessary exceptions.The examples should be global.The argu-
ments should consider how the debate may be different in countries that are, for
example, more or less economically developed or more or less democratic.
• The motions should be debated at the level of generality in which they have been
worded. In some formats, it is acceptable to narrow down a motion to one example
6 INTRODUCTION

of the principle, but at WSDC, you are expected to give multiple examples of a wide
topic if it is phrased widely.
• The WSDC format gives 40 per cent of its marks to style which is more than many
domestic circuits. This means that speakers should slow down (if they are used to
racing), think about their language choice and make an effort to be engaging in their
delivery.

World Universities/British Parliamentary style

This format is quite different to the three described so far. It is one of the most
commonly used formats at university level (the World Universities Debating
Championships use it), and it is widely used in schools’ competitions hosted by
universities in the UK.
It consists of four teams of two: two teams on each side of the motion.The teams on
the same side must agree with each other, but debate better than the other teams on
the same side in order to win.The teams do not prepare together. At university level,
speeches are usually seven minutes long, whereas at school level, they are commonly
five minutes. Points of information are allowed in all eight speeches and the first and
last minute of each speech is protected from them (for more on points of information,
see the section on ‘the mace format’.The speeches are often given parliamentary names
and the order of speeches is as follows:

Opening Government Opening Opposition

Prime Minister Leader of the Opposition

Deputy Prime Minister Deputy Leader of the Opposition

Closing Government Closing Opposition

Member of the Government Member of the Opposition

Government Whip Opposition Whip

The speaking order in the World Universities or British Parliamentary debate format.

For the roles of the first two speakers on both sides, see the section on ‘the mace format’.
The roles of the closing teams are as follows:

Members of the government (third speakers on each side)

The third speaker should do substantial rebuttal to what has come before them in the
debate if needed.They are also required to move the debate forward with at least one
INTRODUCTION 7

new argument which is sometimes called an ‘extension’.The closing team should not
contradict the opening team, but neither can they simply repeat their arguments, having
had more time to think about how to put them persuasively.

Whips (fourth speakers on each side)

The whips deliver summary speeches.They should not offer new arguments, but they
can (and should) offer new rebuttal and analysis as they synthesise the debate. They
should summarise all the key points on their team and try to emphasise why their
partner’s contribution has been particularly significant.

Debating in the classroom

Teachers should use or invent any format which suits their lessons. Speech length and
the number of speakers can vary, as long as they are equal on both sides. The LDC
format explained here is often an effective one in the classroom. Points of information
can be used or discarded as wanted and the floor debate could be replaced with a
question and answer session. Students can be used as the chairperson and timekeeper
and the rest of the class can be involved through the floor debate and audience vote. If
more class participation is needed, then students could be given peer assessment sheets
to fill in as the debate goes on, or they could be journalists who will have to write up
an article on the debate for homework.
In the language classroom or with younger pupils, teachers may be free to pick any
topic, as the point of the exercise will be to develop the students’ speaking and listening
skills. Debates, however, can also be a useful teaching tool for delivering content and
understanding across the curriculum. Science classrooms could host debates on genetics
or nuclear energy; literature lessons can be enhanced with textual debates; geography
teachers could choose topics on the environment or globalisation.When assessing the
debate, the teacher will need to decide how much, if any, emphasis they are giving to
the debating skills of the student and how much to the knowledge and understanding
of the topic shown.
In addition to full-length debates, teachers may find it useful to use the topics in this
book (and others they generate) for ‘hat’ debates.Write topics out and put them in a
hat. Choose two students and invite them to pick out a topic which they then speak on
for a minute each. Or for a variation, let them play ‘rebuttal tennis’ where they knock
points back and forth to each other.This can be a good way to get large numbers of
students speaking and can be an engaging starter activity, to introduce a new topic or
to review student learning.
SECTION A

Philosophy/political theory
ANIMAL RIGHTS 13

This House regrets that ‘anarchism’ has become

Possible motions a dirty word.
This House supports anarchism.
This House believes that there is no such thing Related topics
as a legitimate state. Civil disobedience
This House believes that citizens of democracies Democracy
have no obligation to obey laws they believe Social contract, existence of the
to be unjust. Terrorism, justifiability of
This House would require every generation to
vote to ratify the treaties that bind them.

Animal rights

There are numerous debates about animal rights, ranging from vegetarianism, to the
testing of cosmetics or medicines, to laws against animal cruelty in bullfighting.
However, many of them share a common and underlying question: what rights, if any,
do animals have? It is important to note that denying animal rights does not necessarily
equate to saying that unrestrained cruelty to animals is acceptable; rather, it is the denial
that they have the particularly strong moral weight afforded by rights.What a right is
constitutes a difficult question, and partly one which the debate will inevitably focus
on; that said, both teams must be careful to be precise about exactly what having certain
rights would entail, rather than using the concept loosely.

Pros Cons
[1] Although animals cannot verbally [1] A core function of having a right is to
express their choices, they do form deep be allowed to make autonomous choices,
and lasting bonds with each other – rela- and to have those choices respected.When
tively complex emotions such as grief, we say we have a right to ‘free speech’,
affection and joy.To argue that animals are what we really mean is that we can choose
simple beings not worthy of rights aimed what we say and we cannot be forced to
to protect their well-being is a deep mis- say something else.The choices we make
understanding of their rich emotional life. define our individuality, and allow us to
shape our own lives. Animals do not have
[2] Rights are not only granted to beings
the capacity to make choices; they are
that contribute to society.They are deeper
beings driven by basic urges, and do not
and more universal than that. For instance,
have any level of reflective capacity to
people with severe disabilities, young chil-
decide how to live their lives. It would
dren and visiting foreigners do not contri-
simply be utterly pointless to give animals
bute to the state or society that gives and
rights.
protects rights, but we still afford them
certain protections. Similarly, we do not [2] Animals do not share in the network of
harm individuals who would not be able duties and responsibilities that give people
14 ANIMAL RIGHTS

to protest that harm, such as people with rights. Rights are, after all, a human con-
mental disabilities, or patients in a coma. struct, and depend on others observing
On those grounds, animals, who are not them; for that reason, to get rights, you
part of social life and do not uphold civic must put something into the system that
duties, should not be excluded from gives you those rights, and that requires
having rights. contributions to society in the form of
taxes, voting and so on. Animals do none
[3] One of the reasons for granting rights
of that, so cannot expect to benefit from
is the desire to protect sentient beings
it. It is simply misguided to think that the
from cruel and unnecessary pain. Pain is a
way in which we should relate ourselves
universally acknowledged bad state of
to animals is to grant them rights in the
being which we all seek to avoid. Animal
same way as we grant rights to humans.
pain, as experience, is no different from
human pain. The ability to feel pain, [3] Some say that what is relevant is
however, varies according to the develop- not whether an animal can reason, but
ment of the nervous system of the sentient whether it can suffer. Whatever the case,
being. Granting rights can be perfectly animals do not feel pain in the same way
compatible with that notion. To see this, as humans; their nervous systems are less
consider that almost no one thinks that developed, and so their pain counts for less
fish and seafood should have the same than ours. That is particularly important
rights as mammals or birds; that is because given that animal rights are usually sacri-
their nervous systems are far less devel- ficed to do some good for humans; for
oped, so they simply do not feel pain in instance, to test potentially life-saving
the same way. However, granting rights medicines.The pain we inflict on an ani-
can be perfectly compatible with the level mal through animal testing, for example, is
of potential pain experience and the rights far less devastating to a life than the pain
necessary for protection from unnecessary we seek to cure in a human being’s life.
pain. The animal’s pain is ‘worth it’. If granting
rights to animals means we can no longer
test medication on them, we are not
weighing up harms and benefits in the
Possible motions
right way.
This House would repeal all laws protecting
animals.
This House believes that animal rights are a
myth.
This House would not eat meat.

Related topics
Animal experimentation and vivisection, ban-
ning of
Blood sports, abolition of
Vegetarianism
Zoos, abolition of
C E N S O R S H I P B Y T H E S TAT E 17

Censorship by the state

This topic will rarely be set as bluntly as a straightforward question of whether there
should be any censorship or not, but rather reflects an underlying theme in numerous
debates, about when and where the state should intervene in speech acts. It is important
to adapt the arguments below to context; censorship of pornography, for instance, is
quite a different question from whether racist political parties should be censored.
However, the overarching theme is an age-old one, dating back at least to Plato, and
remains very important.

Pros Cons
[1] Freedom of speech is never an absolute [1] Censorship is wrong in principle.
right but an aspiration. It ceases to be a However violently we may disagree with a
right when it causes harm to something person’s point of view or mode of expres-
we all recognise the value of; for example, sion, they must be free to express them-
legislating against incitement to racial selves in a free and civilised society. Anti-
hatred. Therefore, it is not the case that incitement laws can be distinguished on
censorship is wrong in principle. the grounds that the causal connection
[2] Certain types of literature or visual between speech and physical harm is so
image have been conclusively linked to close, whereas in most censorship it is far
crime. Excessive sex and violence in film more distant.
and television have been shown (especially [2] In fact, the link between sex and vio-
in studies in the USA) to contribute to a lence on screen and in real life is far from
tendency towards similar behaviour in conclusive. To say that those who watch
spectators. There is a direct causal link violent films are more likely to commit
between such images and physical harm. crime does not establish the causal role of
[3] Censorship acts to preserve free speech, the films; it is equally likely that those who
but puts it on a level playing field. Those opt to watch such material already have
who argue for unregulated speech miss the such tendencies, which are manifested both
point that it is not only state imposition in their choice of viewing and their behavi-
that can silence minorities, but also their our.Moreover,such censorship might actu-
social denigration by racists, sexists, homo- ally worsen their real-world behaviour, as
phobes or other bigots. So it may be neces- they no longer have any release in the form
sary, for instance, to outlaw racial epithets of fantasy.
in order to ensure that black people are [3] The state simply cannot be trusted with
treated fairly in the public space and so the power to control what people can say,
have a chance to express their views. because it is itself often discriminatory
[4] By censoring speech, we are able to stop towards minorities. If we give the state the
new recruits being drawn over to the ‘dark power to, for instance, regulate the press, it
side’ of racist or discriminatory groups. might well misuse this to prohibit minori-
While it may ‘drive them underground’, ties from speaking out against the ways
that is where we want them; in that way, they have been abused by the government.
18 CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

they are unable to get new followers, so [4] Censorship such as legislation against
their pernicious views cannot spread.This incitement to racial hatred drives racists and
may entrench the views of some, but they others underground and thus entrenches
were unlikely to be convinced anyway, so and ghettoises that section of the com-
outright bans are a better approach. munity, rather than drawing its members
into open and rational debate.This makes
it harder to challenge their views, and thus
Possible motions
to convince wavering members of such
This House believes that censorship has no
groups that their leaders are wrong.
place in a free society.
This House would allow anyone to say anything
at any time.
This House believes that free speech is an
absolute right.

Related topics
Protective legislation v. individual freedom
Pornography
Extremist political parties, banning of
Press, state regulation of the
Privacy of public figures

Civil disobedience

Civil disobedience comes in many forms; the central point is that it is the refusal to obey
certain laws to make a political point. Such disobedience can either be largely passive
(for instance, a refusal to pay taxes) or can actively aim to disrupt a system of government
(by sit-ins or property damage), and can be violent (arguably, for instance, the London
riots in 2011) or non-violent (the ‘Occupy’ movement).The common aim, however, is
to change the law.An interesting angle on the debate is to question some of the classic
examples of ‘success’ for civil disobedience; for instance, were Gandhi’s protests really as
important as the canons of history have it in obtaining Indian independence, or did
violent, more formalised efforts have a large impact?

Pros Cons
[1] Democratic governments which are [1] In fact, democratic means are much
elected only every four to five years do not broader than a general election every few
provide true or adequate representation of years.The election of local representatives
public interests. Once a government is takes place regularly. In Britain, MPs are
elected, it may entirely ignore the will of available in ‘surgery’ with their constitu-
the electorate until its term is finished. ents every week and will always respond
Therefore, civil disobedience is necessary to letters and bring matters of concern to
as an effective method for the people’s the attention of ministers. Other countries
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE 19

voice to be heard even in democratic have comparable systems. Given this direct
countries – as a last resort. For example, the democratic access to government, through
protests over student fees in the UK after letter writing and lobbying, there is no
the 2010 election were designed to rein- need for civil disobedience.
force the perception that Liberal Democrat
[2] Peaceful protest is quite possible, even
MPs had ‘betrayed’ those who voted for
in an undemocratic society, without
them by changing their position.
resorting to civil disobedience.A point can
[2] Historically, civil disobedience has be made quite well without coming into
triumphed over insidious regimes and confrontation with police, trespassing or
forms of prejudice where other methods causing disturbance and damage to people
have failed; e.g. the movements orches- or property. Legal systems are the most
trated in India by Gandhi and in America effective way of protecting the vulnerable
by Martin Luther King. Riots and looting and minorities; once they break down,
in Indonesia in 1998 protested against a there is no way of protecting the most
corrupt and undemocratic regime, leading vulnerable. A good example of the unin-
to the fall of President Suharto. Peaceful tended consequences of civil disobedience
protests by minorities in undemocratic is Egypt’s Arab Spring in 2011; while there
countries are often banned or quashed, is no doubt that President Mubarak’s
or they can fail to bring about change. regime perpetrated significant crimes
Nonetheless,civil disobedience movements against women, the law and order vacuum
can be entirely peaceful (e.g. Gandhi). after the revolution led to a significant
[3] Civil disobedience involving public spike in sexual abuse.
confrontation with authority is often the
[3] There is no excuse for provoking
only way to bring an issue to wider public
violent confrontations with police, riot-
and international attention.This tactic was
successfully employed by the ‘suffragettes’ ing, looting or trespassing. Such actions
of the early women’s movement, and also result in assaults, injuries and sometimes in
by supporters of nuclear disarmament, deaths. For instance, while those who
from the philosopher Bertrand Russell, started the London riots in 2011 may
who was arrested for civil disobedience have had a political or social message, they
several times in the cause of pacifism, to created a tidal wave of violence which the
attacks in the USA and UK on military police were unable to restrain, that led to
bases involved in the Iraq War (2003 to many people being seriously injured or
2011).The student protests in Tiananmen killed.
Square (Beijing) in 1989 (and their brutal
crushing by the authorities) brought the
human rights abuses of the Chinese
regime to the forefront of international
attention and concern more effectively
than anything else before or since; by
contrast, during the 2008 Olympics, the
Chinese government sought to close off
opportunities for civil disobedience, to
prevent a ‘second Tiananmen’.
P R OT E C T I V E L E G I S L AT I O N V. I N D I V I D UA L F R E E D O M 27

Protective legislation v. individual freedom

This topic clearly underlies numerous other debates, and essentially focuses on the point
at which the state should step in to prevent individuals from harming themselves. No
one thinks that the state should protect us from all harmful choices; every activity
includes a certain level of risk, which individuals must be able to assume to live a mean-
ingful, enjoyable life. But there are many activities that the state does regulate on the
grounds that they are ‘irrational’, such as smoking (by punitive taxation) or drug taking,
which many think that the state should not interfere with.

Pros Cons
[1] We all accept that, in essence, the state [1] Legislation is required to constrain and
should be able to prevent harm to others punish those who act to reduce our indi-
arising from individual action; but so few vidual freedoms; for example, those vio-
dangerous actions are genuinely not at lent criminals who threaten our freedom
all harmful to others that this principle from fear and attack. Its role is to pro-
extends to allowing the state to prevent tect our freedoms, not to curtail them. Of
individuals from harming themselves. course, many dangerous actions also have
For instance, when individuals become an impact to some extent on other people,
addicted to alcohol or gambling, they do but this misses the point; the question is
great damage to their families, both whether the government should take any
financially and psychologically. Because legislative action designed to prevent such
no one can extract themselves from the actions.
web of social relations that expose us to
[2] The libertarian principle is that people
damage by those around us, the state must
can do whatever they wish, as long as it
instead step in to make us safe from their
does not harm others – and this must
behaviour.
mean that they are allowed to hurt them-
[2] The state must also legislate to protect selves. If consenting adults wish to indulge
its citizens from self-imposed damage. It is in sadomasochism, bare-knuckle boxing,
the responsibility of an elected govern- or driving without a seat belt (which
ment to research the dangers of certain endangers no one other than themselves),
practices or substances and constrain the then there is no reason for the state to
freedoms of its members for their own prevent them. The role of the state is, at
safety. In particular, the state is right to most, to provide information about the
step in where individuals are imperfectly risks of such activities. Nothing about
equipped to make choices, or risk destroy- those choices needs to be irrational;
ing their capacity to make good choices indeed, even becoming addicted to smok-
later. For instance, where people will ing might be seen as a rational choice
become addicted, or harm themselves in which individuals make, fully apprised of
an irreparable way, the state should stop the risks.
them so doing.
28 S O C I A L C O N T R AC T, E X I S T E N C E O F T H E

[3] A further role of the state is to provide [3] The case is not the same with children,
children with certain basic opportunities who do need to be protected and guided
and protection.We allow the state to take prior to full intellectual and moral matu-
it upon itself to make certain of these rity. However, the principle still applies
compulsory, in order to protect children that the freedom of independent morally
from ill-informed decisions they may mature individuals is paramount.The state
make themselves, or from irresponsible has gone too far in making educational
parents. In the past, parents would curtail and medical opportunities compulsory.
children’s schooling to utilise them as The parent is naturally, biologically, res-
labour to bring in family income. In ponsible for the care of the child. If parents
preventing this, the state curtails freedoms wish to educate their child at home or not
for the good of the individual children and at all, or have religious objections to medi-
for the long-term benefits to society of an cal interferences with their child, then as
educated and healthy population. parents, their views must prevail – those of
certain Christian beliefs object to blood
transfusions, and however harsh it seems, it
Possible motions must be their right to prescribe the same
This House believes that the state should not for their family.
protect individuals from themselves.
This House would allow people to make bad
choices.

Related topics
Welfare state
Drugs, legalisation of
Alcohol, prohibition of
Boxing, banning of
Smoking, banning of
Euthanasia, legalisation of
Polygamy, legalisation of

Social contract, existence of the

Obviously, the social contract is a metaphor, but it is relied upon with disturbing
regularity as obviously being something which exists and binds all members of a society.
That view is a bad one, and wrong; however, there may be other ways of arguing for a
social contract which stand up to more scrutiny. Be careful, however, to establish what
exactly it is that this ‘contract’ might sign us up for; many social contract arguments only
aim to legitimate any kind of state, not a specific set of government policies.
S O C I A L C O N T R AC T, E X I S T E N C E O F T H E 29

Pros Cons
[1] Without a state to govern us, we would [1] Even if all of this were true, it is unclear
all live in a ‘state of nature’, which would what work the idea of a ‘contract’ is doing.
be violent, unco-operative and unpro- No one actually agreed to anything; it is
ductive – ultimately not beneficial for simply argued that they would have done,
anyone. Thus, if we were to be in such a because certain goods and interests are
state of nature, we would all agree to sign protected by the existence of a state that
up to a state, because it would definitely be would not be protected otherwise. But in
in our interests to do so. that case, there is no need to appeal to the
idea of consent; we can just argue for the
[2] Humans did in the past consent to live
state on the basis of those goods directly.
in states. Not everyone alive today con-
Indeed, the attempt to smuggle in a con-
sents to the state, but that is because it is
sent argument aims to give the state an air
totally impractical to have a new consen-
of legitimacy that it does not deserve.
sual state-building process every time a
new person enters the world. Rather, we [2] This is simply an absurd historical fic-
are bound by the consent of our ancestors; tion. States came about because powerful
that is what made the state legitimate in people wished to own land and exert
the first place. violence in support of that landowning;
there was no ‘contractual moment’ in the
[3] Citizens, in fact, consent to their states
history of our states. In any case, if there
on a daily basis. They pay taxes, vote in
were, why should it bind us today? The
elections, and use the state’s services.All of
point of the social contract argument is
these choices amount to consent to the
about consent; that presumably requires
state, because they provide it with the
our consent, rather than somebody else’s.
means to operate.
[3] Voting does not represent consent to
[4] Citizens do not leave their states;
the state for two reasons: first, because we
this amounts to ‘tacit consent’. There are
might think the state was totally illegiti-
many places around the world that closely
mate while desiring some control over
resemble a state of nature (conflict zones,
how it is run; second, because many
or places like Somalia where the state has
people vote for the losing side, so how do
collapsed almost completely). If the state is
they ‘consent’? Similarly, use of public
so terrible, anarchists are welcome to go
services is, in many cases, something out of
and live there, but they choose not to.
which we cannot opt (clean air, national
defence); and in other cases (such as
healthcare), we may still want it, even if we
wish it were not provided for us by the
state.
[4] Not leaving a coercive force does not
amount to accepting it. First, for many
people, the cost of emigration is simply
prohibitively expensive, and the demand
30 U T I L I TA R I A N I S M

that is made on them by asking them to

Possible motions leave their states is an unreasonable one,
This House believes that there is no such thing because they have families and lives built
as a social contract. up there. Second, the world is covered
This House did not sign the social contract, and entirely in sovereign states; even the worst
has no plans to do so. examples have notional governments with
police forces and law courts to enforce
Related topics them.We can only hop from state to state,
National service, (re)introduction of but we cannot go and live somewhere
Jury trials, abolition of without one, which is the option that
Voting, compulsory would be required to establish tacit
Inheritance tax at100 per cent consent.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is almost certainly the best known moral framework, but it is often used
imprecisely.That is perhaps the fault of the slogan coined by Jeremy Bentham (1776) in
A Fragment on Government, advocating the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’.
But as a moment’s reflection shows, that is not one principle, but two.There might be
some hypothetical situations where we can, for instance, increase 20 people’s happiness
by one unit, or 10 people’s by three units; in such a case, the ‘greatest happiness’ would
commend the latter, but the ‘greatest number’ would commend the former. Put simply,
utilitarians believe in creating the greatest amount of happiness possible.That may sound
like an intuitively plausible claim, but as the following arguments show, it is far from
obvious that utilitarianism is the correct moral worldview.This raises a final important
point; utilitarianism may be deployed in many debates, but it must be argued for. Simply
to say ‘According to John Stuart Mill’s principle of utilitarianism . . .’ does not advance
the debate.

Pros Cons
[1] The great advantage of happiness as a [1] The truth is that while we can all say
benefit to promote is that it is universal. ‘I am happy’, we have no idea whether
Everyone knows what happiness feels the good experienced is the same for all
like, and everyone feels it at least some of people, or in fact radically different.
the time; thus, we are not simply encod- Conceptions of exactly what happiness is
ing some people’s desires as being the diverge hugely. Is it short-term pleasure, or
things which matter, but working off is that a life, as Mill said, ‘fit only for
a physical human good. Moreover, in swine’? Or is it long-term satisfaction in
essence, the pursuit of happiness guides all doing well at your job and in your life?
human action; for that reason, we should And if so, how are those things to be
U T I L I TA R I A N I S M 31

seek to promote it for others as we do prioritised? The truth is that utilitarianism

ourselves. is just as guilty as other philosophies of
simply taking one group’s preferences and
[2] Utilitarianism allows us to make trade-
treating them as universals.
offs. A rights-based or duty-based ethical
theory may leave us with unsolvable [2] In theory, utilitarianism might allow
conflicts; when the right to life and the for easy trade-offs; but in practice, that is
right to bodily autonomy conflict in the absurd. We do not know how to value
case of torturing a terrorist for potentially happiness; we do not know if everyone
life-saving information, how are we to experiences it with the same intensity,
decide which one is more important? By or whether some people can get happier
contrast, utilitarianism is simply a matter than others.We also do not know how to
of totting up the numbers, and this, at least measure it; as such, it is not at all useful in
in principle, gives us an answer. Moreover, making real-world choices.
work in behavioural economics and psy- [3] If we want our moral theories to care
chology has given us a much better idea of about equality, then we can build equality
how actually to measure happiness; now, into them. The problem with utilitarian-
more than ever, utilitarianism can guide ism is that it has no interest at all in
real-world choice making. equality. In the classic thought experiment
[3] Utilitarianism is a highly egalitarian of the Utility Monster, we imagine that
some person can generate infinite happi-
doctrine; it treats happiness as of equal
ness from society’s resources; we would
worth, regardless of who possesses it.
therefore be obligated to give all the
Moreover, because people who are worse
resources to that monster. Obviously there
off tend to gain more happiness from small
is no real-life monster, but there are many
incremental increases in their resources,
people who cannot benefit from resources
utilitarianism is also radically redistribu-
in the same way as others, especially peo-
tive, requiring us to give money to the ple with severe disabilities; utilitarianism
poorest until each transfer does not make might require us, in fact, to deprive them
them more happy than the corresponding of resources.
loss of happiness for the rich.
[4] Utilitarianism imposes no limits
[4] Utilitarianism simply does not allow whatsoever on what may be done to a
these kinds of abuses with any regularity, person in pursuit of the greater good; it
because their impact on happiness is so erodes individual rights. No one would
severe.‘Rule-utilitarians’ believe that rights want to live in a world where it is possible
can be justified on the grounds that rules for anything to be done to them by the
need to be imposed on human action to state; torture, murder, etc. all become fair
maximise happiness, because otherwise game. While they may rarely be the
biases and the difficulties of decision mak- utilitarian course, the fact that they are in
ing in any given case overwhelm us. principle not barred is deeply troubling, as
Moreover, if torture is, in the end, the it shows that we are sacrificing personal
utility-maximising act, then so be it; that bodily autonomy altogether. Utilitarian-
does not mean it is not what we should do. ism errs by having only one value.
32 W E L FA R E S TAT E

Related topics
Possible motions Capitalism v. socialism
This House would maximise happiness. Welfare state
This House would be utilitarian. Terrorist suspects, torture of

Welfare state

The essence of the welfare state is that it provides benefits and services to everyone in
a country, regardless of their ability to pay. It is founded on a belief that everyone
deserves equal quality of certain essential public services, regardless of how much they
earn. Objections can be both ideological (it rewards the undeserving) and practical (it
provides poor outcomes).There are major definitional issues in this debate; teams should
attempt to broadly agree on an expansive but imperfectly defined mass of things that
the welfare state covers, ranging from schools to unemployment benefits.

Pros Cons
[1] Society should provide free education [1] State welfare should be provided not as
(arguably including university education), a matter of course, but only in cases of
healthcare, unemployment and sickness extreme need. The welfare state should
benefits, and old age pensions for all. function only as a safety net. Even in
These are fundamental rights in a humane communist countries and in post-war
society (and the yardstick of a civilised Britain, where there was great enthusiasm
society is sometimes said to be how well it for these ideas, economic realities have
looks after its pensioners). made free welfare for all an unrealisable
dream.
[2] State-owned and state-run welfare
services are the property of the nation and [2] Society is responsible to all its mem-
therefore should be available to all. They bers, but equally, its members should not
are a physical manifestation of the respon- all receive welfare if they can afford private
sibility of society to each of its members. healthcare, education and pensions. All
Everyone pays tax, and so everyone should state benefits should be means-tested so
receive free welfare. that only the truly needy receive them.
[3] In the interest of equality, there should [3] It is fair that those who are hard-
be no private education, health services or working and successful should be able to
pensions.The state should have a monop- buy superior education and better health-
oly on the welfare state in order to ensure care, since these are not rights, but luxuries
truly efficient welfare – through econo- or privileges which may be paid for.
mies of scale and centralisation – which is Privatisation of healthcare, education and
also egalitarian.The best resources can be pensions means competition on the free
distributed within the public system rather market and therefore better and cheaper
than being creamed off for the elite who services.
W E L FA R E S TAT E 33

can afford private schools and private [4] While welfare states may make many
healthcare. people better off, they do so by unaccept-
ably lowering the quality of life of the
[4] More equal societies almost always do most successful people within society.
better on a wide range of metrics of well- Those people should not be used as a
being. Reduced stress and increased com- social safety net for the failings of others;
munity cohesion lead to hugely positive rather, they should be allowed to live in
outcomes for individuals, including longer peace and enjoy the property they have
life expectancies, reduced crime and worked for without state interference.
greater reported levels of happiness.

Related topics
Possible motions Capitalism v. socialism
This House believes in the welfare state. Marxism
This House believes that only the desperately Privatisation
poor should receive state benefits. State pensions, ending provision of
Private schools
University education, free for all
SECTION B

Constitutional/governance
VOT I N G AG E , R E D U C T I O N O F 55

Voting age, reduction of

Most countries, including the UK, have a minimum voting age of 18, but many
countries, including Brazil, Austria and Nicaragua, have a voting age of 16.There is a
lobby in the UK to lower the voting age to 16 and so this article deals with changing
the voting age from 18 to 16.The arguments could be adapted to support a lower voting
age; e.g. the start of high school or the age of criminal responsibility.

Pros Cons
[1] In society today, young people reach [1] It is not true that young people are
social and intellectual maturity at a more mature than ever in today’s society.
younger age than ever before. By the age They masquerade as adults by mimicking
of 16 (and possibly 14), young people are traditionally adult behaviour (drinking,
well-informed and mature enough to smoking, using drugs, having sex, swear-
vote. ing, fighting) at younger and younger ages,
but that does not make them mature. If
[2] In the UK, at the age of 16, young anything, the voting age should be raised
people can have a job, have sex legally and to give these immature would-be adults
get married. It is absurd for a married a longer time actually to grow up and
person with a job and children not to be mature intellectually.
recognised as an adult who can vote.
Voting is an important decision, but so is [2] It is perfectly acceptable for different
getting married. Such a person is a full ‘rites of passage’ to occur at different ages.
adult member of society and should be In the UK, for example, the ages for
treated as such. In some countries, the age leaving school, being allowed to have sex
of consent and/or the school leaving age legally, smoke, drive, drink and vote are
are even younger, making the discrep- staggered over three years (16, 17, 18). In
ancies greater still. many countries, the school-leaving age
and the age of consent are also 18 and so
[3] Because of the advances in infor- the voting age is more in line. In the USA,
mation technology over recent decades, you have to be 21 to buy alcohol which
teenagers are now more aware of politi- shows that there is debate even about
cal issues than ever before. The broadcast whether 18 year olds can make mature
media and the Internet in particular decisions.Voting is a responsible act that
ensure that everyone, including 16 year requires more than a year or two of adult
olds, is familiar with the issues of the day. experience of life and politics.The age for
There is no need to wait for young people voting should stay at 18 or be raised to 21
to be 18 in order for them to have a fuller – as indeed should the age for marriage,
understanding of politics. another momentously important decision
that should not be made by adolescents.
[4] Even if one takes a pessimistic view of
the ability of some 16-year-old school- [3] The rise of broadcast media and infor-
leavers to make a well-informed and well- mation technology has led to a ridiculously
56 VOT I N G AG E , R E D U C T I O N O F

thought-out democratic decision, it is not simplistic and superficial political world

clear that the passage of two years will emerging – a world in which real political
make any real difference to such people. argumentation has been replaced by the
Many people are politically unsophisti- ‘sound bite’.This is a reason to demand that
cated or uninterested in politics, but there the voter be older and be wiser to the tricks
is not a significant difference between the of the media spin-doctor. A 16-year-old
ages of 16 and 18.The same proportion of voter would be putty in the hands of media
16 year olds as of 18 year olds will be managers.
apathetic, uninterested or ill-informed.
[4] There is a significant difference
The extra two years without a vote is a
between the levels of analysis of which a
case of arbitrary discrimination.
16 year old and an 18 year old are capable.
[5] In any case, voters are not required to At 16, people are still children mentally.
be fully informed or highly intellectual – The voting age could be raised to 21, to
such a requirement would be elitist and allow for fuller mental development.
anti-democratic. People aged 16 are, in
[5] While some people think there should
many other respects, adult members of
be a test for a voting ‘licence’, as long as
society.
that does not exist, we need to put an age
[6] Many voters will have to wait two, limit on voting.Teenagers are less likely to
three or even four years for their first follow the news and care about politics as
national election after they turn 18, so the issues do not directly affect them.
may actually be as old as 22 when they Where laws do affect them directly, they
have the opportunity to vote for the first are represented through their parents’
time. In the same way, if the voting age votes.
were lowered to 16, half of voters would
[6] Young people are one of the demo-
still have to wait until they were 18.
graphic groups with the lowest turnouts
Evidence shows that those who vote
in elections. Most will not vote in their
when young are more likely to continue
first available election, and so bad habits
voting through their life and so we should
will be set. If they are older when the right
set the habit early.
is granted, they will value it more and be
more likely to use it.

Possible motions
This House would reduce the voting age to 16.
This House believes that the voting age should
be the same as the age of criminal respon-
sibility.

Related topics
Political candidacy, age of
Voting, compulsory
VOT I N G , C O M P U L S O RY 57

Voting, compulsory

Voting is compulsory in a number of jurisdictions including Australia, Belgium, Brazil

and Bolivia. In Australia, failure to vote is punishable by fines or even by imprisonment,
whereas in other countries the sanction can be a withholding of benefits or services.A
definition may wish to consider which type of sanction the Proposition team wish to
endorse and what level of elections this applies to. It is also possible to include a ‘no
vote’ box on the ballot paper to allow for a rejection of all candidates.

Pros Cons
[1] The electoral turnout in many estab- [1] There are many reasons why people
lished democracies is distressingly low.We do not vote. Up to 10 per cent of the
should adopt compulsory voting to secure population is not on the electoral register
greater democratic involvement of the at any one time. Many people cannot get
population. Proxy voting and postal voting away from work, or find someone to look
will be available for those who cannot after their children. Some cannot physi-
physically get to the polling station – cally get to a polling booth; others are
voting by the Internet should also be simply not interested in politics. None of
investigated to improve ease and access. these motivations can be affected by
forcing people to vote – those who can-
[2] Low participation rates are doubly
not, will continue not to. Increasing turn-
dangerous.They mean that our politicians
out by making access to voting easier is a
are not representative of the population as
good idea, but it does not need to be
a whole. Since the poor and disadvantaged
linked to compulsion.
are far less likely to vote than any other
socio-economic group, they can safely be [2] Forcing people to vote is not the same
ignored by mainstream politicians. In turn, as forcing them to make an informed
this leads to greater disillusionment with choice based on a detailed understanding
politics and a sense of disenfranchise- of manifestos. Those who were apathetic
ment.The only way to break this cycle is before will continue to be so. They will
mandatory voting as politicians then have vote randomly or may be seduced by
to target policies to all sections of society. image, prejudice or by fringe or extreme
This would also end biases like that parties. In turn, this means that there is not
towards pensioners. At present, they are much extra motivation for mainstream
the group most likely to vote and so poli- parties to turn their attention away from
ticians must pander to them. In the pensioners and the professional classes
austerity drive in the UK after 2010, who are more likely to vote based on
pensioners have been largely immune political record and promises.
from the cuts suffered by other groups.
[3] Abstention from voting is a democratic
[3] Liberal democracy relies upon a right.To deny the right to abstain in a vote
balance of rights. The above argument is as dictatorial as to deny the right to
shows that our democracy is endangered support or oppose it. Just as the right to
58 VOT I N G , C O M P U L S O RY

through a lack of participation in elec- free speech is complemented by the right

tions. The resolution of such a crisis may to silence, so the right to vote is balanced
in a small way restrict some personal by the right of abstention. Refraining
liberties, but it is in the interests of society from the democratic process is a demo-
as a whole.We compel people to take part cratic statement of disenchantment.
in other civic duties such as serving on Forcing those who are disenchanted with
juries and paying taxes and we should not politics in general to go and spoil a paper
be afraid to do the same in the case of is a pointless waste of resources. Their
voting. Besides, anyone wishing to register right to register dissatisfaction should not
an abstention can do so by spoiling the be taken away by politicians who want to
ballot paper, leaving it unmarked or hide the fact of their unpopularity and
crossing the ‘no vote’ box, if available. irrelevance in society. The analogy with
jury service does not hold since we do
[4] Especially after the suffering of and
not need people to vote in order for an
sacrifices made by women and minority
important social institution to function (in
campaigners in the pursuit of universal
the way that we do need a jury to turn
suffrage, we owe it to our ancestors and to
up for the justice system to function).
history to exercise our democratic right to
Elections do not need a 100 per cent, or
vote. If people are so apathetic that they
even an 80 per cent, turnout in order to
will not do this freely, we must make it
fulfil their function. Nobody is harmed if
compulsory. Such apathy also affects the
an individual chooses not to vote, and so
moral authority of the West which is
their freedom should not be curtailed.
seen to preach democracy and sometimes
impose it, while its own democracies [4] Suffragettes and other suffrage cam-
are sick. paigners sought to make voting a right
rather than a privilege, but they did not
seek to make it a duty. In the same way,
Possible motions campaigners for equality for blacks,
This House would make voting compulsory. homosexuals or women have ensured that
This House believes it is a crime not to vote. they have access to higher education,
This House believes that voting is a duty. political power and the professions, but
members of these groups are not now
Related topics forced to attend university, stand for parlia-
Democracy ment or become soldiers. It is the freedom
Protective legislation v. individual freedom and lack of state compulsion in democ-
Democracy, imposition of racies that countries are espousing abroad.
SECTION C

International relations
70 M I L I TA RY D R O N E S , P R O H I B I T I O N O F

Military drones, prohibition of

The concept of an unmanned military aircraft is almost as old as the use of air power
itself; one was first tested in 1916 for the Royal Air Force’s use in the First World War.
However, they have, naturally, developed hugely in recent years, and are now in
widespread use in military operations around the world. They are also used for
numerous purposes; sometimes they are simply for intelligence gathering, but they are
also often deployed as part of the USA’s programme of covert assassination of terrorist
leaders in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. Drones began as a tool to support con-
ventional operations on the battlefield, but in 2002, a Predator drone was used by the
CIA to kill alleged terrorists in Yemen, and they are now regularly used off the
battlefield.Worries that they might fall into the wrong hands were crystallised in 2011,
when Iran captured an American RQ-170 drone which had been spying in its airspace.
There are question marks about their legitimacy in international law, given that they
are typically used for targeted assassinations, but there are no express rules governing
their use at present.

Pros Cons
[1] Drones give militaries lethal capa- [1] Drones do not create new military
bilities that they did not previously pos- operations; rather, they are an alternative
sess. In particular, they are able to conduct to fighter-bombers on missions which
military operations that would previously would otherwise have had to take place
have been unacceptable because of the anyway. In its Kosovo bombing campaign
risk to human life involved.The possibility (1998/99), NATO instructed planes to fly
of losing troops and the political costs that at 45,000 feet to avoid pilot casualties,
come with that are the main restraint on which is above the height at which it is
powerful militaries – and particularly the possible to distinguish civilians and com-
USA and China – that tempers their batants. Drones, because they can fly lower
behaviour in combat. Using drones leads and so get better images of their targets,
to escalation in conflicts and the deaths of are actually more able to be discriminat-
large numbers of civilians which would be ing, and so are less likely to kill civilians.
prevented by this ban.
[2] There is nothing necessarily dehu-
[2] Drones, by removing the human ele- manising about simply being far away
ment of killing in war, encourage trigger- from the target; fighter pilots also do not
happy behaviour and so increase the see the pain or suffering they cause, but
likelihood of civilian casualties. When a watch it on a camera from far away.There
person who will bear direct moral respon- are many advantages to the ‘pilots’ being
sibility for the consequences of a bombing on the ground rather than in the plane.
has to launch a powerful explosive device, The most important one is that, because
they are more likely to adequately balance pilots are not in personal danger, they are
the need to achieve strategic objectives less likely to lash out and fire in panic, but
M I L I TA RY D R O N E S , P R O H I B I T I O N O F 71

with the avoidance of civilian death.This can instead remain cool-headed about
is removed completely when the ‘buck their strategies. Moreover, because they
stops’ with a technician who clicks a can be supervised more readily by com-
mouse thousands of miles away, totally manders and given information by
divorced from the situation, and who is analysts who know what the target looks
more likely to fire on groups of people like, in consequence, civilian deaths are
whose identity is unknown. much less likely.
[3] Drones are intimately connected to the [3] Extra-judicial assassinations are not
broader policy of extra-judicial assassina- enabled by drones, and would continue
tion of terrorists outside war zones, which regardless of them. The USA has deter-
is a highly damaging one. Drones make mined that many of its greatest threats lie
that policy possible because they do not outside its borders, and is determined to
create the risk of a pilot being shot down pursue them, regardless of national sover-
over a non-combatant state (who would eignty. If it were unable to use drones, it
therefore not be protected by the laws of would simply turn to more dangerous
war), and also because they do not require methods, such as manned aircraft or on-
air bases or carriers in the region. The the-ground Special Forces teams, which
policy of extra-judicial assassination is a risk higher casualties and more damage.
clear violation of international law, and Moreover, drone attacks may not be in
radicalises populations and governments violation of international law, as they
which were not previously involved at all specifically target those who threaten
in the ‘War on Terror’. terrorist acts, and are often used in areas
where there is little or no meaningful
[4] The harms of drone warfare are
governmental control.
inherent to the drones themselves. No one
seriously believes that drone ‘regulation’ [4] It is inevitable that some countries will
would do much to limit their usage. seek to use drone warfare, regardless of
Rather, a total ban in international law whether others ban it, or even if they are
would make it easier to control them; they expressly prohibited in international law.
could then be impounded or shot down if Given that, it is better that a system be
found, and sanctions could be imposed on established for monitoring and regulating
countries seeking to develop them to drone warfare, with clear protocols as to
inhibit those countries from getting the acceptable usage, rather than allowing total
relevant technology. Regulation simply free rein. If, for instance, all drones had to
represents a tacit acceptance by the inter- be registered, there would be less danger
national community that drones are of them being unsafe or falling into crimi-
acceptable. nal or terrorist hands. Moreover, it might
be possible to prevent Russia, China and
Iran fitting them with extreme weapons to
make them more destructive.
72 N O N - U N - S A N C T I O N E D M I L I TA RY I N T E R V E N T I O N

Related topics
Possible motions Pacifism
This House would ban the use of drones. Armaments, limitations on conventional
This House believes the use of drones is Democracy, imposition of
inhuman. Dictators, assassination of

Non-UN-sanctioned military intervention

As a formal matter of international law, military actions not in self-defence must be

approved by the United Nations, or they are illegal.This debate proposes changing that
position in order to encourage humanitarian interventions. It is worth noting that as
sanctions for breaches of those rules are minimal, this debate takes place on the basis
that actual sanctions for breach will be rare, although the International Criminal Court
(ICC) has now agreed to prosecute the crime of aggression, so that may change in the
future. Iraq will obviously loom large in this debate, but there are numerous other
examples that are relevant.

Pros Cons
[1] The UN is not the global moral arbiter [1] The UN is imperfect, and the UNSC
that it claims to be; the fact is that the UN is in need of reform. But the UN is, as it
Security Council is an accident of history, were, the best moral arbiter available to us.
and its permanent members frequently It represents the collective will of the
abuse human rights and go to war illegally world and an important check on power-
themselves. It is nothing but the rankest ful nations. Iraq, an unjust war, is what
hypocrisy for them to seek to control who results when states ignore the UN.
may go to war, and on what grounds.
[2] The requirement of UN approval [2] If America had intervened in Libya
often needlessly delays much-needed without the need for Russia not to veto, it
intervention in these countries, which in would have launched a disastrous ground
turn costs lives. The UN’s inaction over campaign, rather than its careful, surgical
Rwanda in 1994 left French troops on air strikes. The requirement for negotia-
the ground, powerless to act. Allowing tion and consensus makes interventions
unilateral intervention speeds this up by better than if they are hot-headedly
allowing states to act as soon as they have launched by a single constituency.
the relevant logistical capability; this saves [3] The legacy of colonialism is one that
lives. should be expunged, not promoted. States
[3] It is wrong to think that the need for intervening in their former colonies are
the UN’s approval should override the just as likely to provoke resentment and
strong moral and cultural links that parti- bad memories as to be welcomed. The
cular countries have with other regions of world should instead strive for a sense of
N U C L E A R W E A P O N S , R I G H T TO P O S S E S S 73

the world. For instance, former colonial communal responsibility for atrocities and
powers regularly intervene in their former declining spheres of influence.
colonies, because they know them well
[4] The UN is not just an arbiter of the
and have strong ties; this leads to effective
law of going to war, but also law in war. In
interventions, as with Britain in Sierra
order to effectively prevent war crimes
Leone or France in the Ivory Coast.
and crimes against humanity, the UN
[4] The UN does not need to authorise must control the manner of these inter-
an intervention to have some oversight of ventions. One of the reasons that the Iraq
it. This is the distinction between ius ad war was so brutal was the lack of rules of
bellum (the law of whether going to war is engagement established by the UN.
just) and ius in bello (law during war).
Abuse can still be prosecuted at the
Possible motions
International Criminal Court.
This House believes that humanitarian inter-
ventions should not require UN approval.
This House would go to war without the UN.

Related topics
Pacifism
United Nations, failure of
United Nations standing army
Democracy, imposition of
Military drones, prohibition of

Nuclear weapons, right to possess

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons limits the possession of

nuclear weapons to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council: the
USA, the UK, France, Russia and China. When it was signed in 1968, they were the
only nuclear-armed nations, but since then, India, Pakistan and North Korea have
openly joined the nuclear club. All are outside the NPT, as is Israel, which is widely
accepted to have nuclear weapons in spite of official denials. Iran has also attempted to
join the nuclear club, and states including Libya and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
have made much more preliminary attempts to do so, while South Africa remains the
only state to have voluntarily given up its nuclear weapons.This debate is principally
about the moral question of whether any such right exists, but it is also partly about the
merits of acknowledging it in international law.
74 N U C L E A R W E A P O N S , R I G H T TO P O S S E S S

Pros Cons
[1] It cannot be denied that the con- [1] The use of nuclear weapons is never
sequences of a nuclear weapon being used acceptable.When A-bombs explode, every
are horrific, but we should not preclude living organism for miles around is
the possibility that they might occasionally instantly incinerated; they have incompar-
become necessary. If a state needs to able destructive potential, which should
defend itself and its very existence as an never be used. They rely on indiscrimi-
independent nation, or to prevent mass nately targeting populations, rather than
atrocities against its population, then those attempting to avoid civilian casualties,
interests are so fundamental that nothing which dissolves all of the normal rules of
should be ruled out in defending them, war. Moreover, radiation remains lethal for
including the use of a Weapon of Mass many, many years afterwards, which means
Destruction.We always have to weigh the that people who cannot possibly have
loss of civilian life on one side with the been legitimate targets (as they have not
equally potent potential loss of civilian life yet been born) will be affected. It is not
on the other side, but states are entitled to possible to have a right to do something
care more about their own populations, fundamentally immoral.
and because of that, they must be given a
[2] The consequences of a nuclear weapon
margin of discretion in deciding how to
ever being deployed are sufficiently cata-
defend themselves, which extends to
strophic that anything which raises the
nuclear weapons.
risk of their ever being used is immoral.
[2] In any event, the point of nuclear States cannot guarantee that they have
weapons is not to use them, but to adequate command-and-control struc-
maintain a credible threat that they might tures in place to prevent these weapons
be used. In practice, no state will ever be being fired in the wrong circumstances;
called upon to fire them, so a right to nor can they prevent a change of gov-
possess them can be established very easily. ernment that makes them less restrained.
As long as states never actually fire them, So it is never acceptable to possess nuclear
then none of their harmful consequences weapons, even if they are ultimately never
ever come about, and so they are merely intended for use.
used as a bargaining chip, which is essen-
[3] There is a reason it is called MAD; this
tial in a world where other states possess
principle is a precarious means of prevent-
them and so can use that bargaining chip
ing potentially catastrophic consequences
too.
for the world. Unless the suggestion is that
[3] It is telling that the only times nuclear every state will come to possess nuclear
weapons have been fired in anger were in weapons (which is near-impossible given
Japan in 1945, when there was only one the enormous costs of developing and
nuclear power in the world (the USA). maintaining a weapons programme), there
Since then, the nuclear states have always will be some countries against which
kept each other in check through the nuclear powers can always use aggression.
principle of Mutual Assured Destruction, Moreover, while it may be the case that
or MAD. As long as there is a risk of relatively stable and advanced states have
N U C L E A R W E A P O N S , R I G H T TO P O S S E S S 75

retaliation in nuclear form, that risk is not fired nuclear weapons in anger, that
great enough to prevent states from firing principle weakens as governments which
a nuclear weapon. Moreover, as more care less about their population’s welfare
states acquire nuclear weapons, there are gain control of these weapons.
more potential nuclear retaliators, so
[4] Regulation does not alter the real
MAD is reinforced, and the risk of nuclear
problem; when nuclear weapons are more
attack decreases.
plentiful, it is more likely that they will
[4] Acknowledging a right to possess fall into the wrong hands. Extending the
nuclear weapons allows for the establish- right to nuclear weapons extends it to
ment of a proper system of regulation and governments which do not have the
tracking; for instance, states could sign up capacity to deal with the enormous task of
to regular International Atomic Energy managing a nuclear arsenal. Even in the
Agency (IAEA) inspections, and register existing structure, many former Soviet
all their weapons, both to ensure high nuclear weapons are thought to have
safety standards and to make sure that passed to terrorists or, more often, the
they would never fall into the hands of mafia, who do not know how to handle
terrorists or criminal gangs, and that if them (or intend to handle them malici-
they did, it would be easier to get them ously), increasing the chance of nuclear
back.At the moment, the large number of disaster.This can only be prevented if the
nuclear weapons outside state control is a number of nuclear weapons overall is
cause for huge concern. reduced.

Possible motions
This House believes that every state has a right
to a nuclear weapon.
This House would repeal the Treaty for the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
This House would give every country a nuclear
weapon.

Related topics
Pacifism
Armaments, limitations on conventional
Military drones, prohibition of
Nuclear energy
76 P R I VAT E M I L I TA RY C O R P O R AT I O N S , B A N N I N G O F

Private military corporations, banning of

Private military corporations (PMCs) first came to global attention when Blackwater,
a PMC to which the US military had contracted out many of its operations in Iraq, was
involved in a 2007 incident in which its employees shot dead 17 Iraqi civilians in a
roadside bombing incident. However, PMCs have been around for much longer, with
many being heavily involved in African civil wars over resources in the 1990s.Their staff
are often recruited from the ranks of former Special Forces soldiers, and so tend to be
highly trained. However, there have also been significant questions about their
accountability; Paul Bremer, the head of the American provisional administration in
Iraq, signed ‘Order 17’, which removed Iraqi authority over the employees of PMCs.
However, more recently, the American government has ordered that they be subject to
the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and has scaled back their use in foreign
operations, but many problems undoubtedly remain. Private military corporations fulfil
a range of functions, from protecting ships and oilfields in danger zones for large
companies, to guarding embassies and prisons, to essentially replicating the functions of
ordinary soldiers.

Pros Cons
[1] It is wrong that military operations be [1] Incentives improve performance,
conducted for profit. All armies must and this is as true on the battlefield as
balance operational efficiency in achieving anywhere else. If protection of civilians is
their objectives with the need to protect an important objective, then governments
civilians and the reputation of their fight- can and will build these into the contracts
ing force more broadly. While ministers that they sign with PMCs. Public outcry
and commanders can give orders, much of at mass civilian deaths – as happened in
this is ultimately dependent on individual September 2007 when Blackwater killed
soldiers and the choices they make.Their 17 Iraqi civilians – will force governments
motives best balance these concerns when to discontinue contracts with any firms
they act out of a sense of honour, rather that do not live up to ethical standards.
than being purely profit-driven, possibly This will then be reflected in the orders
even with incentive-based pay; all this that the PMCs give their workers.
makes soldiers more likely to take risks
[2] Private military corporations do not
with civilian lives in order to achieve
lack accountability. Their accountability
mission objectives.
simply takes the form of pay-based incen-
[2] Private military corporations cannot tives and the prospect of renewed con-
be trusted on the battlefield because they tracts, rather than conventional military
lack accountability.They are not subject to punishments. But even if they were less
courts-martial, and are often also able accountable than professional militaries,
to avoid the legal systems of both their this would be compensated for by their
employing country and the country they increased professionalism; PMCs tend to
P R I VAT E M I L I TA RY C O R P O R AT I O N S , B A N N I N G O F 77

are in. This means that their incentive draw from the highest ranks of former
structure is even more strongly geared Special Forces, and so their staff are all
towards self-protection at the expense of highly trained and committed.
observing the rules which are essential for
[3] Private military corporations did for-
ethical conduct on the battlefield. There
merly exist in something of a legal black
is thus a much greater risk of their attack-
hole, but these gaps have now been closed.
ing civilians and even committing crimes
For instance, contractors are now subject
against humanity.
to the US Uniform Code of Military
[3] Private military corporations and Justice, and when operating in Iraq, the
their employees are often not bound by laws of the host country. Blackwater has
national and international law, and are also been subject to numerous lawsuits and
far removed from the PR issues faced by criminal charges for its actions in Iraq, and
military forces; this allows the nations in 2010 paid out US$42 million to settle
employing them to get them to do things claims that it had acted illegally in
that would be unacceptable if done by smuggling weapons overseas.
national armies. For instance, whereas
[4] Dictators and warlords will always be
British soldiers are now subject to the
able to hire mercenaries or recruit people
European Convention on Human Rights,
with the promise of a commercial pay-
the same does not apply to PMCs. They
off, whether PMCs help them or not.
were heavily involved in the Abu Ghraib
Regardless, most PMCs which operate
prison torture scandal in Iraq, as many
with Western governments will not also
operations there had been contracted out
work with more dubious governments,
to PMCs.
because this might create conflicts of
[4] Many dangerous and evil governments interest or expose them to bad press, and
are able to use PMCs for their nefarious such work is much less lucrative than their
purposes, even when their militaries are core contracts.
weak. This is because they will act for
anyone, regardless of the morality of their
Possible motions
cause.
This House would ban private military com-
panies.
This House believes that governments should
not hire mercenaries.

Related topics
Pacifism
Armaments, limitations on conventional
National service, (re)introduction of
Women fighting on the frontline
United Nations standing army
T E R R O R I S T S , N E G OT I AT I O N W I T H 81

is simply not credibly created unless it is

Possible motions supported by a real risk of attack, which in
This House believes that terrorism is justifiable turn requires that at some point an attack
in pursuit of a just cause. takes place. A terrorist group that only
This House supports Palestinian/Basque/Tamil ever made threats would hardly be feared.
terrorism.

Related topics
Civil disobedience
Pacifism
Dictators, assassination of
Terrorists, negotiation with
Terrorist suspects, torture of

Terrorists, negotiation with

Unlike the ‘justifiability of terrorism debate’, this debate does become more definitional.
That is because there are some terrorist groups with whom negotiation seems almost
inevitable (Hamas, for instance, is also the elected Palestinian government), but others
with whom it seems absurd (Al-Qaeda does not have a set of well-defined aims that
lend themselves to a sensible compromise, but demands a restoration of Islamic law
stretching from Spain to China).This debate, therefore, rests on the ability of both sides
to move away from reductive examples and focus on the general principles of the
debate, rather than simply trading case studies.

Pros Cons
[1] Negotiation may lead to lives being [1] ‘Political prisoners’ tend to be impri-
saved, and this must be any government’s soned terrorists who will kill again on
first priority. Hostages tend to be civilians, their release, so any hostages saved in the
who are not the property of the govern- present must be weighed against probable
ment to be sacrificed for other matters. If future casualties. Second, there is no
the price to pay for their safety is the guarantee that hostages will not be killed
release of ‘political’ prisoners, it is cheap. anyway once the terrorists’ demands are
For instance, Israel’s trading of Gilad Shalit met.The Gilad Shalit swap will ultimately
for 1,100 Palestinian prisoners (in 2011) lead to loss of life; Israel had been highly
was ultimately worth it, because it saved a successful in removing Palestinian terror-
life. ists’ bomb-makers, many of whom have
now been sent back to start their work
[2] Negotiation in its simplest form means
again.
‘talking to’. We must keep an open dia-
logue with terrorist groups, to understand [2] Keeping an open dialogue with terror-
them and encourage them to take part in ist groups gives them political legitimacy
82 T E R R O R I S T S , N E G OT I AT I O N W I T H

the political process without arms. Nego- that they do not deserve. It is better to
tiation does not automatically require have no relationship whatsoever with
concessions, but can simply offer a basis on them until they renounce violence, in
which to air grievances, which may lead order to show that they are voluntarily
to greater understanding. excluding themselves from democracy.
[3] In many cases, terrorists are simply an [3] By negotiating with terrorists, we
unavoidable part of the political reality of reduce the political power of leaders on
engaging with a particular group which the other side who do renounce violence.
may have legitimate grievances.Where are One of the reasons that it often feels like
the Palestinian leaders who have had no the only leaders of a particular cause are
involvement with terrorism? Or the Tamil terrorists is that a policy of negotiating
ones? It must be possible to make peace with them means they are the ones who
with these broad ethnic groups, and that get results. When that is stopped, non-
requires engaging with their terrorist violent actors become more powerful,
leaders. because they too can get concessions.
[4] Negotiating with terrorists helps to [4] Terrorist groups never focus their
improve their conduct after a peace deal, efforts on politics; they always remain
and make them into more viable political primarily about violence, because that is
forces for power sharing. If a terrorist ultimately what they think they require to
organisation needs to negotiate, it must win concessions. Their engagement with
also form a political wing, and start think- politics is superficial. It is far better to
ing about its policy priorities, rather than require them to give up arms altogether
mere violence. Thus, when peace comes, first, so that they may then genuinely
it is a more effective partner and represen- transfer energies towards coherent policy
tative of a certain set of interests. formation.

Possible motions
This House would negotiate with terrorists.
This House would require all terrorist groups to
renounce violence before negotiation.

Related topics
Civil disobedience
Terrorism, justifiability of
Terrorist suspects, torture of
SECTION D

Economics
BONUSES, BANNING OF 91

Bonuses, banning of

This debate will inevitably tend to focus on bankers, because their bonuses tend to cause
such uproar in the media, but bonuses are also a very common way of remunerating all
sorts of executives. Many states have taken steps to limit bonuses, both in state-owned
banks (especially the UK) and private sector ones too (e.g. Switzerland). Bonuses can
come in cash or shares; the latter can be less desirable to CEOs especially, as they are
often prevented from selling them for a limited period. Inevitably, steps might be taken
to evade such limits.

Pros Cons
[1] Bonuses are an unjust reward fre- [1] Bonuses do represent a genuine and
quently given for not really creating any deserved reward. It is a misconception that
genuine value. Often, they have become they are especially generous payments for
totally divorced from performance, and are exceptional success; rather, they are just a
given even in years where companies make form of performance-related pay. While
huge losses. Some contracts even contain they are paid in loss-making years, that is
‘guaranteed’ bonuses, which misses the because particular individuals or teams
point of them completely; they should be have generated income for a business;
special rewards, not ‘par for the course’. they are not to blame for the firm’s entire
performance.
[2] Bonuses skew the incentives of those
who are dependent on them, encouraging [2] Bonuses align incentives perfectly
them to take absurd risks.This is because with the firm’s overall goals. Companies
they require the banker not just to per- should take risks, and that is healthy.
form well, but to outperform his/her Indeed, paying only a flat salary is much
colleagues; this means that s/he might more problematic, because workers have
gamble on dangerous products that may no incentive to do more than the basic
not be in the company’s interests; invest- requirements of their job. Moreover, as
ment in sub-prime mortgages is the prime this policy requires firms to increase base
example of this. salaries, they will suffer major cash-flow
problems, as they will now have much
[3] Bonuses encourage a focus on the
higher base costs even when not making
short term. As they are calculated at the
profits.
end of each financial year, the goal is to
earn as much money as possible in that [3] Only badly designed bonuses create a
time; as such, there is a total disregard for focus on the short term. But with ‘claw-
investments which may not mature for a backs’ or bonuses paid based on long-term
number of years, and also no qualms about performance of an investment, executives
assets that might rise slowly for five years are encouraged to look into the future.
and then crash catastrophically. No one This is particularly so where compensa-
gets their bonus in previous years taken tion is in the form of shares, as then
back, so such investments are still winners personal wealth is directly linked to the
for the bankers. company’s value.
92 CHILD L ABOUR CAN BE JUSTIFIED

[4] It is not at all easy to get round a ban [4] Such a ban is laughably easy to evade.
on bonuses; financial regulators are highly Firms will simply rename bonuses, or
‘savvy’, and can spot and punish attempts come up with more creative ways of pay-
at circumventing the ban. ing them; for instance, the use of company
cars or jets, or ‘gifts’ of high-value objects
like works of art. Moreover, base salaries
Possible motions
could simply be linked to past years’
This House would ban bonuses.
performance, which has exactly the same
This House believes that bankers do not deserve
effect.
what they get.

Related topics
Capitalism v. socialism
Salary capping, mandatory
Failing companies, bailing out

Child labour can be justified

Child labour is often a taboo; in the words of the International Labour Organization
(ILO), what it does to victims is ‘deprive them of the chance to be children’. However,
it has also been exceptionally common throughout history; until the twentieth century,
even in Western Europe, most children worked, albeit part-time. This debate has two
strands; first, whether even at its best, child labour could be justified; and second, whether
given the said reality that many children who ‘labour’ are in fact slaves, measures ought
to be taken against it. It can be an analysis debate about whether child labour is right, an
individual choice debate about buying goods produced with child labour, or a policy
debate about legalisation. For the most part, the focus is on the developing world.

Pros Cons
[1] There is no principled barrier to chil- [1] We are all entitled to a period of life
dren going out to work; the ages of 16 or where we are free from the stresses and
18 are arbitrary limits, and many children strains of ‘real’ life, and have the chance to
are ready for work before this.The refusal grow and personally develop. Children do
to use child labour is based on an overly not have the strength or stamina to do
sentimental idea of childhood, rather than full-time work; these are objective facts,
on a realisation that the culturally accepted and not cross-cultural variations.
age of adulthood varies hugely by country;
[2] It is a caricature to paint developing
if anything, preventing children from
countries as lacking education systems;
working is cultural imperialism.
most do, and progress is rapid. Between
[2] In many developing countries, educa- 2000 and 2008, the enrolment rate in
tion systems are minimal, and are certainly primary education globally rose from 80
CHILD L ABOUR CAN BE JUSTIFIED 93

not free or affordable for most people. per cent to 89 per cent, and this is the
Here, the alternative to child labour is not one of the United Nations Millennium
education; rather, it is an empty, pointless Development Goals that has been broadly
existence, which would be made better if successful. If child labour is encouraged,
children could start getting good work more parents will take their children out
habits and skills. of school to work, undermining this
progress.
[3] In many cases, child labour is the only
route out of poverty for families. Where [3] Child labour is not a viable or helpful
there is a lack of state benefits, if the route out of poverty. First, because it pays
primary bread-winner becomes ill or dies, very poorly, it rarely offers much to
then children may need to go out to work families anyway. Second, it hurts children’s
to support their families. Alternatively, long-term financial prospects, because
when wages are simply too low, it may educated children will earn more.Third, it
take more than parents working to sup- may act as a smokescreen for a failure to
port a large family. Children may also be provide adequate foreign aid to alleviate
needed to help their families with agri- this poverty.
cultural work.
[4] Child labour is very hard to regulate,
[4] The legalisation of child labour would and child workers are easy to use, because
bring it out of the criminal underworld in they cannot speak out. This means that
which it presently operates, and improve child labour will always be closely asso-
it. It is inevitable that desperate children ciated with slavery, abuse and the use of
and families will want to engage in child children for dangerous work. Legalisation
labour, and so it is better to stop it being a would not have stopped recent labour
black-market activity in which children abuses, but does increase the group of
are used in dangerous mining activities, children who can be abused.
as in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.

Possible motions
This House would buy goods made with child
labour.
This House believes child labour is morally
acceptable.
This House supports child labour.

Related topics
Fairtrade, we should not support
Welfare state
Mandatory retirement age
Smacking, remove parents’ right to
SECTION E

Social, moral and religious

ABORTION ON DEMAND 109

Abortion on demand

Abortion was always considered sinful, and was criminalised in Britain and most states
of the USA in the nineteenth century. Backstreet abortions became a usual way to limit
the size of families. In Britain, the 1967 Abortion Act legalised abortion when it was
advised by a doctor on medical grounds. In the USA, the Roe v. Wade case of 1973 in
the Supreme Court set down the principle that in the first three months, abortion is to
be allowed; and in the second trimester, it is to be allowed if it is required in the interests
of maternal health. In neither country is ‘abortion on demand’ – abortions undertaken
principally as a form of birth-control at the wish of the pregnant woman – officially
allowed, but doctors (especially those in private clinics) will happily certify that carrying
the pregnancy to term would cause severe mental distress to the woman. In many
Catholic countries, abortion is still illegal.

Pros Cons
[1] It is a woman’s right to decide, in con- [1] The right to do as we wish to our
junction with the father when appro- bodies must be curtailed by the rights of
priate, whether she wishes to have a baby. others to be free from harm. In many
It is her body and she ultimately should instances, the right to do as we wish to our
control what happens to it. It is people, not body is overruled; for example, drug laws
fertilised eggs or foetuses, that have exist to guard against making a person a
‘rights’. danger to others by altering their mind
with drugs. In this case, the mother’s rights
[2] If abortion is not allowed on demand, are overruled by the right to life of the
women will go to ‘backstreet abortionists’ unborn child.
where lack of expertise and unsterile
conditions can be a serious risk to health. [2] One could argue against banning
Such backstreet abortions result in an anything on the grounds that people will
estimated 68,000 deaths per year, accord- carry on doing it on the black market.
ing to recent World Health Organization Abortion is morally wrong and banning it
(WHO) figures. will reduce the number of abortions that
occur.
[3] There is no definitive answer as to
when a foetus becomes a person in its [3] A foetus can survive if born prema-
own right, but up to 24–28 weeks, the turely from as early as 20 weeks, and this
foetus is so undeveloped that it is not boundary is being made earlier all the
time by improved incubator technology.
reasonable to consider it a person and to
Given that we cannot be sure at what
accord it rights.
point a foetus is a person or can feel pain,
[4] In many areas of the world where we should err on the side of caution and
overpopulation and chronic food shortage consider the foetus a person from con-
are perennial problems, abortion helps ception or shortly afterwards. Abortion,
prevent bringing children into the world therefore, is murder.
110 ABORTION ON DEMAND

who would probably know only depriva- [4] We can address overpopulation in the
tion, illness, starvation and early death. developing world with other measures
such as increased availability of contracep-
[5] In an increasingly secular and scientific
tion as well as economic and technical aid
world, the religious views of some people
programmes.
about the infusion of a foetus with a soul
by God at conception, for example, should [5] Human life is sacred, as is recognised
not be imposed upon the rest of society. by the billions of adherents of the main
world religions. God creates each individ-
[6] Many young girls who become preg-
ual at conception and so abortion is
nant would have their future, their edu-
murder, and an act against the will of God
cation, their family relationships and their
that destroys God’s work.
career ruined by the birth of a child.
Others are pregnant as the result of rape or [6] Young people should be encouraged to
incest and would have their suffering have a more responsible attitude to sex
multiplied indefinitely by carrying the and pregnancy, and should deal with the
child to term. We cannot put the alleged consequences of their actions whatever
‘rights’ of a dividing cluster of cells ahead they may be.There are even schools now
of such concrete harm to a person. specifically for teenage mothers and their
babies to attend. In cases of rape or incest,
[7] We allow contraception.Abortion is, in
either the child can immediately be put up
effect, no different – the prevention of the
for adoption, or exceptions could be made
development of a potential human being.
just in these distressing instances.
In the case of the ‘morning after pill’, the
analogy is even closer. If we allow these [7] Barrier methods of contraception
measures, then we should also allow (condom, cap) are qualitatively different
abortion. from abortion in that no fertilised egg ever
exists to be destroyed. Other methods
(coil,‘morning after’ pill) that are logically
Possible motions
equivalent to abortion should not be
This House would put the mother first.
allowed.
This House believes that the unborn child has
no rights.
This House believes that a woman’s body is her
temple.

Related topics
Population control
Euthanasia, legalisation of
Surrogate mothers, payment of
Sex education
Contraception for under-age girls
A LC O H O L , P R O H I B I T I O N O F 113

Alcohol, prohibition of

This debate looks at whether the government should intervene to stop the social and
health problems related to alcohol, or whether people should be allowed to make their
own decisions in relation to drinking.A Proposition team may want to think about the
enforcement and penalties attached to the policy as most people are familiar with the
failure of Prohibition in the USA.

Pros Cons
[1] Statistics show undeniably that alcohol [1] Alcohol is a factor in crime and can
plays a role in many crimes. In the UK, it cause social problems. However, the vast
is a factor in 65 per cent of murders, 40 per majority of those who consume alcohol
cent of cases of domestic violence, and do so responsibly – for them, drinking is
a third of all cases of child abuse; the a harmless and pleasurable activity, which
Association of Chief Police Officers puts adds to their enjoyment of social events.
the proportion of violent crime that is Alcohol abuse should be tackled; to
alcohol-related at about 70 per cent. penalise the majority for the actions of a
Studies state that 80 per cent of people minority is not the solution. Prohibition
treated in accident and emergency depart- would be a ham-fisted and overly simplis-
ments are there because of alcohol use, tic way to deal with a complex issue.
with 10 people killed through drink- [2] While the state has the right to act
driving every week and thousands per- against citizens when their actions are
manently scarred every year in drunken causing harm to others – as it does at the
fights. Drinking while pregnant harms an moment when drinking leads to violence
unborn baby. The government must or public nuisance – it does not have the
intervene in response to these horrifying right to interfere in their private lives.
statistics by banning alcohol consumption. Drinking may carry a health risk for the
[2] As well as posing a risk to others, individual, yet so do many legal activities,
alcohol also harms the user, increasing the including most forms of sport; moreover,
likelihood of liver failure, some forms of alcohol differs from most illegal drugs,
cancer and involvement in accidents. because responsible usage in moderation is
Alcohol is also linked to high blood neither addictive nor harmful (indeed,
pressure, strokes and heart disease.Alcohol some medical research implies that it can
abuse can also have serious psychological do you good).
effects. It is a common misconception that [3] Alcohol cannot be treated in the same
alcohol is not physiologically addictive, way as other drugs. After thousands of
but regular use can result in a physical years, drink plays an important role in our
dependence, with all the problems that social lives, and even in religion; many of
implies. As an addict cannot truly be said our social structures have been built up
to be exercising ‘free choice’, the state has around it. Many businesses would collapse
an even stronger right to intervene. with an alcohol ban. As Prohibition in
114 A LC O H O L , P R O H I B I T I O N O F

[3] As alcohol is a harmful and addictive America (1920–33) demonstrated, any

drug, our treatment of it should be the such legislation cannot work – instead, it
same as our treatment of cocaine or drives ordinary citizens into the hands of
heroin. Moreover, alcohol is for many criminals, and encourages experimenta-
addicts the first drug on the path to ever tion with other drugs.
harder drugs. Removing this first link in
[4] To say that alcohol is the root cause
the chain may be an important step to
of many social ills is a dangerous over-
solving the drug problem altogether.
simplification – rather, it is the result of
[4] A great deal of money and effort is those ills.Throughout history, it has been
directed towards solving the problems convenient for politicians and moralists to
caused by drink. Surely it would be wiser blame drink for ‘corrupting’ citizens. From
to focus efforts on eradicating the root the time of Hogarth’s Gin Lane through to
cause of these problems? Victorian England, it was seen as one of
the most significant dangers facing society,
[5] Many countries, especially in Northern
yet this was simply to ignore the funda-
Europe, are seeing binge drinking on the
mental injustices that drove the poor and
increase, with a particular rise in young
the desperate to alcoholism. It is these that
people and women drinking specifically to
we must tackle.
get drunk. This is leading to a situation
where town centres are taken over on [5] There are other ways of reducing binge
Friday and Saturday nights by drunken drinking without banning alcohol out-
revelry and anti-social behaviour. When right for everyone, which would be a
they sober up, intoxicated drinkers regret serious infringement on liberty. Increasing
their actions, which can include casual, the price of alcohol, raising the drinking
unprotected sex. Sexually transmitted age, limiting the measures of alcohol served
disease (STDs) and teenage pregnancy and restricting licensing hours could all be
rates could be slashed by banning alcohol. used to tackle problem drinking.

Possible motions
This House would ban all alcoholic drinks.
This House believes that alcohol is a scourge on
society.

Related topics
Protective legislation v. individual freedom
Drugs, legalisation of
Smoking, banning of
Organ donation: priority for healthy lifestyle
A N I M A L E X P E R I M E N TAT I O N A N D V I V I S E C T I O N , B A N N I N G O F 115

Animal experimentation and vivisection, banning of

Human treatment of animals can be a highly emotive subject. A dolphin trapped and
killed in a trawler net, a rat deliberately mutated by genetic engineering, a red deer
hunted to the point of terrified exhaustion and shot, a rabbit with eyes and skin blistered
from chemical and cosmetic tests, a captive lion robotically pacing its tiny cage at the
circus or zoo – all of these are distressing images that arise in the context of debates
about the human treatment of animals. But what are the arguments behind these
emotional appeals? The Australian philosopher Peter Singer was one of the first, in the
1970s, to argue that animals have rights and that they should be treated with the respect
due to a human animal.This is still a contentious claim, but one that more and more
people seem to accept.The arguments on ‘animal rights’ in Section A consider whether
animals have rights, and whether, if they do, we should be doing more to recognise and
respect those rights. We currently use animals from bacteria to primates in many
different ways – for food, clothing, entertainment in circuses and zoos, medical
experiments, biotechnology (e.g. using bacteria to synthesise human hormones) and
cosmetic testing; in sports such as greyhound racing and horse racing, and even as
objects of ‘field sports’ such as fishing, shooting, foxhunting and hare-coursing. Some
would argue that all of these uses of animals are wrong and that they should never be
used as a means to a human end. Others would take the opposite view that it is right
and natural for us to use other species for our own benefit, and that this is indeed the
key to our continuing evolutionary success. This debate and the other debates on
animals weigh up the pros and cons of our treatment of animals in various contexts. A
debate on animal experimentation could be on cosmetic testing only or on medical
testing.The arguments here focus on medical testing.

Pros Cons
[1]Vivisection involves the exploitation and [1] On principle, it is right and natural that
torturing of innocent animals to benefit we humans study, use and exploit the
humans, and this is wrong on principle. natural environment for our own benefit.
Mice are bred to be susceptible to skin That is the way that our species has come
cancer, exposed to high levels of radiation to thrive and prosper and it is right that we
and allowed to die. Rats are genetically should continue to do so through experi-
engineered to grow full-size human ears on mentation on and exploitation of both
their backs, and baboons are deliberately vegetable and animal resources. Animals
infected with the HIV virus. No economic are not people and do not have ‘rights’,
or medical gain can justify such cruel and and anthropomorphic sentimentality
cynical exploitation of our animal cousins. should not get in the way of scientific
More advanced mammals – especially and medical progress.
primates (monkeys and apes) – have com- [2] Experimentation on animals saves lives.
plex nervous systems like ours and are Animal experimentation and research have
similarly susceptible to pain and fear. historically produced innumerable medical
116 A N I M A L E X P E R I M E N TAT I O N A N D V I V I S E C T I O N , B A N N I N G O F

[2] The successes, necessity and efficiency and scientific breakthroughs that could
of animal research have been greatly not have been made in any other ways;
exaggerated. In fact, vivisection is wasteful, experiments on cows were instrumental in
inefficient and often unsuccessful, as well developing the vaccine that eliminated
as being cruel. In the USA alone, an smallpox worldwide; experiments on dogs
estimated 50–60 million animals are killed in the 1920s led to the discovery of insulin
annually in the name of scientific research, for the treatment of diabetics; genetic
but with highly unreliable results. Half of experimentation on mice and primates is
the drugs given approval in the USA by currently helping to develop gene therapy
the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) for cystic fibrosis. Animals from mice to
between 1976 and 1985, all of which had primates to humans share the same essen-
been tested on animals, produced side- tial biology and physiology (with analo-
effects in humans serious enough to cause gous organs, nervous systems, immune
them to be taken off the market or re- systems and hormones).
labelled with warnings; the Thalidomide [3] There are no alternatives to animals
disaster in the late 1950s and early 1960s for research into complex immunologi-
is another such case. This is because cal, neurological and genetic diseases.
vivisection is flawed as a scientific method. Computer simulations are only applicable
One species (e.g. rats, rabbits or dogs) to simple conditions of which we have full
cannot serve as a reliable experimental understanding. In more complex cases,
model for another (humans); penicillin is our lack of understanding of the diseases
fatal to guinea pigs, for example. (e.g. AIDS, cancer, muscular dystrophy)
[3] There are more humane and more means we must experiment either on
efficient alternatives to vivisection. For animals or on humans. People cannot be
example, in the ‘Entex test’, vegetable expected to volunteer as guinea pigs for
proteins extracted from the jack bean untested drugs at all stages of their
mimic the cornea’s reaction to foreign development.
matter and so can be used in the place of [4] Scientists and laboratories can and
live rabbits to test for the eye irritancy of should be protected, but we should not
products. Tissue and cell cultures can be compromise the development of lifesaving
grown in the laboratory from stem cells or drugs because of the threats and intimi-
single cells from humans or animals – dation of terrorist groups.
these can be used for tests in the place of
live animals. Computer simulations of
diseases and drug treatments can also be
used in the place of vivisection. These
technologies are improving all the time.
[4] Scientists are put in danger when they
are asked to work in laboratories where
animal testing occurs.The Animal Libera-
tion Front claimed responsibility for fire-
bombing labs and attacking researchers’
D R U G S , L E G A L I S AT I O N O F 117

homes and cars in 2006. It is not accept-

able to ask civilians to expose themselves Possible motions
to this risk and make themselves a target. This House would ban all animal testing.
This House would put science ahead of animal
welfare.
This House believes that no cosmetic products
should be tested on animals.

Related topics
Animal rights
Blood sports, abolition of
Vegetarianism
Zoos, abolition of

Drugs, legalisation of

The legalisation of drugs has long been an important issue, but in recent years, it has
taken on a global dimension.‘Plan Colombia’, a scheme to encourage lawful enterprises
in Colombia, has largely defeated the drug cartels in that country, but at the same time
Mexico has collapsed into lawlessness at the hands of gangs.As well as the general debate
about legalising all drugs, debates may arise about legalising specific drugs, or about
more creative policies such as the legalisation of drugs within certain areas.

Pros Cons
[1] The role of legislation is to protect [1] It is right that governments should
society from harm, but not to protect legislate in a way that overrides personal
people from themselves. We do not legi- freedom to protect people from them-
slate against fatty foods or lack of exercise, selves as well as from each other. That is
both of which have serious health impli- why bare-knuckle boxing is banned and
cations. The individual’s freedom is para- seatbelts are compulsory in some coun-
mount unless serious harm is done by a tries (e.g. Britain).These are ways in which
particular act. Taking soft drugs does not personal freedom is overridden by legisla-
harm anybody else and has only minimal tion designed to protect personal safety.
negative effects on the person taking them Soft drugs are harmful; cannabis smoke
– it is a ‘victimless crime’. As such, it (as well as the tobacco with which it is
should not be a crime at all. often mixed) is carcinogenic, and pro-
[2] Individuals should be left to choose longed cannabis smoking has been shown
their own lifestyle and priorities. If that to cause brain damage and significant loss
includes using drugs for pleasure and of motivation and short-term memory.
relaxation, then that is a perfectly valid Amphetamines interfere with the nervous
decision. system in a potentially damaging way.
118 D R U G S , L E G A L I S AT I O N O F

[3] The law is currently inconsistent. Drug-takers also put others at risk by
Cannabis and speed have comparable taking mind-altering substances that can
physical and mental effects to those of lead to unpredictable and dangerous
alcohol and tobacco, which are legal behaviour.
drugs. If anything, alcohol and tobacco
[2] The government should provide moral
have more seriously damaging effects.
leadership as well as legislating to pro-
Tobacco-related diseases kill millions each
tect the health of the individual and the
year, and alcohol is responsible for deaths
safety of others.The drug-using lifestyle is
on the road, civil disorder and domestic
a shallow, hedonistic, apathetic, inward-
violence on a huge scale. Cannabis and
looking, uncreative form of escapism.
speed make people ‘spaced out’ or hyper-
Governments should legislate and speak
active, respectively, for short periods in
out against drugs to discourage young
social situations and are relatively harm-
people from this lifestyle and encourage
less. If alcohol and tobacco are legal, then
them to engage in healthier and more
soft drugs should be too.
creative pastimes.
[4] Legalisation allows for the creation of
[3] The effects of soft drugs may be
regulated environments in which drugs
‘comparable’ with those of alcohol and
can be sold and taken; this has manifold
tobacco, but there are important differ-
benefits. First, it means that the state can
ences. Cannabis and speed are mind-
monitor what goes into drugs, so that they
altering in a way that alcohol and tobacco
are not ‘cut’ with more harmful substances
are not. The fact that harmful and dan-
(such as, for instance, crushed glass which
gerous substances (tobacco and alcohol)
dealers often mix with cocaine). Second,
are already, regrettably, socially entrenched
it means that drug addiction can be treated
is not a good reason to allow two more
as a medical rather than a legal issue, and
such substances to become more widely
so addicts can get better help and support;
used and socially acceptable.
needle exchanges for heroin users, for
instance, can be very helpful. Third, it [4] Regulation can control for certain
allows the state to make tax revenue from effects of drugs, but ultimately it cannot
drugs, to recoup the costs of any social side-step the central problem, which is
damage that is done. that drugs are harmful. Rather than being
facilitated in their addictions, individuals
[5] Legalising drugs breaks the power of
should be discouraged from ever using
drug cartels that are destroying states
drugs, and the state should do whatever it
around the world. Gangs have become so
can to stop them getting involved, especi-
powerful in Mexico that they effectively
ally as softer drugs can act as a ‘gateway’ to
have overrun law enforcement and large
harder ones, exposing young people to the
swathes of local government, forming
huge harm of a heroin or crack addiction.
their own private militias; they are funded
and sustained in this by their monopoly [5] Even if illegality helps to explain the
on supply lines of drugs into the USA, power of drug gangs, there is no evidence
which can only pass through criminal that legalisation would in fact help to
gangs because drugs are illegal. weaken them. Now that they have such
G AY M A R R I AG E , L E G A L I S I N G O F 121

to their family. If it is an option, is it not

Possible motions selfish not to take it? It is better to provide
This House would legalise voluntary euthanasia. palliative care and counselling to help
This House believes in the right to die. patient and family manage their natural
This House would assist suicide. time together.

Related topics
Protective legislation v. individual freedom
Abortion on demand
Organs, legal sale of

Gay marriage, legalising of

A bill was passed through the House of Commons to legalise gay marriage in February
2013, but it remains a controversial topic in the UK and around the world. Many
countries have now legalised it including the Netherlands, Spain and Canada, and it is
legal in nine US states. Supporters of gay marriage see it as an important factor in equal
rights, whereas its opponents see marriage as an inherently heterosexual union. A
Proposition team may want to consider whether it would force religious institutions to
marry gay couples, or whether it simply wants the union to be legally recognised where
it is performed voluntarily by religious leaders or in civil ceremonies.

Pros Cons
[1] To complete the worldwide move- [1] The equality of homosexuals with
ment towards equal rights for homo- other members of society is achieved by
sexuals in society, we should allow decriminalising homosexual activity and
homosexual couples the right to a public allowing equal opportunities to homo-
legal and religious recognition of their sexuals in terms of education and employ-
lifelong loving commitment to one ment rights. Supporting gay rights does
another. Homosexuals, as equal members not mean ignoring the obvious differences
of society, should have equal access to between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
both civil and religious forms of marriage. Marriage is historically and logically a
heterosexual institution, the extension of
[2] Whatever its historical roots, marriage
which to homosexual couples would be
is clearly not just for the purpose of repro-
meaningless and perhaps even a misrepre-
duction. Infertile heterosexual couples are
sentation of their distinct identity.
allowed to marry; therefore, homosexual
couples should be allowed to marry. [2] Marriage is primarily an institution to
Homosexual couples, like heterosexual allow for the creation of children in a
couples, may wish to marry as a prelude to stable family environment. Homosexual
adopting or fostering children, and this couples can never produce a family and to
should be encouraged as part of a modern allow them to marry is to overlook the
122 G AY M A R R I AG E , L E G A L I S I N G O F

understanding of the family and of family history and meaning of marriage. We

values. can endorse their love for one another
without pretending that they are just like
[3] Society has always been able to adapt
a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, their
religious teachings and develop interpre-
relationships, not being child-producing,
tations of religious principles proper to
do not need the same permanence for the
each new era. Religions should respond
sake of children that a marriage provides.
positively to the role that homosexual
couples can play in communities. Those [3] Marriage is primarily a religious insti-
sectors of religious communities that con- tution and all the main religions condemn
demn homosexuality outright will simply homosexuality. It would be hypocritical of
find themselves increasingly marginalised the Jewish and Christian communities to
as society progresses. Those homosexuals endorse homosexual marriage when their
who wish to marry may choose, in any sacred scriptures condemn homosexuality.
case, to reject the homophobic religious
[4] The financial advantages offered to
traditions and marry in a civil ceremony.
married couples are not to encourage
[4] Many societies give certain financial marriage for its own sake, but to encour-
advantages to married couples – e.g. tax age the creation of traditional family units.
allowances. To deny these advantages to Child-support payments and tax relief on
committed homosexual couples is an mortgages serve the same purpose – to
unjustifiable case of discrimination on the encourage the creation of stable family
grounds of sexual orientation. homes. It is this that society seeks to
encourage, not sexual unions per se.
[5] It is circular to argue that homosexuals
are not parents and so are not candidates [5] Homosexuals, by definition, will not
for financial rewards open to parents. If produce children, and so are not appro-
homosexuals were routinely allowed to priate candidates for financial incentives to
adopt and foster children, then it would be home-making and the maintenance of
appropriate to reward and encourage family values.
stable homosexual family homes with
financial incentives.What we want to see
Possible motions
is a reinvention of ‘family values’ in which
This House would legalise gay marriage,
homosexuals can marry, be parents, and
This House celebrates homosexual home-
receive the same rights and benefits as
makers.
their heterosexual counterparts.
This House demands new family values.
This House believes that marriage should only
be a union between a man and a woman.

Related topics
God, existence of
Homosexuals, ordination of
Homosexuals, outing of
Marriage
Polygamy, legalisation of
GOD, EXISTENCE OF 123

God, existence of

It is commonly held in educated Western culture that religious belief is irrational and
unsubstantiated. But can all the great geniuses of Christianity and other religions
throughout the ages have simply been mistaken, not to mention the billions of religious
believers worldwide today? Some twentieth-century theologians, such as Paul Tillich,
have redefined God as ‘the ground of being’, in an attempt to get away from simplistic
and anthropomorphic conceptions of God as a very powerful person, or even as an old
man with a long beard. Does this idea of God make any sense? Can traditional
conceptions of a personal, intelligent, benevolent Creator God be rejuvenated? Or is all
talk of God rendered meaningless in a modern scientific world?

Pros Cons
[1] The universe is governed by natural [1] We do not need God to explain natural
laws and forces that seem to be the laws and forces – they would simply have
product of an intelligent mind.That mind to exist for us to be here at all and for
is God, who created the universe.This fact there to be a universe. The fact that we
of the universe’s dependence on God is find laws and forces should not, therefore,
expressed in the Genesis myth of the be a source of surprise.The universe being
Jewish and Christian traditions, and in a ‘brute fact’ that we cannot explain is a
other myths around the world. more intellectually honest answer than
inventing a supernatural Creator.
[2] Unlike other animals, we are moral
beings with consciences. This is because [2] Moral rules are created by human
we were created by God, who is a moral communities so that people can live har-
being who set down the moral as well as moniously with one another. They vary
the natural law. from culture to culture and are merely
[3] Around 40 per cent of people in human constructions. It is a mistake to
Britain report having had a ‘religious take moral feelings – the result of the
experience’ of some kind in which they moral rules set down by a group of people
were aware of a power greater than – to be the result of the existence of
themselves or of a supernatural personal something supernatural.
being. People have had such experiences [3] Such feelings and experiences can be
throughout history of the ‘numinous’, the explained in terms of natural psycho-
‘sublime’ and the divine. It is arrogant logical needs and of brain processes. It is
to think that we can write off all these no coincidence that Christians, but not
experiences as being entirely mistaken. Buddhists, have religious visions of Christ
[4] The fact that there are saints in the or of the Virgin Mary. These experiences
world capable of supreme charity, devo- are the product of religious teaching and
tion and healing (such as the late Mother often also of sensory deprivation: use of
Teresa of Calcutta) reveals that there is a drugs, sleep deprivation, fasting, medita-
124 GOD, EXISTENCE OF

source of ultimate love to which humans tion or other deliberately mind-altering

have access (God) and which can triumph practices.
over human evil and selfishness. Evil in the
[4] Human beings are so selfish and, often,
world is a result of human disobedience to
evil in their dealings with nature and each
God, as symbolised in the story of the Fall
other, that it is impossible to believe that a
of Adam and Eve from their original state
loving God exists. Why would a loving
of innocence. Natural suffering, such as
God allow the sexual abuse of children,
famine, is a sign that the world may be
the starvation of innocents in Africa or the
disobedient, but it is also free. God’s love
Nazi Holocaust? On top of the evil per-
and forgiveness could make no sense in a
petrated by humans there is the suffering
world without freedom for humanity and
of animals in nature and that of people in
for nature.
natural disasters such as famines, earth-
[5] The universe, like everything else, must quakes and floods. The natural world as
have a meaning, purpose and destiny. It is much as the human world reveals indiffer-
God who provides and guarantees that ence and evil as much as goodness or
meaning and purpose to the universe and divinity.
to individual people. The universe and
[5] The universe is ultimately meaningless.
humanity can be redeemed in the end by
We have limited mental powers and there
the love of God.There is objective mean-
is no rational way for us to find meaning
ing and redemption above individual
in the ‘brute fact’ of the universe’s exis-
human lives – there is a greater cosmic
tence. Also, the strong link made by
process of which we can have intimations
modern brain science between what used
through belief in God.
to be called the ‘soul’ and the brain makes
it impossible that we could exist in any
Possible motions form after our death.
This House believes that God is not dead.
This House believes that God created the world.
This House believes in God.

Related topics
Churches in politics
Disestablishment of the Church of England
Homosexuals, ordination of
Religious teaching in schools
H O LO C AU S T D E N I A L , C R I M I N A L I S AT I O N O F 125

Holocaust denial, criminalisation of

In spite of the obvious and incontrovertible evidence that the Holocaust was one of the
most horrific events in human history, there remains a small number of radical neo-Nazi
politicians, historians and their supporters who seek to deny that the Holocaust took
place. It cannot be stressed enough that this is not a debate about that question, but about
whether denying the Holocaust ought to be illegal.That is already the position in 17
European countries (most notably, Germany and France), and the EU has called for
others to follow suit. In recent years, the view has also become popular in the Middle
East as part of a political narrative about Israel, and has been prominently expressed by
former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Pros Cons
[1] The Holocaust is not up for debate; it [1] While it cannot be disputed that the
happened, and the evidence is incon- Holocaust took place, this does not mean
trovertible.Where such a historical fact is there is no room for an important and
so well established, no useful purpose can useful historical debate about the precise
be served by allowing people to say that manner in which it happened, the precise
it did not happen; all this does is cloud numbers of dead, etc.; the recent discovery
the historical record. In particular, any that the number of Jewish ghettos across
attempts to generate historical debate Europe was much higher than previously
about the issue must be based on fabri- believed, for instance, is a good example of
cation, lies, or the wilful distorting of how we are still learning lessons about
evidence. the Holocaust. Banning ‘denial’ might
have a chilling effect on the willingness to
[2] The denial of the Holocaust causes
question the various orthodoxies about
great pain to Jewish people and those close
the Holocaust.
to them. For them, it is important that
there be public recognition of the horrors [2] No one has a right not to be offended.
that were perpetrated against them because Without wishing to trivialise the psy-
of their race, and Holocaust denial under- chological harm caused by Holocaust
mines that. It is not distant from their denial, the state cannot protect people
lives or unimportant, either because against it; there are simply too many forms
many of them will have been alive during of psychological harm, all different and
the Holocaust, or they know someone, hard to measure, that the state cannot
perhaps an elderly relative, who was in a involve itself. If it were to do so, then all
concentration camp. Moreover, because potentially offensive speech acts would
anti-Semitism is present in society today, have to come within the ambit of the
Holocaust denial is a constant reminder of state’s criminal legislation, which would be
the peril of hatred and violence. an unfair restriction on freedom of speech.
[3] Holocaust denial is often a ‘dog- [3] While being racist is unpleasant, it is
whistle’ for other very pernicious views, not illegal; we do not ban racist political
126 H O M O S E X UA L S , O R D I N AT I O N O F

such as anti-Semitism, racism and homo- parties, and we should not seek to do so,
phobia.We should not allow people to use because there is a democratic right to free
this as a recruiting tool towards racist political association; while we may find
political parties, which are often dan- these views distasteful, that is the price we
gerous and violent; by banning Holocaust pay for living in a democracy.
denial, we remove an important signalling
[4] As always with radical and false views,
mechanism for those groups.
the best way to defeat them is to challenge
[4] As their views depend so strongly on them in public. As they have no foun-
fabrication, lies and rhetoric, Holocaust dation, they will not be able to provide
deniers cannot usefully be drawn into an supporting facts, and their views will
open public debate; they simply repeat quickly crumble. When, in 1996, David
their lies, without engaging with the other Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt of Penguin
view. In consequence, they will not be Books for libel when she accused him of
defeated by more discussion; instead, they academic dishonesty, he overwhelmingly
must be banned. lost the case. These ridiculous views are
then rightly subject to ridicule, and
defeated.
Possible motions
This House would ban Holocaust denial.
This House believes that Holocaust denial is not
an acceptable cost of free speech.
This House would never allow the denial of
mass human rights abuses.

Related topics
Censorship by the state
Extremist political parties, banning of

Homosexuals, ordination of

The first decade of the twenty-first century has seen a heated debate within the
Anglican Church about whether it should allow the ordination of openly gay clergy
and bishops. The Church of England, the Episcopal Church in the USA and the
Anglican Church of Canada have accepted some gay clergy and, in 2004, Gene
Robinson became the first openly gay minister to be made a bishop (the Bishop of New
Hampshire in the Episcopal Church). However, the Anglican Communion worldwide
is split on this issue, and in 2008, there was a boycott of the Lambeth Conference, such
was the strength of the schism. Those opposed believe that homosexuality is against
Christian teaching and have declared themselves in a state of ‘impaired communion’
with their liberal counterparts.The arguments here focus on the Anglican Church, but
can be easily adapted to apply to other faiths.
H O M O S E X UA L S , O R D I N AT I O N O F 127

Pros Cons
[1] One of the merits of the Christian [1] The strength of the Christian religion
religion has always been its ability to adapt rests on its ability to stand up for unchang-
its principles of love and inclusion to ing moral standards in a changing and
societal values as they evolve. It is now morally degenerating world. Homosexu-
clear, scientifically and sociologically, that ality is a misuse of natural gifts from God,
homosexuals are not ‘deviant’ or ‘diseased’, a rejection of His design, and even if it is
but equal, normal members of human socially tolerated, it cannot be an accept-
society. There is no reason why they, any able way of life for a Christian minister
more than women, should be excluded who must stand as a moral example to the
from serving God and society as Christian members of the church and provide a role
ministers. Homosexuals and heterosexuals model of Christian living. The existence
alike are sometimes guilty of the misuse of of a ‘gay gene’ does not make homo-
their God-given sexuality in abusive and sexuality morally right any more than
unloving ways. However, it is not right to other biological predispositions (e.g. to
bar all homosexuals from ordination any aggression, alcoholism or promiscuity)
more than it would be right to bar all make their outcomes morally right. The
heterosexuals from ordination on the analogy with the ordination of women
grounds of the misconduct of which some does not hold either: people have no
are guilty. control over their gender, but they do have
control over their sexual behaviour.
[2] The Bible (especially the Old Testa-
ment) contains many regulations (e.g. [2] The Bible, the authority on which
regarding diet,cleanliness,clothing,circum- Christianity is based, condemns homo-
cision, etc.) that Christians do not feel sexuality. If Jesus had wished to see the
obliged to follow.The biblical opposition to age-old Jewish condemnation of homo-
homosexuality should be treated by sexuality overturned, he could have taught
Christians like these other forgotten ‘purity his disciples accordingly. In other cases
rules’. In biblical times, homosexuality was (e.g. rules about the Sabbath), Jesus was
not socially integrated and maybe existed prepared to challenge the orthodox view.
in unstable situations detached from love However, he did not do so in this case.
and open to abuse. That is no longer the Therefore, we must assume that he was
case, so the view should be rethought. Jesus happy with the Old Testament view.
himself, the central figure of authority in The condemnation of homosexuality is
the Bible for Christians, never made any repeated in the New Testament in St Paul’s
statement against homosexuality. Letter to the Romans.
[3] Many parts of the Christian com- [3] It is also clear from the Bible that sex
munity are happy for their ministers to is intended to produce children.The Bible
have sex purely for recreation – i.e. condemns ‘fornication’, which is the use
married ministers using contraception. It of sex for pleasure rather than procreation.
is therefore illogical to deny homosexuals All homosexual sex falls into this category
the right to ordination on the grounds and those who practise it cannot be role
that they have non-reproductive sex. If models for the Christian community.
128 H O M O S E X UA L S , O R D I N AT I O N O F

celibacy is required, then it can be prac- [4] Sex is also something that should take
tised by those of any sexual orientation. place only within marriage. Marriage is a
[4] The argument that homosexual sex is sacrament of union between a man and a
wrong because it is outside the sacrament woman for procreation. So again, homo-
of marriage is circular. It should only sexual sex is necessarily outside the
remain outside the sacrament of marriage ‘proper’ Christian life.
if it can be established on other grounds [5] Even non-practising homosexuals are
that homosexuality is wrong. unacceptable as Christian ministers since
[5] Since heterosexual ministers who they condone a form of sex rejected by
condone homosexual love within their the Bible and Christianity as against the
congregation are not (generally) sacked, it natural purpose given to sex by God.
is illogical to sack celibate homosexuals for
[6] Homosexuals should indeed be given
holding the same view.
spiritual guidance by Christian ministers,
[6] A large minority of the Christian but simple affirmation of homosexuality is
community is homosexual.These gay men not the Christian answer. Lesbians and gay
and lesbians need spiritual direction as men need to be encouraged by ministers
much as heterosexual Christians do. It is to overcome their urges and to live in a
right that there should be a significant truly Christian way.The simple existence
minority of homosexual Christian mini- of homosexuality is not an argument for
sters who can truly empathise with the ordaining homosexuals. The clergy are
needs of this portion of the Church. there to lead and guide, not as a repre-
[7] The Church risks rendering itself sentative microcosm of society.
irrelevant and out of date if it does not
[7] Many people are attracted to the
reflect modern views. Church attendance
Church precisely because of its opposition
is falling in many Western countries and
to our increasingly permissive society.
part of that is due to the illiberal stances
Even if some people are deterred, the
that the Church takes, which put off
Church is not a commercial organisation
young people. Allowing gay ministers
that should change its policies in order to
would resonate with the young who have
attract more customers; it must uphold the
grown up expecting equal rights.
scripture and do its best to spread its
message.
Possible motions
This House would ordain homosexuals.
This House believes that the road to God is not
necessarily straight.
This House calls for a representative clergy.

Related topics
Gay marriage, legalising of
God, existence of
Homosexuals, outing of
Churches in politics
H O M O S E X UA L S , O U T I N G O F 129

Homosexuals, outing of

If the media know that a public figure is gay but they have not come out of their own
accord, should their privacy be respected or should they be ‘outed’? Is there a duty to
be out, or should people be able to hide their sexuality if they wish? This debate is not
about a law, but rather about the principle.

Pros Cons
[1] Prejudice against homosexuality is [1] There are quite enough gay celebrities
linked to the fact that gays are seen as a to fight the cause already – most of whom
tiny minority in society. In fact, it is have come out voluntarily – and society is
estimated that as many as 10 per cent of changing to embrace homosexuality even
people are gay. If this were known by the without widespread outing. Declaration of
general public, it would greatly reduce the sexuality is one of the most important
existing prejudice and discriminatory decisions in life and must be made by the
behaviour.Therefore,‘outing’, or the nam- individual concerned. Even if outing were
ing of gay individuals who are currently to help the fight against discrimination,
‘in the closet’, is in the long run a valuable each individual case must be the choice of
weapon against bias. This is particularly the person concerned, not anyone else’s.
true in the case of gay celebrities who can
[2] It is society’s fault, not that of poli-
serve as role models.
ticians or bishops or sports stars, that
[2] Many closet homosexuals are in fact people are forced to cloak themselves
hypocrites, maintaining heterosexual life- in heterosexuality for the sake of their
styles and even campaigning against gay careers. There are many constituencies
rights (two members of John Major’s where an openly gay political candidate
Cabinet in the UK in the 1990s who were would stand no chance of success. Until
widely believed to be gay by the media, society accepts gay men and women in all
but never exposed, voted against an equal walks of life, those with ambition are faced
age of consent). It is doubly important that with a stark choice – admit their homo-
they be outed. sexuality and give up their chance of
being a politician, a vicar, or so on, or pre-
[3] It is true that many people do not
tend otherwise.This may be hypocritical,
know what is good for them. Because of
but we can understand why it is done.
the traditional prejudice against homo-
sexuality, ‘coming out’ can be a terrifying [3] The consequences of outing can be
experience that gays resist through fear of terrible. Coming out frequently entails
rejection, condemning themselves to a rejection by family and friends and the
lifetime of secrecy, unhappiness and lack of destruction of careers. It can lead to a
fulfilment. Society is more embracing complete change of lifestyle and requires
than ever and coming out will usually careful and meditative preparation. To
improve one’s quality of life, with very out someone who is not prepared can lead
little backlash. John Amaechi, the NBA to nervous breakdowns or even suicide.
130 I M M I G R AT I O N , L I M I TAT I O N O F

basketball player waited until he retired to Many public figures have indeed given up
come out and later said that he had their careers or killed themselves to avoid
‘underestimated America’ as the response being outed.
had been much better than he had feared.
Outing can therefore be beneficial for
Possible motions
individuals, even if they would not choose
This House would ‘out’ gay celebrities.
it at first.
This House would name them but not shame
them.
This House believes that staying in is the new
coming out.

Related topics
Gay marriage, legalising of
Homosexuals, ordination of
Privacy of public figures

Immigration, limitation of

This debate looks at the harms and the benefits of immigration and is a very emotive
subject in many countries. Levels of immigration vary greatly from country to country
and the models used differ vastly, so the clearest debates will probably focus on one
country or will look at the principle that immigration does more harm than good. It
may make more sense within a particular jurisdiction to debate relaxing the immi-
gration laws.
These arguments are focused on economic migration with an assumption that a
country will fulfil its duty to take asylum seekers.

Pros Cons
[1] High levels of immigration damage the [1] Immigration leads to vibrant com-
cohesiveness of communities. Current citi- munities where different cultures rub up
zens feel that their culture and way of life is against each other and make everyone’s
under threat. Different languages, dress and lives fuller. Areas such as cuisine and the
religion emphasise the ‘otherness’ of immi- arts benefit hugely from the ‘melting pot’
grants and lead to divided communities. which immigration produces, which is
This in turn increases crime and anti-social why cities such as London and New York
behaviour and decreases civic participation are so exciting.
and volunteering, as people feel as if they
[2] Immigration leads to the economic
have less of a stake in their country.
growth of a country and all citizens share
[2] Immigrants pose an economic threat the benefits of this. Many Western coun-
to existent citizens. Skilled immigrants tries have ageing populations and need
I M M I G R AT I O N , L I M I TAT I O N O F 131

coming from abroad reduce the need to young immigrants to balance out their
invest in domestic training in professions demographics. Often immigrants are
such as medicine and engineering. In both doing work which others do not wish to
skilled and unskilled work, there is a risk do, or they may be filling skills gaps within
of wage deflation as immigrants undercut a country. Everybody should be grateful to
domestic workers. In times of unemploy- the doctors and teachers who immigrate
ment, immigrants may take jobs which to their countries and keep their services
would otherwise go to citizens. running.
[3] High levels of immigration put a strain [3] If the country’s economy is growing
on the infrastructure of the host nation. due to immigration, then the govern-
Housing and schools can suffer in particu- ment should be able to invest in its infra-
lar. In areas of high immigration, there is structure, building more schools, hospitals
often a shortage of school places, and the and houses and therefore promoting more
schools have to work harder to accommo- growth; it is a virtuous cycle. Immigrants
date many different languages within the pay taxes which fund the services they use.
school population.
[4] We need to tackle prejudice, rather
[4] The perception of immigration can be than immigration itself. Political parties
worse than the reality, but this still leads to should not target immigration for easy
resentment and less fulfilled citizens with votes and the media should be responsible
high levels of prejudice. Many people in their coverage of the issue. If the gov-
believe that immigrants have taken their ernment focuses on improving public
jobs, their places on housing waiting lists services, keeping employment levels high
or their child’s school place. Others blame and the streets safe, then people will not
immigrants for crime and feel unsafe in need a scapegoat. Many citizens are them-
their neighbourhood.Whether or not this selves the descendants of immigrants and
is true, the perception in itself leads to are now fully integrated and accepted.
unhappiness. There is no reason why perceptions
should not be altered.
[5] Immigration is damaging to the home
countries that lose their talent abroad. [5] Many countries rely on the income
Brain drain is particularly serious in areas which is generated abroad by those who
such as medicine, education and science emigrate. Somebody who is working as a
and technology where those trained indi- cleaner in the West may be able to support
viduals could have made a real difference their extended family by sending their
to the development of their nation had wages home.The exchange of ideas which
they stayed. immigration promotes can also lead to
increasing pressure for better human rights
[6] Immigrants themselves do not always
and a more democratic society.
find the better lives they dreamed of.
They may find that language barriers or [6] Immigrants can make their own
unrecognised qualifications mean that decisions about whether they benefit from
they have to take lower-status work than immigration and if they decide they do
they had expected, or they may not be not, then they are free to leave. Most do
132 M A N DATO RY R E T I R E M E N T AG E

able to find work at all. They may be not as they find in their new home a
forced into illegal labour where they are better standard of living, more freedom,
badly treated or end up on the streets. more opportunities and ways to support
Even immigrants who do find work may their families.
be unhappy due to the unwelcoming
response of the country and the problems
Possible motions
with balancing two cultures.
This House would shut the door to immigrants.
This House believes that affluent nations should
accept significantly more immigrants.
This House believes that immigration does
more harm than good.

Related topics
Should Britain leave the EU?
Welfare state

Mandatory retirement age

Currently it is illegal to enforce a mandatory retirement age in many countries

including Canada, the UK and Australia, on grounds of age discrimination. But should
public sector employers be given a mandatory retirement age, perhaps of 65 or 70?
Should that be extended to private companies as well? The debate could be held for all
public sector workers or it could either be narrowed to some professions such as the
judiciary, or expanded to cover private companies. It could open up into the world of
the self-employed, or the freelance artistic community, although such a requirement
would be much harder to enforce.

Pros Cons
[1] Although many judges, surgeons or [1] This is a repressive and draconian mea-
entrepreneurs will be able to work sure and a complete over-reaction, especi-
effectively after the age of 65, many will ally in a world with an ever-increasing
become less and less competent, lucid and proportion of people over 65.There may
reliable as the effects of old age set in.The be some who become incompetent as
impairment of judgement or skill may be they get older, but they must be dealt with
slow and gradual, or dramatic. But without on an individual basis – using existing
a mandatory retirement age, there is no mechanisms to prevent them from prac-
easy way to oblige someone whose facu- tising medicine, law or commerce on
lties are impaired to stop working – even the grounds of their incompetence. The
when it might be endangering life or huge majority whose faculties are not
causing miscarriages of justice. A manda- impaired should be allowed to continue
tory retirement age of 65 for all would working for as long as they are able to.
M A N DATO RY R E T I R E M E N T AG E 133

guarantee that this does not happen, and Mandatory retirement would unneces-
would put an end to the making of crucial sarily and unjustly curtail many careers
constitutional and judicial decisions by and pointlessly deprive the community of
senile, out-of-touch judges and politicians. the wealth of experience and ability that
older lawyers, doctors and businesspeople
[2] In the world of the arts, musicians,
have accumulated. Most judges, for exam-
writers, actors and composers continue to
ple, are over 60, because they require a
work way past the normal retirement age.
huge amount of experience to be able to
This prevents young talented performers
do the job.
and writers from breaking into the field.A
mandatory retirement age would prevent [2] Many composers (e.g. Sir Michael
those over 65 from taking paid jobs (book Tippett who continued to work past his
deals, film roles, positions in orchestras) ninetieth birthday), actors (e.g. Sir John
and hence open up the field for young Gielgud who won an Oscar at the age of
talent to come through. Mandatory retire- 77; Jessica Tandy who won an Oscar for
ment would thus encourage meritocracy her role in Driving Miss Daisy at the age
in the arts as well as in business. Older of 82), poets (e.g. Sir John Betjeman
artists could continue to do creative work who became Poet Laureate at the age of
on an unpaid basis, and should be encour- 66) and writers (e.g. the phenomenally
aged to work for charities and teach successful popular novelist Catherine
younger artists, perhaps from underprivi- Cookson who only started writing in her
leged backgrounds, on a voluntary basis in forties and produced huge amounts of
their retirement. work from her sixties to her early nineties)
produce their best work after the age of
[3] Mandatory retirement should not be
65. Younger performers and writers will
seen negatively. Too many people these
get their chance, and there is already much
days are dominated by their careers and
media exposure for ‘prodigies’ and young
the world of work. As more and more
stars, especially in the film and music
people live beyond retirement age by
industries. If anything, an effort needs to
two decades, this period of life should be
be made to give older artists more expo-
free from the stress and strain of work.
sure in a world dominated by the young.
It provides a time for people to pursue
creative and educational interests, and also [3] People must not be treated like chil-
to give something back to the community dren.This legislation would be an extreme
with charitable work. Those who are measure characteristic of an overbearing
‘workaholics’ need a mandatory retire- ‘nanny state’. We must let individuals
ment age to give them the spur to develop decide for themselves whether they wish
other sides of themselves and broaden to devote their entire life to their job or
their lives. prefer to follow other pursuits. Some
people may need to keep working for
[4] Looking at employment as a whole, we
financial reasons, if for example, they have
still suffer a problem of unacceptable
not paid off their mortgages or they are
youth unemployment levels.A mandatory
still supporting children.
retirement age will free up more working
134 M A R R I AG E

opportunities that can be offered to the [4] Such a law would be disastrous eco-
young jobless – those who are more likely nomically. The rapidly ageing population
to be supporting families, buying houses in Western countries – where people are
and so on. living longer and longer – means that a
greater proportion of the population are
drawing pensions and a smaller proportion
Possible motions
are working to provide the money. A
This House calls for a mandatory retirement
mandatory retirement age would only
age.
make this worse.There is also evidence to
This House would put youth before experience.
suggest that people’s health and mental
faculties can decline quickly after retire-
Related topics
ment, and so this measure could increase
Term limits for politicians
the number of years that pensioners
State pensions, ending provision of
require medical care.

Marriage

Frank Sinatra once sang that ‘love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage’.
Did this view die with Sinatra in 1998 or is it still a defensible one? Is there something
special about marriage that differentiates it from the ever more popular arrangement of
cohabitation? Does marriage provide children with a more stable family home, or is the
marital status of their parents (or parent) immaterial?

Pros Cons
[1] Marriage is the foundation of the [1] Parents do not need to be married in
stable family unit within which children order to provide a stable home life for
can have the best possible start to life. their children. It is the quality of the
Studies repeatedly show that children who relationship that matters, not whether a
grow up with married parents are the best marriage licence has been signed. If
adjusted and most successful. Therefore, parents fight or a relationship ends, it will
for the sake of their children, prospective affect the children regardless of whether
parents have a duty to marry in order to their parents are married.
provide the real security and trust that
[2] Marriage is an unnecessary curb on
children need. A couple who are not
freedom and happiness.True love in all its
married will never be able to offer the
intensity does not actually last a lifetime,
same psychologically crucial promise of
and it is unreasonable to sentence oneself
security to each other or to their children.
to a lifetime of enforced fidelity to some-
[2] It is important that marriage is valued one with whom the spark has gone.
in order to uphold a healthy and rational Especially now that we are living longer
view of what loving relationships are and longer, lifetime commitment is
M A R R I AG E 135

about. Loving relationships are about unrealistic and unnecessary. Therefore,

working together for mutual respect and we should not make promises we cannot
support over a long period – not just keep, but instead acknowledge that even
about ‘falling in love’, sex and romance, long-term relationships can end when the
which are relatively superficial ends. It is love is lost or one partner falls in love with
interesting to note that arranged marriages somebody else. What meaning does a
have a high success rate – perhaps because marriage have if the ‘till death do us part’
they do not give couples false and super- vow is so easily broken?
ficial expectations of total sexual and
[3] In the face of the very high divorce
romantic compatibility.
rate (up to 42 per cent in the UK) in
[3] The fact that marriages fail does not today’s world, we should rethink our
mean that we should give up trying. Social approach to relationships and parenting.
and legal institutions such as marriage, the People get married knowing that they can
Church, the criminal justice system and so change their mind whenever they want
on exist to provide ideal models to which and this has undermined marriage. It is
to aspire, often with success. We should time to admit that marriage does not
not abandon the ideal of truly loving work in today’s society and to look at
couples providing stable homes for their alternatives. It is often the rigid and
children. unrealistic constraints of traditional mar-
riage itself that make a relationship stifling
[4] Although marriage does hold a
and unbearable.
spiritual dimension for many religious
people, it is relevant in a secular society as [4] Marriage was originally a religious
a civic institution as well. Couples who concept and it makes sense if your
cohabit are not making a public and faith still prohibits sex outside marriage.
legally recognised lifetime commitment to However, today when couples live and
each other. The decision to marry repre- sleep together for years before they marry,
sents a step forward in the relationship, what is the point of the ceremony? They
the wedding allows a celebration of the return, after the wedding ceremony, to
couple, and the marriage itself allows both exactly the same life as they had before.
parties to feel secure in the long term. In For some, their wedding is the first time
addition, many legal and financial rights they have visited a church for years,
that a spouse enjoys are not granted to thereby starting their union in an act of
cohabiting couples, and so marriage acts as hypocrisy. The state should accord the
the state’s recognition of the relationship. same rights to cohabiting couples.
[5] Marriage has evolved to match social [5] Marriage is an inherently sexist
changes. In Western culture, there are now and homophobic institution. Women are
very few arranged marriages and there are ‘given away’ as if they were a possession
no dowries for daughters, so both men and take their husband’s name as if their
and women are free to follow where love identity is unimportant. In the traditional
takes them. A modern version of the marriage vows they pledge to ‘obey’ their
Christian vows can be taken or a couple husbands. These views are outdated in
can write their own and women do not today’s world of gender equality.Although
136 N AT I O N A L I D E N T I T Y C A R D S

have to take their husband’s surname. A this is changing in some countries, most of
vote to legalise gay marriage in the UK the world and most organised religions
was passed in the House of Commons in oppose gay marriage, which creates dis-
2013, but many other countries got there crimination within society.
first, including the Netherlands, Canada,
[6] Marriage, for many, has become more
Sweden, Spain, as did nine US states.This
about the wedding than the life that
shows that marriage continues to adapt to
follows. There is huge pressure on young
stay relevant.
people and their families to throw ‘fairy
[6] Many people enjoy planning and tale’ occasions which perhaps they cannot
throwing a huge wedding and see it as one afford. In the USA in 2012, the average
of the happiest days of their lives. People cost of a wedding was over US$26,000. In
are free to spend their money how they the UK in 2008, the figure was higher, at
wish and this is a way which brings joy to over £20,000. This leaves young couples
the couple and their families and friends. crippled with debt at a time when they are
However, it is possible to spend almost no finding it harder than ever to get a foot on
money on a wedding and the fashions for the housing ladder.
celebrations change over time. A dislike
of ostentatious weddings should not be
Possible motions
seen as a reason to oppose the institution
This House would get married for the sake of
of marriage.
the children.
This House believes that marriage is an out-
dated institution.
This House believes that the state should incen-
tivise marriage.

Related topics
Gay marriage, legalising of
Polygamy, legalisation of
Surrogate mothers, payment of

National identity cards

The arguments below assume a motion on the introduction of compulsory identity

cards.A debate on voluntary identity cards is possible, and the last set of points addresses
this.A Proposition team can clarify the debate by defining what information would be
held on the card, whether it would be compulsory, and if so, what the penalties would
be for failing to have one. Many countries including Belgium, Germany, South Korea
and Pakistan issue compulsory ID cards. Others such as Italy, Japan and Canada have
systems of voluntary ID cards while the UK, Denmark and Australia among others have
no national schemes.
N AT I O N A L I D E N T I T Y C A R D S 137

Pros Cons
[1] Many forms of crime depend upon [1] Identity cards represent a major intru-
individuals claiming to be someone else sion by the government into the privacy
(e.g. benefit fraud, tax evasion, dealing in of the individual, and would greatly
stolen goods, terrorism, gaol-breaking, increase state control. In order to be
illegal immigration, or lying to the police effective, card carrying would have to be
after another crime). Without ID cards compulsory (as with a road tax disc), and
there is no form of standard identification failure to produce the card would be a
for domestic use that is widely accepted. crime. This would use up valuable police
Different forms of identification are and court time.
demanded for different activities. If a
[2] Countries such as the UK, Australia
country had one official and standard
and Denmark value their liberties highly
form of ID, verification by the police
and are wary of any attempts to under-
would be easier and many crimes would
mine them, which is why they have
be avoided. With the increased terrorist
resisted ID cards. National identity cards
threat in the world, ID cards have become
would allow a considerable degree of
a matter of national security.
police harassment in the name of enforc-
[2] Many European states require identity ing the policy, probably targeted at
cards, yet they are hardly authoritarian minority groups who are already more
police states.When they are abroad, tour- likely to be stopped on suspicion of
ists willingly carry a passport, while at motoring and other offences.This harass-
home almost all drivers carry a driving ment is a particular problem in France
licence. Carrying identification causes no with the immigrant population. Relations
problem to innocent people; it is only between minority groups and police
criminals who would resist. Encouraging would only grow worse.
police harassment is a negligible risk; the
[3] With separate cards we have a choice
circumstances under which ID cards
about whether and when to carry them,
would be demanded could be carefully
and which ones to take out with us.
regulated.
Smart-card technology is so advanced as
[3] National identity cards are useful not to be dangerous; we would have no idea
only for society, but also for the holder. what information was contained on our
There are many daily transactions where ID cards that could be read by others, and
identification is required; currently we are no choice about how much information
forced to carry a large number of separate to declare. Employers and the police could
cards. In the USA and the UK where discriminate against us on the basis of
driving licences bear photos, they are hidden facts that we should have the right
used as identification for a wide variety to keep hidden. The cost of introducing
of purposes (proving the owner is old millions of smart cards and vast numbers
enough to drink, guaranteeing cheques, of card-reading machines would be enor-
etc.). Modern smart-card technology mous. Theft of the cards would become
would allow one small card to encode a major business, and the police are always
huge range of information, including technologically less advanced than the
138 N AT I O N A L I D E N T I T Y C A R D S

photographic images, retina and finger- criminals, as credit card fraud and online
print records, signature, passport, driving financial crime suggest.
licence, criminal record, bank and credit
[4] The chance of losing all your forms
details, health records and even employee
of identification in one go is high and
and library/club membership details.
immensely inconvenient – your entire
[4] Given that most people currently carry identity would be erased until a new one
all their multiple forms of identification in could be obtained, which would presum-
the same wallet or handbag, the problems ably be a strict and lengthy process. If
of losing a single card are unlikely to be criminals did obtain card-reading tech-
worse in practice. The chance of being nology, they could have access to all parts
impersonated is less if photo, retina and of your life via a stolen card and identity
fingerprint details cannot be detached theft would become much easier.
from the card; at the moment, a thief
[5] Voluntary schemes are likely to be the
could discard all forms of photo ID, but
thin end of the wedge, soliciting public
keep, for example, a credit card and forge
support before proposals to make cards
the signature. In addition, the majority of
compulsory are tabled. In any case, unfair
identity theft now occurs through the
suspicion would naturally fall on those
Internet rather than through the stealing
who chose not to carry them – an
of cards.
infringement on civil liberties. Courts
[5] Identity cards could be made volun- might take ‘not carrying a card’ into
tary, producing many of the benefits of account with the same scepticism with
compulsory cards while avoiding most of which the right to silence is treated.
the issues of civil liberty. Voluntary in theory would become com-
pulsory in practice if banks, rail com-
panies, airlines and so on demanded cards
Possible motions
to be shown as part of transactions.
This House would introduce a national identity
card.
This House would remain anonymous.
This House would scrap compulsory ID card
schemes.

Related topics
Protective legislation v. individual freedom
Zero tolerance
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS 141

Political correctness

Political correctness is a movement that originated in the USA in the 1980s. Its aim is
to promote liberal and egalitarian attitudes especially through modifications to language
and behaviour. In Britain, the main initial reaction to political correctness was one of
derision, especially based on extreme examples of ‘PC’ talk. However, some examples
of political correctness, such as the use of ‘she’ and ‘her’ rather than ‘he’ and ‘his’ as the
default personal pronoun (e.g.‘the reader is asked to use her imagination’) have become
widespread and accepted. The central question in this debate is whether modifying
language and behaviour at the everyday level can really have a large-scale impact on
equality and social justice. As always, address the principles and beware of playing
‘example tennis’.

Pros Cons
[1] Political correctness is concerned with [1] Political correctness may be well inten-
social justice. It is paying attention in detail tioned, but it has no important conse-
to language and behaviour in order to rid quences.The real battle ground for social
it of ingrained prejudice, discrimination or justice should not be incidental uses of
oppression. It aims in particular to combat language, but real attitudes in the work-
racism, sexism, homophobia and discrimi- place and in society at large. It is implau-
nation on the grounds of physical appear- sible and patronising to suggest that
ance or handicap. The great value of people cannot understand that ‘man’ just
political correctness is that it recognises means ‘all people’ or that they really use it
the need to challenge attitudes and in a way that implies men are superior to
behaviours from the bottom up – starting women. Political correctness is a distrac-
with the very language that has embodied tion from real issues of discrimination.
prejudice and discrimination over the
[2] It is absurd to believe that political
years. Political correctness has successfully
correctness is to be thanked for drawing
argued for using something other than just
our attention to discrimination and abuse.
‘he’ as the default personal pronoun, for
The movements campaigning for women’s
the use of ‘chair’ or ‘chairperson’ instead of
rights, black rights and gay rights all pre-
‘chairman’, and for ‘Ms’ instead of ‘Miss’
date political correctness. Political correct-
and ‘Mrs’ (to abolish the discrimination
ness reveals an unhealthy and patronis-
between men and women, with the latter,
ing obsession with so-called ‘rights’ and
unlike the former, being defined by their
discrimination.Adults can cope with being
marital status).
teased about their height, weight, age or
[2] Political correctness recognises the IQ without the need for the verbal witch-
important role of language in shaping hunt of political correctness. More serious
attitudes and behaviours. If it is socially issues of discrimination are dealt with by
acceptable to call people ‘fat’, ‘ugly’, the law.
‘stupid’, ‘short’, ‘spastic’, ‘bent’, ‘bitch’,
142 POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

‘Paki’ and so on in derogatory ways, then [3] Political correctness is too often taken
attitudes will not change. It is right to to extremes. A London teacher forbade
challenge such name-calling and discrimi- her class to see the film of Romeo and Juliet
nation wherever it is found. We have because it did not provide gay role
political correctness to thank for alerting models.A teacher in America suspended a
us to this hurtful behaviour and making us six-year-old boy from school for kissing a
watch the way we think, speak and act. girl – this, it was claimed, was sexual
harassment.
[3] It is easy for opponents to pick out silly
examples where political correctness has [4] Political correctness is often self-
been taken to extremes. The existence of defeating in that it creates exclusive, patro-
such examples does not mean that the nising or just silly names for groups that it
whole movement should be abolished. believes are being discriminated against.
Using the term ‘African American’,it could
[4] It is up to the groups in question to
be argued, implies that black Africans in
find their own names. However, it is still
America are not ‘real’ Americans. Calling
right to challenge the use of names that
someone ‘differently abled’ rather than
have been part, in the past, of discrimi-
‘disabled’ is patronising. Calling a bald
natory ways of thinking and talking – that
person ‘follically challenged’ is just silly.
was the original reason for challenging the
uses of ‘black’ and ‘white’. It may be that [5] The existence of politically correct
terms such as ‘black’,‘queer’ or even ‘bitch’ language leads to people who are not in
can be ‘reclaimed’ by a group and used the know with the latest ever-changing
positively. But there will always be a vocabulary being wrongly labelled as racist
difference between someone choosing or sexist. People who had been told to say
to use the word ‘queer’ to describe them- ‘black’ rather than ‘coloured’ are then
selves, and being labelled with these terms attacked for doing so. People should be
by others. Political correctness is not judged for their actions and attitudes
committed to any particular new names, rather than having linguistic traps set for
but seeks to challenge the unthinking use them.
of old discriminatory ones.
[5] People need to keep up with changing Possible motions
language in order to avoid causing offence. This House would be politically correct.
However, if somebody uses insensitive This House believes political correctness has
language but is otherwise tolerant, they reduced discrimination.
should be corrected rather than judged. This House believes that political correctness
will bring social justice.

Related topics
Censorship by the state
Pornography
Extremist political parties, banning of
P O LYG A M Y, L E G A L I S AT I O N O F 143

Polygamy, legalisation of

Polygamy is the practice of marrying more than one person at the same time. It is illegal
in much of the world today, but it is recognised in various Islamic countries including
Saudi Arabia and some African countries. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints officially ended the practice of polygamy (or plural marriages) in Mormonism in
1890, but splinter groups still practise it today and many people associate polygamy with
the Mormon community.

Pros Cons
[1]The government should respect free- [1] It is hard to confirm the consent of
dom of choice. Nobody is forced into all parties in a polygamous relationship,
polygamy or harmed by its existence, and especially the original wife. Because of
so the government should stay out of this, we cannot be sure that we would be
marriage and not interfere in people’s protecting freedom of choice rather than
private lives. This is particularly true if allowing a man to force polygamy on an
polygamy is part of one’s religious prac- unwilling wife. If the woman does not
tices, as with some branches of Islam. In believe in divorce or has no resources, she
this case, there would need to be a very may feel trapped and unable to object. In
strong harm to justify limiting religious this case, the woman would be harmed.
freedoms and no such harm exists.
[2] Women in polygamous relationships
[2] Polygamy is a valid lifestyle choice. A are likely to be less happy. This view of
marriage between three or four people marriage is often misogynistic and sup-
may work very well. If someone falls in ports the idea that it is the man’s needs
love again, it does not have to end a that are important and women must serve
marriage – a larger, stable union can be him. In all societies where polygamy is
created. It allows for roles to be shared practised (Islamic, Mormon, African) it is
out and takes the pressure off our busy the man who takes multiple wives rather
modern lifestyles. For example, there than the reverse.This concentrates all the
could be two incomes in the family in power with the man and perpetuates
addition to a full-time homemaker, which outdated patriarchal structures in place of
could improve everybody’s quality of life. equal unions.
[3] Who says a marriage has to be between [3] Marriage by its nature is ‘two becomes
two people? That is an inflexible view. one’. Marriage is a religious concept and
Many countries have moved away from most religions are offended by polygamy,
the Christian definition of marriage being which they see as institutionalised infi-
between one man and one woman by delity. If polygamy is condoned, it dilutes
allowing gay marriage. This provides a the very idea of marriage. People can
precedent for a more flexible and modern choose informal alternative lifestyles, but
approach to marriage. In addition, the marriage as an institution should protect
Bible and the Qur’an both include the security and equality of a union of two.
144 P O P U L AT I O N C O N T R O L

examples of polygamous relationships, so [4] It is very difficult to provide rights for

the ‘union of two’ is a cultural practice multiple parties in a marriage. Who,
rather than a scriptural rule. for example, is next of kin? Imagine a
situation where a decision had to be made
[4] If the government recognised poly-
whether or not to switch off a life-support
gamy, then all parties involved would
machine: how could a law protect every-
acquire legal rights; otherwise, some
body’s rights here? In reality, one wife
people will be vulnerable. Where poly-
would have to be given precedent, which
gamy is practised outside the law, a second
would undermine the role of any other
wife has no financial recourse in the case
wives.
of a divorce or death. It is not illegal for a
married man also to have a mistress and
there can be no disadvantage in allowing Possible motions
this relationship to be legally recognised. This House would legalise polygamy.
Adultery is not preferable to polygamy. This House believes that in marriage, ‘two’s
company – three’s a crowd’.

Related topics
Marriage
Gay marriage, legalising of

Population control

Unlimited population growth cannot be a good thing; Thomas Malthus pointed out
200 years ago that the human capacity for reproduction could disastrously overtake the
resources available to mankind. The debate now is whether we are heading for a
‘Malthusian’ disaster, and whether measures to avoid it should be ‘soft’ (education of
women, economic growth) or ‘hard’ (promotion of free contraceptives, abortion,
penalties for large families, etc.). A Proposition team that ducks the second type and
sticks only to soft measures does not deserve to win this debate.The classic example of
a successful population control regime is that in China, the ‘one-child policy’; in recent
years, however, this has been relaxed, questioning its relevance for the modern age.

Pros Cons
[1] Malthus argued that human repro- [1] Malthus predicted a major population
ductive potential was geometric (1–2–4– crisis in the mid-nineteenth century,
8–16, etc.) while growth in resources but none came. In the 1970s, the neo-
was only arithmetic (1–2–3–4–5, etc.). Malthusian book The Limits to Growth
Eventually a disparity between the two by Donella Meadows predicted further
will end in crisis, such as war over catastrophe, also erroneously. Most dis-
resources, famine, malnutrition, epidemic asters are caused by ideological or ethnic
disease and environmental devastation. rivalry, poor government management of
P O P U L AT I O N C O N T R O L 145

Such tragedies are clearly identifiable resources (famine) or greed (which causes
today and are sure to become worse unless much environmental devastation, such as
steps are taken to limit population growth. the Bangladeshi floods). It is difficult to
We owe it to future generations to give prove any link between natural disasters
them a chance of existence free from and overpopulation.
malnutrition, poverty and so on.
[2] The real problem is not rapid popu-
[2] There are, of course, other global prob- lation growth, but inequitable distribution
lems, but population control still needs of resources between a rich Northern
addressing; problems of inequality are hemisphere and a much poorer South.
often exacerbated by those of overpopu- More urgent priorities that need to be
lation. Human prosperity and happiness addressed are different and fairer trade and
and the environment are all affected. development policies. An end to EU
agricultural protectionism would greatly
[3] Many different means exist to restrict aid Africa, for example, while the large
population, but it is not necessary to quantities of meat eaten in richer coun-
compel individuals to undergo vasect- tries currently require a much less produc-
omies, abortions, contraceptive injections, tive use of agricultural land than if our
and so on. Instead, governments can apply diets were more vegetarian.
economic pressure on those with large
families, as in China where second and [3] Attempts to limit population growth
subsequent children disqualify families have ignored basic human rights, with
from a range of state benefits. Contracep- state intervention (e.g. China, with its
tion can be distributed widely and cheaply one-child policy) or attacking deeply held
(often a big issue in Africa), and edu- religious beliefs (Catholicism and Islam)
cational programmes can enthusiastically through promoting contraception and
promote the advantages of small families. therefore, by implication, relaxed sexual
Moreover, governments can do more to morality. Such measures are often deeply
provide better provision for parents in old unpopular within societies on which they
age, which will reduce the incentive for are imposed, and only totalitarian govern-
people to have lots of children to support ments (such as China) are able to imple-
them when they retire. ment them. The state has no right to
interfere with people’s family lives.
[4] Restricting population growth has
other spin-offs, particularly the empower- [4] If our aim is the empowerment of
ment of women, who can be given women, then legislating against families of
control of reproduction.This allows them more than one child, for example, seems
to pursue education and job opportuni- entirely counterproductive. Such a mea-
ties, as well as better health and longer life sure radically reduces the control of
expectancy. The spread of sexually trans- women over their reproductive life. It is
mitted diseases is contained when con- certainly a good idea to increase the avail-
ability of condoms and provide education
doms are more widely used.
on safe sex and STDs, but that does not
[5] The reason that sons are more highly mean that we should make contraception
valued is that they go out to work, whereas (or sterilisation, or one-child families)
146 PORNOGRAPHY

daughters are baby-making machines. compulsory. This would be an unaccept-

Population control measures will increase able constraint on personal freedom.
women’s economic value by freeing them
[5] In societies that value male children
from a life of child rearing to go to work.
more than female children, this would lead
In turn, this will lessen the preference for
to selective abortions and the abandon-
male offspring.
ment of baby girls, as parents will want to
make sure that their one child is a boy.
Possible motions
This House would introduce one-child policies
across the developing world.
This House would tie aid to population control.
This House believes that Malthus was right.

Related topics
Abortion on demand
Euthanasia, legalisation of
Marriage
Sex education
Contraception for under-age girls

Pornography

Pornography laws vary from country to country.The Internet has changed the nature
of the debate as anyone with a computer now has unlimited access to a vast world of
online pornography. It is harder to regulate both the production and the viewing of
pornography in this area, so is it time to accept it as a healthy part of our sexuality? It
is assumed in this debate that anything that is illegal in reality should also be in
pornography, so child pornography, rape, bestiality, etc. are outside the scope of the
debate and the Proposition team should clarify that.

Pros Cons
[1] We aspire to live in states free of [1] Young men and women are lured into
censorship. Censorship is only to be used debasing and objectifying themselves by
as a last resort to protect groups which the economic power of pornographers.
might be put in danger by certain Banning pornography would protect
material. So, for example, many states have against this exploitation and against the
legislation against incitement to racial objectifying attitudes that pornography
hatred.This is a form of censorship. But in engenders. It is naïve to say that porno-
the case of pornography, this does not graphy is harmless.
apply, since no one is harmed by the [2] The availability of pornography, even if
photographing or filming of consenting it is properly restricted to those over 18 or
PORNOGRAPHY 147

adults for publication to other adults for over 21, sends a message of social consent
their sexual pleasure. to the objectifying of women in particu-
lar. It encourages young men to see
[2] Pornography legitimately explores the
women as sex objects. From an early age,
realms of sexual fantasy, which is a rich
young men, through access to pornog-
aspect of human experience that it is
raphy, see women in crude sexual poses
prudish, oppressive and ignorant to deny.
rather than seeing them just as fellow
Admittedly, it is desirable that the
humans. Such attitudes are insidious and
availability of pornography should be
lead to disrespect and discrimination in
restricted to adults only, but for them there
the workplace and elsewhere.
should be no restrictions. Pornography is
used by many couples as a way to spice up [3] Elements of human sexuality can be
their sex life, and hence even acts as a way explored in music, poetry, literature,
to strengthen and stabilise marriages and theatre and films in more subtle, inter-
relationships. It is not true that all of the esting and erotic ways. Pornography is
images available are misogynistic; many trash in comparison – simply bad photog-
show women in empowered positions. raphy and bad writing of the most super-
ficial kind.
[3] Pornography can be part of a wide
spectrum of approaches to sex and enter- [4] The more that pornography is toler-
tainment that are available. There is no ated, the more it will spread, and the more
need to ban it. Some people may be cases of abuse and exploitation will occur.
turned on by less explicit films and novels, There is already a disturbing increase in
but that does not mean there is no place at cases of child pornography, which is the
all for pornography for those who enjoy result of a lax attitude to pornography in
its direct approach. the past. It is not possible to tell from an
[4] A clear distinction needs to be made image whether a girl is over 18 or whether
between pornography made and used she has freely consented to be filmed or
by consenting adults and pornography photographed.
involving children. The latter is always [5] Many rapists and sexual abusers are
unacceptable and should be attacked with pornography fanatics. It seems likely that
the full force of the law. However, the pornography fosters obsessive, unbalanced
people involved in popular adult maga- and violent sexual attitudes. We should
zines such as Playboy and adult TV stations ban and seek to wipe out pornography
are not in any way connected with child with the same strength as is currently
pornography. applied to the war on drugs.
[5] Sexual abuse and rape will exist with [6] Pornography is infiltrating every aspect
or without pornography. Pornography of the media, from music videos and
does not cause these crimes, even if some underwear advertisements to ‘lifestyle’
of the perpetrators may like pornography. magazines and tabloid newspapers. Some
[6] The use of potentially suggestive pic- urgent action needs to be taken to coun-
tures of attractive men and women to sell teract this cultural trend. It is disingenu-
newspapers, magazines and other products ous to suggest that pictures of men and
148 PORNOGRAPHY

is not an instance of pornography, but a women are used equally to sell products.
normal and acceptable part of our con- It is almost exclusively pictures of the
sumerist culture. half-naked bodies of women that are used,
and these pornographic images continue
[7] The Internet has allowed people to
progressively to undermine respect for
enjoy pornography in their own homes
women as individual human beings.
privately without having to visit sex shops
or clubs.The vast amount of pornography [7] The Internet has magnified the
available has meant that people can problems with pornography. People from
explore their sexuality and find material a younger age than ever before are access-
that caters to their taste. It has also meant ing more pornography, and the material is
that trying to ban pornography is almost becoming more graphic.Young boys who
impossible, as access is so easy. grow up with a diet of online pornog-
raphy have warped expectations of sex and
[8] The more types of pornography that
an unhealthy perception of women.Adults
are legally recognised, the more those
are also finding that they are lured into
involved in the production can be pro-
more extreme pornography than they
tected. Illegal pornography is a shady
would have accessed before the advent of
world, but a regulated industry could
the Internet, and that ease of use means
ensure proper pay and working conditions
they spend more time indulging. When
for its workers.
anyone can download pornography onto
their computers or phone with one click,
Possible motions it is very difficult to regulate things such as
This House would legalise all adult porno- whether the user is underage and whether
graphy. the material has been produced consen-
This House believes pornography is harmless sually.An outright ban with the criminal-
fun. isation of production and use is the only
This House believes pornography saves mar- effective option.
riages.
This House would ban extreme pornography.

Related topics
Censorship by the state
Marriage
Prostitution, legalisation of
Sex education
Protective legislation v. individual freedom
P R O S T I T U T I O N , L E G A L I S AT I O N O F 149

Prostitution, legalisation of

The actual act of prostitution – exchanging sex for money – is legal in many countries,
although other practices associated with it are not. In Britain, for example, solicitation
(i.e. negotiating with potential customers), advertising, ‘curb-crawling’ or running
brothels (where two or more prostitutes work) are all illegal, while prostitution itself is
not. In the USA, it is a misdemeanour, except in parts of Nevada. But that is not to say
that Britain encourages prostitution – the act is legal because it happens behind closed
doors and any law against it is unenforceable.This debate is therefore about the principle
of tolerating open prostitution. A Proposition team may want to clarify whether they
would legalise all practices related to prostitution, or whether they would have a more
regulated system such as licensed brothels.

Pros Cons
[1] It is an adult’s right to do with his or [1] There is no parallel between the use of
her body as he or she chooses, and this bodies by actors or builders and by
must include having sex with a consenting prostitutes. The latter do not have the
partner.The exchange of money does not choice whether to sell their body or not;
invalidate the right to have sex. If two it is a male-dominated world and many
individuals have no moral problem with young women are locked into a life of
selling sex, they should be left alone to do dependency on customers and pimps.
it. Athletes, construction workers, models Consensual sex implies that both partners
and actors all sell their bodies in a way and approach the act from an equal footing,
we have no problem with that. People can with the same opportunities; this is clearly
buy drinks, presents and even houses for not the case with prostitution.
people that they wish to have sex with.
[2] The sale of sex debases an activity that
Why is the giving of cash so different?
is fulfilled only in loving relationships. In
[2] Prostitution is a method whereby particular it encourages infidelity by offer-
people who want sexual relations can ing an easy opportunity for conscience-
easily have them. There are many people free, extra-marital sex. The loving rela-
who are too busy, too unattractive, too shy tionship is an ideal that should be
or too lazy for the considerable effort of encouraged, and people who are less
starting and maintaining a successful attractive or too shy should be made to see
relationship. Some want variety or the that they can have such a relationship,
fulfilment of specific fantasies. Unless it rather than being relegated to a lifetime of
can be proved that prostitution is immoral visiting prostitutes.
in an absolute sense, then clearly it
[3] At the moment, the spread of STDs
performs a valuable and popular function.
among prostitutes is very low. They are
[3] Whatever moral position is taken, it is well versed in spotting symptoms in cus-
clear that legalising prostitution would tomers, and insist on the use of condoms
bring the many benefits of open regula- just as dentists use rubber gloves.Also, the
150 P R O S T I T U T I O N , L E G A L I S AT I O N O F

tion. In particular, the spread of sexually sort of customer who might break the law
transmitted diseases (STDs) demands that in visiting prostitutes now is unlikely to be
all prostitutes should be issued with conscientious about demanding recently
licences, regularly renewed on the com- renewed licences.
pletion of a negative test for disease.
[4] Prostitutes are forced into the black
[4] Many prostitutes are forced into the market because they are usually homeless
profession because they have no skills or and need the rewards that crime can offer.
opportunities for other careers. Once Legalised prostitution, in the free market,
involved in the black market, they are will inevitably lead to a drop in prices and
abused by pimps, are susceptible to drugs profits due to competition. Prostitutes –
and other crime, and at the mercy of and especially pimps – will merely move
violent customers, with no legal rights of on to other criminal methods for lucrative
redress. Bringing prostitution into the profit: drugs, child prostitution, theft and
open allows these men and women to so on.
pursue a career safely, outside the black
[5] There should be stigma attached to a
market, with none of its dangers.
crime.We might as well legalise robbery to
[5] The stigma attached to prostitution as avoid endangering the future employment
it stands is immense, and a woman with prospects of burglars.
one conviction becomes unemployable
[6] The location of brothels can already be
and is trapped into a life of crime. This
dictated by authorities: namely, by shutting
stigma would recede with legalisation, as it
them down. The only reason why areas
did in France until the Second World War,
such as King’s Cross and Soho in London,
when it was common and tolerated for
for example, are full of them is because
girls to work in brothels for a few years,
they have traditionally been ignored by a
saving up for marriage dowries.
police force content to keep them under
[6] As has happened with New York’s sex supervision. Far more concerted efforts
stores and strip clubs in the late1990s, the could be made against the prostitution
legalisation of brothels would allow their industry, and the fact that they have not
location to be dictated by local authori- been made is not an argument for legalisa-
ties. They could be situated in industrial tion.
areas, away from residences and from each
other, thereby avoiding the existing prob-
Possible motions
lem of illegal establishments spilling out
This House would lift all restrictions on
into residential areas .
prostitution.
This House believes that sex is sacred.

Related topics
Protective legislation v. individual freedom
Pornography
Zero tolerance
R I G H T TO S T R I K E F O R P U B L I C S E C TO R W O R K E R S 151

Right to strike for public sector workers

This debate focuses on employees such as teachers, doctors and nurses, transport workers,
etc. who are working within the public sector. It may or may not include emergency
service workers depending on the definition. It does not usually cover the armed forces.
In many countries, trades unions in these areas are very strong and workers use striking
as a bargaining tool for better pay and working conditions. Is this an important protection
of workers’ rights against their powerful government employer, or is it anti-democratic
to hold the government to ransom in this way when it has been elected?

Pros Cons
[1] The right to strike is a key part of a fair [1] The government is not like any other
society, as it shifts some power from the employer. It is the representative of the
employer to the employee.Without it, the people, voted for by the people and
employer – in this case, the government – governing in the interests of the people. It
can do what it likes to its employees and is not motivated by profit or greed.There
they have no redress. is no need to have this check on its power.
[2] The right to strike is particularly
[2] Public services are usually essential
important in the public sector, as there
and it is irresponsible to interrupt them
is no, or little, competition between
through strike action. A teachers’ strike
employers, so employees cannot easily find
threatens a child’s education; a nurses’ strike
work elsewhere. For example, if you are a
jeopardises a patient’s life. People who go
teacher in a country with very few private
into these industries should not cause
schools, then the government is not com-
suffering to the people they look after.
peting to hire you and you cannot leave for
an alternative employer.Without the right [3] The government has a mandate for its
to strike therefore, you are forced to put up actions from the electorate. If the people
with any changes to your contract. do not like its actions, the government is
[3] A general election is not the place to accountable at the next election. It is anti-
decide on the details of nurses’ pay or democratic if a party has been voted in on
immigration officers’ working hours.The an agenda of austerity to hijack this and
country elects a government, but is not demand pay rises that the country has
giving it a direct mandate on every detail rejected at the ballot box.
of working conditions for its employees. [4] The country often does not support
[4] A strike allows workers to raise aware- strikes and the general public often loses
ness of their plight and therefore informs sympathy for the workers. The strikes
the electorate on the government’s actions cause great inconvenience to the country,
which they can take into account when which the public resents, and they can
they vote. lead to a loss of trust and respect for the
[5] Strikes are not always about more strikers, as it seems that they are risking
money for workers. Sometimes they are services for their own financial gain.
152 S L AV E RY, R E PA R AT I O N S F O R

complaining about policies that will affect [5] Most strikes are a simple form of
the quality of service that the public will blackmail; the public will suffer unless the
get. For example, nurses may be striking strikers’ pay and/or working conditions
over job losses that they believe will affect are improved. This is selfish, as when the
patients’ safety. government is also the employer, the extra
money has to come from the taxpayer
and therefore strikers may be making the
Possible motions
whole country worse off.
This House would remove the right to strike
from public sector workers.
This House believes that everyone should have
the right to strike.

Related topics
Capitalism v. socialism
Civil disobedience
Democracy
Salary capping, mandatory
Fairtrade, we should not support

Slavery, reparations for

This issue could be set in many countries where there is a history of a slave trade. It is
often set in the USA where the descendants of many slaves live and where there is a
strong lobby for more recognition and justice for this community. It could also be run
country to country (e.g. that Britain should pay reparations to Jamaica; or the West
should pay reparations to Africa). It may need to be established exactly who is to pay
the reparations (countries or companies, for example) and who will receive them, and
how much they will be; or it may be possible to have the debate as a principle.

Pros Cons
[1] There is a real economic harm to [1] There are no slaves alive to whom
descendants of slaves due to discrimina- reparations can be paid, and it is not
tion caused (both in terms of wealth not appropriate to pay descendants (perhaps
passed down through families, and now great-grandchildren) who have never had
the lower earning power of, for example, any contact with slavery and have not
African Americans). suffered as a result of it. A country’s duty
[2] There has been a real economic gain to should be to make sure that all sections of
the country and to individual descendants the community have equal opportunities
of slave owners, as money that came from and are free from discrimination. If this is
cotton, sugar, etc. was made on the back of not the case, then resources should be
slave labour. directed towards solving this problem at a
S M AC K I N G , R E M OV E PA R E N T S ’ R I G H T TO 153

[3] There is a justice in transferring the community level, not giving money to
wealth – both in terms of the unpaid individuals.
wages and also in terms of a penalty for
[2] There are no slave owners or traders
the moral crime which was committed
alive to pay these reparations. Nobody
and for which nobody has paid.
alive was involved or supports the use of
[4] There is a strong symbolism in the act slaves, so there would be no justice in
which shows that society has a deep regret punishing the innocent. It is impossible to
that slavery happened and helps us to calculate how much a country gained
move forward.This could help to address from slavery, but all of that wealth should
current continuing racial divides. now benefit all of its citizens equally. It is
also very complex because of changing
[5] There are precedents: in the 1980s, the
colonial powers: should the USA pay, or
USA paid reparations to survivors of
France and Britain?
Japanese American internment during the
Second World War; the German govern- [3] The slave owners of the time were
ment paid reparations to victims of the breaking no law. Society has now moved
Holocaust and their families.The question on and moral and legal positions have
of who pays and who receives money changed, but it is not fair to enact a retro-
could be decided by an independent com- spective punishment when people were
mission. In most cases, clear lineage can be acting within the law.
established.
[4] The reparations could actually inflame
racism. A white majority would resent
Possible motions being punished for a crime they took no
This House supports reparations for slavery. part in and this may harm race relations.
This House believes that the US government
should pay reparations for slavery.

Related topics
Marxism
Child labour can be justified
Affirmative action

Smacking, remove parents’ right to

A useful tool in child-rearing or an outdated act of barbarism? Smacking continues to

be controversial. It is banned outright in some countries such as New Zealand and
much of Europe. Others restrict it to certain ages (in Canada, it is illegal to smack a child
under the age of 3 or over the age of 11). Many countries, including the UK, define
and legalise ‘reasonable chastisement’, but place limits such as forbidding smacking to
the head or with an object. In the UK, if there is a bruise or cut after smacking, the
perpetrator can be imprisoned for up to five years.
154 S M AC K I N G , R E M OV E PA R E N T S ’ R I G H T TO

Pros Cons
[1] The use of force is barbaric and it is [1] ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child.’ A
made more, not less, acceptable if it is used short, sharp expression of force, such as a
against a defenceless child. Even if no smack or a spanking – which inflicts no
long-lasting physical damage is inflicted, serious or lasting damage – is an extremely
there are emotional side-effects to being effective method of discipline. It is
hit that will remain. espoused by many childcare experts.
[2] There are many other methods that [2] There are sometimes no effective alter-
should instead be used to teach good
natives, especially in children’s formative
behaviour: verbal correction,‘grounding’,
years, before they have developed faculties
withholding of pocket money and so on.
of reason and fair play to which parents
It is not morally justified to cause pain to
can (try to) appeal. Children need to be
others, even in a parent–child relationship.
taught the difference between right and
[3] Parental use of force teaches children wrong.A smack can quickly communicate
that violence can be acceptable.Too many that boundaries have been crossed and
criminals, bullies and children with other parental authority can be established.
behavioural disorders have been beaten as
part of their upbringing for the link not to [3] It is possible for the law to distinguish
be accepted. Parents are not necessarily between ‘reasonable chastisement’ and
trustworthy and many abuse the right of child abuse and the latter must be pun-
chastisement. Others may simply misjudge ished. However, the existence of bad
the level of force they use in the heat of parents does not mean that the majority of
the moment and cause serious injury to good parents should be denied the right to
their child. raise their children as they see fit. The
number of parents who have used smack-
[4] By introducing fear and intimidation
ing to produce well-raised children testi-
into the parent–child relationship, you
fies to the usefulness of the punishment.
undermine trust and therefore other
forms of positive discipline such as praise [4] Spanking and smacking should be seen
and encouragement. If a child has high as part of a wider strategy of child-rearing.
self-esteem and self-confidence, they are They should be used only selectively, for
more likely willingly to follow their acts of wilful disobedience and misbehavi-
parents’ rules and meet their expectations. our, and only after milder forms of dis-
cipline (removal of privileges, addition of
Possible motions chores) have failed. Encouragement and
This House would ban smacking. praise should be given for good behaviour.
This House would allow parents to physically
punish their children.

Related topics
Capital punishment
Parents, responsibility for the criminal acts of
their children
SMOKING, BANNING OF 155

Smoking, banning of

This is fundamentally another debate about whether the government should intervene
to protect individuals from themselves. Many Western governments have now passed
legislation to discourage smoking, including banning tobacco advertising, banning smok-
ing in public places, raising the minimum age for smoking, significantly raising taxes on
tobacco and covering cigarette packets in graphic health warnings. Are these measures
enough or do they go too far? Or do we still need to stop all smoking in private as well?

Pros Cons
[1] Smoking tobacco is proven to cause [1] Tobacco does indeed increase the risk
emphysema, chronic bronchitis, heart of contracting certain diseases, but the
disease and cancer of the mouth, throat, banning of smoking would be an unac-
oesophagus and lungs. Half of the teen- ceptable encroachment on individual free-
agers currently smoking will die from dom. We allow adults to choose how
disease caused by tobacco if they continue much fat to eat, how much exercise to
to smoke, 25 per cent before they are 70. take, or how much alcohol to drink. All
The nicotine in tobacco makes it extremely these decisions have far-reaching health
addictive. It is the responsibility of the state implications, but we do not ban cream
to protect citizens from themselves, which cakes, laziness or beer. Individuals must be
is why bare-knuckle boxing and heroin left to decide for themselves if they want
are banned. to take the risk of smoking, rather than
being dictated to by a ‘nanny state’.
[2] In recent years, more and more
evidence has emerged of the effects of [2] Passive smoking has been a problem
cigarette smoke on non-smokers – ‘passive in the past, but this can be effectively
smoking’. Like drink-driving, it greatly addressed by the banning of smoking in
increases the risk of serious harm to public places. We should also be aware
oneself and to others. Growing up in a that the massive air pollution caused by
smoking household can seriously affect motor vehicles poses a significantly greater
your health. Banning smoking in public threat to everyone’s health than do the
places helps those who work in the service relatively insignificant ‘emissions’ of ciga-
industries, but what about the children rettes.
and spouses of smokers who are confined
[3] We must allow people to make their
in cars and houses breathing in second-
own decisions unless certain and imme-
hand smoke all day? They must be pro-
diate dangers are involved (as with heroin,
tected.
say, but not tobacco). People can become
[3] At present, millions of law-abiding addicted to coffee, jogging, shopping
citizens smoke, but 70 per cent of them say and many other things. It is up to them to
they want to give up. The banning of kick the habit if they want to and are able
tobacco would be a severe but effective to. Banning tobacco would immediately
way of ensuring that these people did stop create a culture of millions of addicted
156 VEIL, PROHIBITION OF THE

smoking.These people are not the sort to criminals, forming a black market as did
get involved in underground drugs activi- Prohibition in 1920s America.
ties and so would simply stop smoking.
[4] Smoking is relaxing. Even if the effect
Banning smoking is a form of ‘tough
is the result of nicotine withdrawal or is
love’.
mainly psychological, it does not alter the
[4] Unlike some other drugs, tobacco has fact that for many people, smoking is a
no positive effects. Alcohol can make genuine pleasure on which they choose
people relaxed and sociable and uninhib- to spend their money. It is true that to
ited in a positive way. Cigarettes give the increase tobacco duty imposes a tax on the
illusion of relieving tension simply poor, which is why the duty should be
because of the relief of nicotine with- reduced rather than increased – but that is
drawal; in fact, smokers are the most tense, not an argument for banning smoking.
fidgety and anxious of all. Tobacco is Banning smoking in some parts of pub-
particularly expensive and used more by lic meeting places and forms of public
the poor than the rich. It is not hard to transport is as far as the anti-smoking
use all of your government benefits on movement should reasonably go.
smoking. The present measure of ever-
[5] In the UK, revenue from duty and
increasing taxes on cigarettes does not
VAT on cigarettes exceeds the cost to the
make people stop smoking, but just makes
National Health Service by more than 10
them poorer, more unhappy and more
to 1.Working hours are lost through many
dependent on the drug.
different sorts of self-indulgence.
[5] The economic cost of smoking to a
country’s health service comes to hundreds
Possible motions
of millions of pounds each year. Millions of
This House would ban smoking.
working hours are lost annually to industry
This House believes tobacco is a hard drug.
and commerce as a result of smoking-
related illness.Those who smoke 20 ciga-
Related topics
rettes a day or more have twice as much
Protective legislation v. individual freedom
time off work due to illness as do non-
Drugs, legalisation of
smokers.This is an unacceptable economic
Alcohol, prohibition of
cost for something with no benefits.

Veil, prohibition of the

In 2011, France and Belgium banned the wearing of veils which cover the face,
including the niqab. Some Muslim-majority countries also restrict the wearing of the
veil and Turkey has banned it outright since 1997. These countries say that they are
protecting secularism and/or promoting women’s rights, but opponents see it as a gross
infringement of civil liberties and an attack on religious freedoms.A Proposition team
should consider explaining what their punishment would be in the definition.
WOMEN FIGHTING ON THE FRONT LINE 157

Pros Cons
[1] The veil is a symbol of the repression [1] A liberal society should be tolerant of
of women and allowing it damages all religious and cultural practices where there
women in society, whether or not they are is no clear harm to the individual involved.
wearing it themselves. It is particularly It is important to respect religious free-
damaging to Muslim women as it creates doms. Women who do not wear the veil
a stereotype of ‘the submissive Muslim are not affected by those who do.Women
woman’, which can lead to discrimination. who show a lot of flesh can also create
[2] While some women freely choose the negative views of women, but nobody is
veil,many do not and need protection from proposing that we ban the mini-skirt.
being forced to do so. Some of those who [2] We should not restrict individual
do choose to wear the veil do so only choice. Many women do choose to wear
because of cultural indoctrination.A liberal the veil and find it liberating rather than
society needs to provide freedom from this. restricting. Displaying skin is not an objec-
[3] Women wearing the veil cannot par- tive good. This policy is particularly
ticipate fully in society and so it harms harmful as it limits only women’s free-
assimilation.The veil can be an obstacle to doms and therefore is sexist. Many Muslim
education, work and communication. It women have come to Western countries
has been described as a ‘walking prison’. fleeing persecution – they should not face
[4] When France introduced a ban on the more persecution here.
veil, it did so with a penalty of a fine. In [3] The veil in and of itself need be no
Belgium, it can be punished with a seven- barrier.Women in Arab countries partici-
day jail sentence. Most people, however, pate at all civic levels, while wearing the
do not wish to break the law and will veil. Maybe it is the Western societies that
comply with the legislation. need to shed their prejudice. Besides,
assimilation is not necessarily the goal.
People should not have to ‘blend in’, but
Possible motions should be allowed to retain their identity.
This House would ban the wearing of the veil. [4] If this proposal is enforced, the women
This House believes that women should not be who have not chosen the veil themselves
allowed to wear the burka in public. will be forced to stay inside and therefore
enjoy less freedom, so the policy is coun-
Related topics terproductive. The enforcement of pun-
Protective legislation v. individual freedom ishment for disobeying this law (e.g.
Immigration, limitation of forcible removal of the veil, imprison-
ment) is problematic in all its forms.

Women fighting on the front line

The status of women in the armed forces varies from country to country. In 2013, the
USA lifted its ban on women fighting in combat infantry units, joining Israel, Norway
158 WOMEN FIGHTING ON THE FRONT LINE

and Canada among others. But many countries including the UK, Russia and India still
have a ban.

Pros Cons
[1] Equality is at stake here. No woman [1] The armed forces must put quality
who wants to fight for her country, and before equality. When people are risking
passes the necessary physical and mental their lives, we cannot ask them to com-
tests, should be prevented from doing so promise their security for the sake of a
because of her gender. Women have social crusade.Women’s rights are not set
proved themselves in all walks of life, back by this as there are many routes to a
despite prejudices to the contrary.This last successful career in the forces.This reflects
bastion of sexism must be removed. the ‘equal but different’ principle which
also means that sports teams can be all one
[2] Women have proved themselves
gender.
capable of this type of work; they fight on
the front line in the German, Australian [2] Women cannot match the physical
and Canadian armies, they do similar strength and endurance of men, and their
frontline jobs in the emergency services psychological and hormonal profile is not
and they serve on naval ships on the front well matched to the aggressive demands of
line. Including them on the front line does close combat. It is possible that some
not compromise the efficacy of the army. women may pass a theoretical test, but that
does not mean that they will stand up to
[3] Having women on the front line
the conditions of real combat.
produces a more balanced force and
reflects all the other parts of the armed [3] Having women on the front line will
services. It also provides a wider pool of compromise the ‘band of brothers’ spirit.
recruits to pick from, which should ulti- Men treat women differently; this could
mately improve quality. An overly ‘gung manifest itself as the men wanting to
ho’, testosterone-driven approach can lead protect the women and therefore making
to poor behaviour and the presence of bad combat decisions, or it could also lead
women may actually help this. to resentment and bullying of the tiny
number of women who passed the phy-
sical test and found themselves in a unit.
Possible motions Romantic attachments could also under-
This House would allow women to fight on the mine the team.
front line.
This House supports a ban on women in the
infantry.

Related topics
Affirmative action
Pacifism
National service, (re)introduction of
SECTION F

Culture, education and sport

A R T S F U N D I N G B Y T H E S TAT E , A B O L I T I O N O F 161

Arts funding by the state, abolition of

Many countries subsidise the arts to some degree. The French, for example, subsidise
their film industry; the Indian government gives money to dance, music and drama; and
the British government, through the Arts Council, has supported arts projects, some of
which have invited controversy. In contrast, the USA gives very little support to artists,
but does fund free access to national art galleries. The arguments vary slightly in the
debate, depending on whether you are talking about giving the money towards the
creation or the consumption of the arts, but most definitions will cover both.

Pros Cons
[1] The role of the state in the modern [1] If the state does not provide carefully
world is not to prescribe the means of administered funding for the arts, then
expression of its citizens. Funding of the only the independently wealthy or those
arts by the state amounts to such prescrip- given patronage by the rich will be able to
tion – money will always go to one practise as artists – this is unacceptably
favoured art form (often traditional figura- elitist and haphazard. Art has been asso-
tive painting and sculpture) rather than ciated with patronage of various forms
others (e.g. more conceptual art forms).To from classical times onwards. Just as reli-
avoid having a pernicious influence over gion has always found a compromise with
artistic expression and development, state secular authorities, so the ‘pure’ artist will
funding of the arts should be abolished. always find a compromise between the
The ideal of art is individual expression – ideal of individual expression and the
this is incompatible with state (or arguably, economic realities of life as an artist. Only
any) patronage. the state can fund the arts in a responsible
way, appointing committees of artistic
[2] We have learned from the past (especi-
experts to make responsible, relatively
ally in communist regimes) that funding
impartial and up-to-date decisions about
of artistic projects (including the composi-
which art forms and artists are funded.
tion of music) all too easily slides into the
realm of propaganda.Art should be free to [2] We can, indeed, learn from history.
criticise the government. What we learn is that arts funding must be
given without any strings attached – that
[3] There are many more important
artistic freedom must always be guaran-
things for which public money is needed
teed rather than the state dictating to the
– obvious examples include books and
artist. Mistakes of past regimes do not
equipment for schools, new drugs and
mean that state funding of the arts must be
technologies for hospitals, social security
scrapped, any more than the fact that
payments for single parents and the
democratic processes have been abused by
unemployed. Every spare penny should
autocratic regimes means that democracy
be channelled into these areas. Public
should be scrapped.
spending should be on necessities, not
luxuries. Art is of no material use to the
162 A R T S F U N D I N G B Y T H E S TAT E , A B O L I T I O N O F

nation and so is not a proper object of [3] It is very simplistic to see benefit only
public expenditure. It would be better to in material goods such as textbooks and
lower taxes and let people choose to spend medicines. Civilised societies need moral
the extra money in their pockets on and mental education and healing as much
whatever art form they wish, be it visual as they require educational and medical
art or anything else. equipment. Artists (poets, painters, actors,
comedians, sculptors, musicians, film-
[4] If there is no demand for works of art,
makers) provide unique moral insights and
then why are they being produced? It is
function as irreplaceable critics of society
simply a form of pointless self-indulgence
and politics (a cross between academics
by artists. The state has no business sub-
and jesters). A society without arts would
sidising plays, paintings or concertos for
be soulless and blind. Investing in a
which there is no demand. Artists should
thriving arts scene can ultimately repay
compete in the free market like everyone
dividends as tourists visit cultural attrac-
else trying to sell a product. If there are too
tions and the economy benefits.
many artists for the limited demand, then
some artists (actors, painters, musicians) [4] There are some areas where we should
should simply retrain, as did, for example, not let the market dictate policy and
coal miners in the 1980s when their spending. Public transport and health
usefulness was exhausted. services, for example, should be kept in
state ownership to ensure that they are
[5] In some countries, the arts are
run not according to supply-and-demand
indirectly funded by unemployment pay-
alone, but on a moral basis, so that non-
ments to young musicians and artists who
profit-making activities – e.g. train
claim dole payments and do not seek
services to remote areas, or expensive
work, but simply want to develop their
treatments for rare medical conditions –
artistic talents. But there is no reason why
are not scrapped. Arts funding is a similar
such people should not organise their
case. The state should fund the arts to
time to include part-time work as well as
ensure that they are not sacrificed on the
time for their artistic development. It is
altar of heartless free market capitalism.
illogical to assume that artistic talent must
Capitalists may be philistines, but that does
go hand in hand with a chaotic, self-
not mean that the whole of society should
indulgent and undisciplined lifestyle.
be made culturally illiterate by abolishing
state funding of the arts. The market will
follow ‘safe’ artistic options, whereas art
needs the freedom to take risks and to be
ahead of the curve rather than follow
public opinion. Many artists we celebrate
today would not have flourished if they
had relied on the market of their day
rather than patronage.
[5] Young artists need the time to develop
their talents which would be restrained by
B E AU T Y C O N T E S T S , B A N N I N G O F 163

a typical 9-to-5 job.The artistic tempera-

Possible motions ment is not compatible with such a rou-
This House would abolish state funding of the tine. It is perfectly acceptable for such
arts. gifted young people to live on state bene-
This House believes that the arts are of no fits while developing their unique talents.
material benefit to society.

Related topics
Capitalism v. socialism
BBC, privatisation of
Cultural treasures, returning of
Indigenous languages, protection of
Music lyrics, censorship of

Beauty contests, banning of

Beauty contests and pageants exist across the world, with the largest and most famous
example being Miss World.There are also many local, national and niche contests and
a large community of teen, child and even baby beauty pageants. A debate can be had
about all beauty contests, and there is also an interesting debate to be had concerning
other events which include children.

Pros Cons
[1] The existence of beauty pageants is bad [1] Beauty pageants reflect the ideals of
for women because of its contribution to beauty in society, they do not create it.
the pressure to conform to one idealised Women are bombarded by images of
view of beauty. Pageant queens are almost beauty all the time and the pressure that
always slim and busty. Caucasian women exists comes from the media and their
are usually deeply tanned; Asian women peers.
are often lighter skinned than average.
[2] Both men and women can be judged
Labelling and celebrating this as ‘beauty’
on many criteria and in many spheres.
leads to a feeling of inadequacy in many
There are competitions which, for exam-
women. It adds to the increasing trends for
ple, judge women’s writing (the Women’s
cosmetic surgery, sun beds and eating
Prize for Fiction), there are lists such as the
disorders, as women find that they cannot
Forbes list of the most powerful women,
be happy as themselves. Society should
and there are many women’s sporting
celebrate healthier values such as ‘beauty is
events. Beauty pageants celebrate one
in the eye of the beholder’ and ‘beauty is
aspect, the physical, but they are balanced
only skin deep’.
by many other views of women. It is as
[2] Beauty pageants are also bad for valid to judge the physical as it is to judge
women because of the perceptions of other attributes.This is also true of men, as
164 B E AU T Y C O N T E S T S , B A N N I N G O F

women that they propagate in society. In male equivalents such as Mr Universe

the twenty-first century, women in much exist alongside many other ways of rating
of the world have achieved legally masculine talents.
protected gender equality and wish to be
[3] Nobody is forced into entering a
taken seriously in business and politics.
beauty pageant. The contestants should
Deciding on who should be Miss World
be allowed the freedom of choice to
by asking contestants to parade around in
compete. Many women enjoy beauty
swimsuits while men judge their legs,
pageants and the preparation for them and
creates a perception that women are
see them as fun. No third parties are
valued in the bedroom and not the
harmed, and so the government should
boardroom – that they are defined by their
not intervene to limit liberty in this way.
looks and not their intellect or personality.
In the case of minors, parents should have
This is a damaging message to send to
the responsibility to make the choice
society and young girls and boys in
along with their children, as they are
particular.
trusted to make much bigger decisions.
[3] Beauty pageants are demeaning and
[4] No country is forced into entering Miss
can be dangerous for the participants.
World or holding local pageants, but many
Where is the dignity in being assessed like do so and are proud of the women who
a prize animal? The pressure on contes- represent them. Tolerance and inclusivity
tants is huge and there is a high risk of are promoted through the contest as
eating disorders. In contests involving women of different races, religions and
young girls, contestants may have been nationalities stand together equally.Women
forced into the pageants by pushy parents. from across the globe have won Miss
[4] Beauty pageants are culturally insen- World, promoting the idea that beauty can
sitive. While many Western women are come in different shapes and colours.
offended by the swimsuit parade, the [5] It is unfair to target beauty pageants in
reaction in other parts of the world can be this way. Advertising, modelling, music
more extreme. In 2002, Miss World had to videos and film are showing increasingly
leave Nigeria because of the riots it provocative images of ‘perfect’ women.
sparked. There is also an element of cul- Magazines airbrush their photos; beauty
tural imperialism as, although women queens are real women. Dancers in music
from around the world do win the title, videos are sexualised in their swimsuits;
the ideals of beauty that they conform to beauty queens are demure.
were formed in the West.
[6] Beauty queens are good role models
[5] Beauty pageants are unique in cele- who use their titles to promote good
brating beauty alone and also in quanti- work. Many are ambassadors for good
fying and judging it. Modelling is about causes and raise large sums for charity.
the clothes; music stars and actresses are Contestants are interviewed and they
celebrated for their creative skills. These show a wide variety of interests, levels of
industries do not try to define beauty and, education and personality, illustrating that
in fact, many alternative-looking women they are more than ‘just a pretty face’.
B LO O D S P O R T S , A B O L I T I O N O F 165

are successful.That is why beauty pageants

are particularly pernicious. Possible motions
This House would cancel Miss World.
[6] Beauty queens are poor role models. It This House would ban beauty pageants.
is true that many of them are educated, This House believes that beauty should not be
successful and have lots of hobbies and judged.
great personalities. So why are they allow- This House would ban child beauty pageants.
ing themselves to be objectified in this
way? Related topics
Size zero models, banning of
Cosmetic surgery, banning of
Pornography
Prostitution, legalisation of

Blood sports, abolition of

There are different examples of blood sports in different cultures; cockfighting is illegal
in most Western countries now, but is popular in much of Asia and Latin America; some
parts of Spain still enjoy bullfighting. In the UK, foxhunting was banned in 2004, but
the legislation is not rigorously enforced, and in 2013, hunts still take place up and down
the country; Pakistan recently banned dogfighting, but it is still popular in rural areas.
A debate may focus on one of these sports or look at banning them collectively. Not all
of the arguments work for all of the sports – the issues around bullfighting and hunting,
for example, overlap but are different, so be sure to pick your arguments accordingly.
See also the introduction to the debate on ‘Animal experimentation and vivisection,
banning of ’ (Section E) and the entry on ‘Animal rights’ (Section A) for a general
summary of animal rights debates.

Pros Cons
[1] There is a continuum between humans [1] Humans are both at the top of the food
and the rest of the animal kingdom. chain and of the evolutionary tree, and as
Animals such as birds, hares, foxes and deer such, may use animals to their own ends,
can, like us, experience stress, fear, exhaus- while preferably minimising their suffer-
tion and pain. As conscious beings, we ing. Blood sports exist as a way to derive
should accord these animals rights and not community enjoyment from the hunting
inflict suffering and death on them for the of animals that would be killed anyway.
sake of our entertainment. The infliction The opposition to blood sports is largely
of unnecessary suffering on domestic based on anthropomorphic sentimentality
and captive animals is already a criminal and squeamishness. People have always
offence – this offence should be extended had to kill animals to feed and protect
to cover all animals. themselves. In the modern metropolitan
166 B LO O D S P O R T S , A B O L I T I O N O F

[2] In the case of hunting, it is defended supermarket age, people have the luxury
on the grounds that it is legitimate pest of distancing themselves from the actual
control or legitimate hunting for food. business of doing so.
Claims that hunting is a form of ‘pest
[2] Blood sports often kill animals that are
control’ are usually bogus. Foxes, for
destructive of animals raised for food.The
example, are particularly inefficient preda-
huge majority of farmers agree that foxes
tors, accounting for only a tiny percentage
are pests that attack their livestock.
of livestock lost each year. Foxes were
Shooting, poisoning and trapping – the
imported into Britain specifically to be
alternatives to hunting with hounds – are
hunted, when deer populations waned
not more humane. All these methods
early in the twentieth century, and fox
potentially leave animals to die a slow and
hunts still deliberately nurture fox
painful death (most farmers are not
populations. Foxes are not eaten. Hunting
trained marksmen – a shot is more likely
with hounds – killing the quarry only
to wound a fox than kill it, leaving it to
after hours of terror and exhaustion – is
starve through its inability to hunt). The
not an effective way to kill hares, foxes or
death of an animal caught by hunting
deer. Shooting is more humane and
hounds is over in a second or two. Other
efficient, if they really need to be killed to
blood sports kill animals that can be eaten
protect livestock or reduce populations.
– pheasants, grouse, deer, hares and fish –
Game birds are bred specifically to be
some of which are also a pest to agri-
shot.These practices are a particularly stark
culture and forestry (e.g. hares, deer). And
example of the abuse of humanity’s
it is hardly logical to complain about the
position as ‘stewards’ of the natural world.
shooting of birds that were bred to be
[3] Nobody has a right to continue with shot. As it is, they have a perfectly natural
cultural practices which are harmful (to life ended instantaneously when they are
humans, animals or society as a whole). shot. If it were not for blood sports, these
Cultures must evolve to conform to soci- birds would never have had a life at all –
ety’s values. Public executions and freak they would not have been born.
shows were once culturally significant.
[3] Some blood sports are culturally
They have gone, and blood sports must go
important, such as bullfighting in Spain. In
the same way.
these cases, the cultural rights of humans
[4] Public opinion has moved against must be put before the dubious rights of
blood sports and there are lobbies in many animals.
parts of the world to outlaw practices
[4] There is still a lot of support for blood
where they still go on. They are seen as
sports such as bullfighting, which is seen
outdated and barbaric and they do not fit
as an important part of Spain’s cultural
in with our views of a civilized society in
heritage. Many of those who oppose
the twenty-first century.
hunting have never been hunting them-
[5] There are alternatives to blood sports selves and are city-dwellers.They live a life
that could maintain employment for those detached from the realities of rural life and
involved in the industry and maintain the farming, and hence can afford to take an
pursuit as a hobby, but without the cruelty idealistic stance on ‘animal rights’. In rural
B OX I N G , B A N N I N G O F 167

to animals. Examples of this are ‘drag- communities, there is very little support
hunting’ where an artificial trail is laid and for a ban.
followed by hounds, or shooting at targets
[5] The banning of blood sports would
on a range.
undermine the rural economy, since hunt-
[6] Bans send out a clear message that ing provides jobs for many and protects
animal cruelty is unacceptable, and over agricultural land.As explained above, there
time the activity will decrease. More effort is no need for an alternative such as
could be put into enforcement with drag-hunting, since blood sports are not
harsher penalties. If the government is gratuitous entertainment, but the carrying
failing in enforcement, why would it be out of legitimate and necessary killing of
any more effective in regulation? pests or game in an enjoyable fashion.
[6] It has proved impossible to enforce
Possible motions bans on blood sports. Dogfighting is still
This House believes that the unspeakable should popular, though illegal, in Pakistan;
leave the inedible alone. nobody knows how many illegal cock-
This House believes that blood sports are fights take place globally; and in Britain, it
legalised barbarism. is believed that groups have found ways
This House would ban bullfighting. around the foxhunting ban and escaped
This House would re-legalise foxhunting. prosecution.These ineffective bans under-
mine the government and it would be
Related topics better to work to regulate conditions for
Animal experimentation and vivisection, animals involved in the sport.
banning of
Animal rights
Vegetarianism
Zoos, abolition of

Boxing, banning of

Boxing is a combat sport where two people fight by throwing punches with gloved
hands. It originated in Ancient Greece and is an Olympic sport. It is a popular sport in
many countries today, but it has many opponents who believe that it is barbaric and that
the harm done to the boxers themselves and to society as a whole merits a ban. The
arguments in this debate broadly apply to other contact sports (or ‘collision’ sports in
some terminology) such as some martial arts or rugby.
168 B OX I N G , B A N N I N G O F

Pros Cons
[1] Boxing should be banned in order to [1] It should be up to individuals to decide
protect individuals from serious physical whether or not to take part in boxing.We
injury and death. Boxers have died from let people decide for themselves whether
injuries they have received in the ring (e.g. to drive cars or smoke cigarettes – both,
the Cuban boxer Benny Paret in the proportionately, far more dangerous. In
1960s). Many others have received debili- general, we should let people decide for
tating, non-fatal injuries.Young people are themselves what risks to take unless there
introduced to these sports at an impres- is a good reason not to – for example,
sionable age when they may not be old heroin taking, which is excessively and
enough to make decisions based on all the universally harmful and destructive and
relevant facts – there is also great peer highly addictive.
pressure to be ‘hard’ and take part in
[2] In fact, there are relatively few deaths
boxing, and a promise of huge fame and
from contact sports compared with deaths
riches if you are successful. A ban is the
from incidents of drowning in long-
only way to ensure that young people in
distance swimming and in sailing, for
particular are protected from the dangers
example. There are risks inherent in all
involved.
sports. Cricket balls on the head, sliding
[2] Unlike football, cricket, skiing or football tackles, skiing accidents, crashes in
swimming, in which there may be some ‘Formula One’ racing are all inherent risks
incidental injuries from accidents or (in of those pursuits, not in some way inci-
football) illegal tackles, in boxing, injuries dental, in the same way that accidents in
result from the central activity of the boxing are an inherent risk. The distinc-
sport. The whole point is to knock one’s tion between inherently and incidentally
opponent unconscious which can mean dangerous activities is a spurious one.
temporarily detaching the brain from the There is always a referee in the boxing
inside of the skull. Both the British ring, who can maximise safety for the
Medical Association and the American boxers. If boxing matches went under-
Medical Association have repeatedly called ground, they would probably be more
for a ban on boxing. Such forms of ‘sport’ brutal.
are uncivilised and unacceptably danger-
[3] Boxers can actually be very positive
ous, resulting in paralysis, brain damage
role models: they offer an example of
and death for many unfortunate parti-
success achieved through hard work and
cipants.
discipline. Many boxers, such as Frank
[3] The idolisation of boxers gives young Bruno, have done wonderful service to
people role models who are revered charities, and others are very articulate –
simply for their brute force and ability to for example, Chris Eubank. Muhammad
injure other people.The ‘fighting talk’ that Ali has been an inspiration to generations
the boxers engage in before a big fight both as a boxer and as a man. Many boxers
where they threaten and insult each other come from working-class backgrounds
magnifies this. Such role models can only and go on to become household names in
have a negative effect and perpetuate the professional boxing or to represent their
C O - E D U C AT I O N 169

trend towards increased violence and country in the Olympics. This can be
aggression among young people. Rather, aspirational and offer a way out of poverty
we should revere sportsmen who display to deprived young people.
merits that we value in society.
[4] It is simplistic to believe that admira-
[4] Violence as entertainment is uncivi- tion for boxers leads to violent behaviour.
lised and has a brutalising effect on society. People find all sorts of scapegoats for the
If crowds are encouraged to cheer on incidence of violent behaviour – tele-
fighters in a ring, then they will also cheer vision, films, video games, sports – but in
on fighters in the school yard or in a bar, fact, violence endures no matter what
or seek to be cheered on themselves. forms of sport and entertainment prevail.
Boxing muddies the message that violence In the nineteenth century, bare-knuckle
is unacceptable. Seeing a boxer’s nose boxing, a more brutal sport than modern
broken or a fighter knocked unconscious boxing, was immensely popular, but it
desensitises our responses to violence and does not seem that teenagers were more
normalises something that needs to shock. violent then than they are now. Boxing
could actually help to make our streets
safer by providing a structured outlet for
Possible motions
aggression. There are many inner-city
This House would abolish contact sports.
programmes that teach boxing to teenage
This House would ban boxing.
boys to get them away from gangs and
into gyms.
Related topics
Protective legislation v. individual freedom
Violent video games, banning of
Music lyrics, censorship of
Performance-enhancing drugs in sport

Co-education

In some countries, state education is almost entirely co-educational. Other countries,

like the UK, have a more diverse variety of schools, with church schools and many
private schools choosing to educate girls and boys separately. Is the opposite sex a
distraction from a good education or is segregation unnatural? A definition in this
debate may need to specify an age range as some countries have single-sex schools only
from 7, 11 or 13 and some mix genders only from 16.
170 C O - E D U C AT I O N

Pros Cons
[1] It is only natural to teach boys and girls [1] It is more natural for the sexes to be
together, for social and economic reasons. taught apart, especially in the formative
University, the workplace, families are co- years between 7 and 15 when children
ed. Segregation during their teenage years prefer the company of their own sex. In
does not prepare young people to work the Caribbean, many single-sex schools
and live alongside each other in the future. are based on the belief that gendered
Co-education gives girls and boys an easy responses from children confirm the
confidence and understanding when deal- natural differences between the sexes.
ing with the opposite sex.
[2] Confidence is a product of maturity
[2] Both boys and girls benefit from being and children can be just as shy in co-
with each other. The presence of girls educational schools as in mixed schools. In
usually leads to better behaviour among fact, co-education can lead to behaviour
boys who would otherwise enjoy an that is extremely detrimental to educa-
‘oppressively male’ atmosphere with its tion: boys are led to show off and even
associated traits: arrogance, crudity and sexually harass girls, while both are dis-
juvenile behaviour. Teenage girls mature tracted by each other. The teenage preg-
faster than their male counterparts and nancy rate is increasing in co-educational
so are good influences on them. An all- schools. Girls may be less likely to speak
female atmosphere can lead to bitchiness up in class as they do not want to appear
and can create an atmosphere of high clever or ‘geeky’ in front of the boys.
pressure with more issues such as eating
[3] Competition should be discouraged
disorders and self-harming being reported.
and students should not be used as pawns
It may be that the presence of boys diffuses
to provoke each other into working
some of this pressure.
harder; it is the teacher’s job to inspire
[3] Competition between the sexes is them, and they should not be motivated
greater than between same-sex rivals, by rivalry.Academic achievement is in fact
and this competition can lead to higher generally higher in single-sex schools, and
standards of academic achievement, especi- studies have shown that girls in particular
ally among boys. A classroom environ- perform better in a single-sex environ-
ment is enriched by diversity and the ment. Some education theorists believe
different views that boys and girls bring, that girls and boys tend to display different
leading to a more well-rounded education. learning styles, which means that teachers
If single-sex schools often outperform in single-sex schools can tailor their
co-ed schools academically, this could be approaches more effectively.
because they are usually private, grammar
[4] Children of a certain age shy away
or religious schools which may have fewer
from the opposite gender and prefer many
discipline problems and a better work
activities characteristic of their sex. It is
ethos.
only natural that they should be taught
[4] The system of single-sex schools arose during this period by same-sex teachers.
from the chauvinistic society of the past, While men and women should have equal
C U LT U R A L T R E A S U R E S , R E T U R N I N G O F 171

where men held all major positions in rights, this is not the same as saying they
society and were accordingly given a are identical. In fact, girls in particular are
better education. It then moved on to more likely to pursue typically ‘male’
different curricula, with girls learning to subjects, such as sciences and mathematics,
sew while boys concentrated on science. It in an all-female environment where there
is now recognised that the sexes have is no stigma. Single-sex schools may
equal rights: of employment, of social therefore lead to greater gender equality
benefit and of education.The best way to in society by producing top female engi-
ensure that this equality happens in neers and scientists.
practice is by educating the sexes together.
[5] There are also a number of subjects
The fact that single-sex schools tend to
that cannot be taught in the presence of
have a majority of teachers of that sex –
both sexes, or should not be taught in the
especially in the higher positions such as
same way: sex education, women’s issues,
that of head teacher – means that women
etc. Sports are also gender-specific. In a
teachers are discriminated against in boys’
co-educational school, you also need sepa-
schools, and vice versa, and that young
rate facilities such as changing rooms and
people lack strong role models of the
WCs, and there are issues about which
opposite sex.
staff can go where and deal with which
[5] It is possible to separate out girls and problems.
boys for classes such as sports and sex
education, if it is deemed appropriate, but
Possible motions
schools may decide that everyone benefits
This House would educate boys and girls
from staying together across the whole
together.
curriculum. It is easy to provide separate
This House would send their children to single-
facilities and uniform where necessary,
sex schools.
so these need not present barriers. In fact,
the practical problems of having two of
Related topics
everything in separate schools are larger.
Examinations, abolition of
Sex education
Affirmative action

Cultural treasures, returning of

It is difficult to define a cultural treasure, but the Proposition team must have a go, and
perhaps nominate a body that will make specific decisions.Treasures can be defined as
including relics, documents, artefacts, etc.The British are most under pressure to return
many treasures held in the British Museum and so the arguments highlight them and
high-profile treasures such as the Parthenon (or Elgin) Marbles from Greece, the Rosetta
Stone and artefacts from the Tomb of Tutankhamun from Egypt, and the Benin Bronzes
from Nigeria. Other countries, however, can also be included; for example, there are
Korean treasures, taken during the Korean War, in the Smithsonian in Washington, DC.
172 C U LT U R A L T R E A S U R E S , R E T U R N I N G O F

Pros Cons
[1] Cultural treasures leave their country [1] This policy is very difficult to apply in
in morally dubious circumstances and practice. First, how do you define a cul-
therefore should be returned.The major- tural treasure – who would decide and
ity of artefacts were taken during the Age where do you draw the line? Second, what
of Empire, when the European powers happens when there are diverse claims
believed that they could help themselves (e.g. the Mona Lisa – painted by an Italian,
to whatever they wanted. Other treasures but important to French culture for
were stolen or bought from those who hundreds of years)? Third, what happens
had no right to sell them. when that culture does not exist anymore
[2] At present, the country keeping the (e.g. Incas,Ancient Egyptians,Aztecs, etc.)?
cultural treasures is benefiting from them Fourth, do authorities still return the
instead of the country of origin and this is treasure if there was a legitimate sale?
unfair. The main benefit is that their Fifth, what if an item of cultural signifi-
population can easily access artefacts – cance is not country-based; for example,
for example, a school trip to the British an important Muslim artefact or an
Museum to see the Rosetta Stone – important example of an architectural or
whereas an Egyptian child would have to artistic school? Finally, would one return
be very rich to fly to England to see it.The treasures to politically unstable regimes?
masses are therefore denied access to their [2] Cultural treasures belong to the world.
cultural heritage. Great works of art, artefacts from ancient
[3] The country also benefits from the civilisation or items of political signifi-
tourism. Many visitors are attracted to cance are relevant and significant to all of
London to see the British Museum and its humanity.The fact that it was sculpted on
artefacts such as the Parthenon Marbles. your doorstep does not make it most
Those tourists then spend money in British relevant to you – especially when the
restaurants, hotels and shops, thereby civilisations have changed (as with Greece
benefiting the economy. This money and Italy). Ancient Greece and Rome set
should rightfully be going to the poorer up all of Western civilisation – the trea-
countries from which the objects were sures are not more significant to modern-
stolen. It is a continuation of the practice of day Greece and Italy than they are to
getting rich from imperialism. Scholars also Britain or France.
locate themselves near the artefacts, so [3] Because cultural treasures belong to
universities are able to attract the top the world, we should have the best access
academics and further their reputations. for the world. Cities such as London are a
[4] It is important to have good diplomatic huge draw for tourists, so many people
relations with countries around the world from around the world can see and enjoy
and absurd to jeopardise these to play the treasures while on a visit. Such cities
‘finders keepers’.An example of this is the also have the infrastructure to support
good relations needed with Greece over these tourists and their viewing, and
the arrest in 2001 of British citizens for London is safe in a way that countries like
spying when they took photos of Greek Egypt and Ethiopia are not.
C U LT U R A L T R E A S U R E S , R E T U R N I N G O F 173

planes.The consequently poor relationship [4] We can guarantee that these treasures
with Greece meant that British citizens will be preserved in London – we cannot
suffered. guarantee that in countries such as
Nigeria or Afghanistan. If they fail to
[5] Artefacts in a case in the British
preserve them, due to either economic
Museum cannot be understood or appre-
pressures or political strife, then the arte-
ciated as they could be if they were to be
facts would be lost for the whole world.
seen in context. For example, would it
not be better to walk into Tutankhamun’s [5] There is a legal principle of ownership.
tomb and see the artefacts there, or to see Many artefacts were acquired in good
the Parthenon Marbles in the Parthenon? faith. If we insist they go back, what does
Such a context would improve the experi- that mean for ownership? If you were an
ence for tourists and academics alike. art collector or a museum, would you risk
buying a Monet if you thought in the
[6] The majority of the British Museum’s
future it might be taken from you and sent
collection is in storage and not on display.
back to France?
The Tun-huang statues are not on display
in the British Museum – in Malaysia they [6] The British Museum has been preserv-
would be given pride of place. Artefacts ing these artefacts for centuries. Without
that do not matter to the British can be this, they would have been ruined.When
significant in their country of origin and Elgin took the marbles, the Parthenon was
should be displayed there for the world to in disarray.The British saved the artefacts
appreciate them. and have spent a fortune on them over the
years – why should they now be pun-
[7] Cultural treasures are an important
ished?
part of a culture. They are tangible evi-
dence of heritage and traditions and can [7] These artefacts represent an impor-
act as unifying symbols and objects of tant part of British cultural heritage – the
national pride. They often also carry a empire and the exploration and excava-
religious significance. Glasgow returned tion periods. For example, school children
the Sioux ‘ghost shirt’ because the city in the UK study Howard Carter and the
recognised its holy importance. discovery of Tutankhamun. Objects can
become important to their host country
while their country of origin values them
Possible motions
less.
This House would return cultural treasures to
their country of origin.
This House believes that the British should
return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece.
This House believes in ‘Finders keepers, losers
weepers’.

Related topics
Arts funding by the state, abolition of
Indigenous languages, protection of
174 E X A M I N AT I O N S , A B O L I T I O N O F

Examinations, abolition of

Many education systems in the world use some form of examinations as part of their
assessment of school children. In the UK in 2013, teenagers are examined at 16 years
for their GCSEs, at 17 for their AS levels and 18 for their A2 levels, and many people
think this represents too much testing. Some school systems use examinations once at
the end of high school. Other countries such as the USA use a system of grade point
averages (GPA) or coursework which rewards a child’s performance over time. Is an
examination a good way of capturing a pupil’s knowledge and understanding, or does
ongoing assessment and intelligence tests of aptitude provide a fairer view of attainment
and intelligence?

Pros Cons
[1] Examinations test the ability to memo- [1] Examinations evaluate students’ ability
rise large amounts of information for to apply the knowledge they have learned
short periods of time. It is well known that to an unfamiliar question, and to com-
some students are much better at ‘cram- municate their knowledge to the examiner.
ming’ and revising than others and so do Exams should be retained – and perhaps
better at exams, despite performing con- improved – as part of a course involving
sistently less well during the course of a other means of evaluation such as course-
year’s study. Exams do not necessarily test work and viva voces (oral examinations).
creativity, imagination or even a flexible
[2] Pressure is a fact of working life, as are
understanding of the principles involved
deadlines, and both need to be prepared
in a subject; on the whole, they test the
for and tested.The number of people who
rote-learning of facts. It is therefore
cannot handle pressure is very small, and
possible for students to idle for a year and
there is no indication that they would
then learn the course in a few days, just as
manage the increased workload that
they might successfully ‘question spot’ and
curricula without exams would involve.
only revise a few topics that might come
They might feel under continual pressure.
up in the exam. It is unfair that university
Parents and teachers should encourage
entrance and employment prospects are
students to relax for exams.
based to such a large degree on exami-
nation results. [3] Exams are intended to make pupils
use what they have learned to answer a
[2] The pressure attached to exams,
question they have not encountered
because of their significance both for the
before.They should not be spoon-fed the
future and the stress involved in intense
answer by teachers and should expect the
revision, is extremely detrimental to the
examinations to surprise them.
student. Not only can this pressure cause a
pupil to perform less well in the exam [4] The disparity in mental maturity is
than he or she would in a stress-free envi- significant only at primary-school level,
ronment, it can also lead to breakdowns or where separate tests can be set for late
E X A M I N AT I O N S , A B O L I T I O N O F 175

worse. School drop-outs, discipline prob- developers. It is also the school’s respon-
lems and even suicides are increasingly sibility, rather than the examining boards’,
common, often due to worry about poor to deal with pupils of different abilities,
grades and the effect that failure in one set putting them into sets or forward for
of exams will have on the future. Schools different examinations.
and parents are frequently culpable in
[5] At some point, opinions must be given
reminding the student of the conse- about students, and their own teachers
quences of failure and hence increasing are much more likely to be partial than
the pressure. independent examiners who know them
[3] Public exams (e.g. International only as candidate numbers. Examiners
Baccalaureate,A-levels) are set outside the mark primarily for knowledge and clarity
school by examination boards, not by of argument rather than for conclusion.
the teachers who are familiar with the Extensive moderation and examiner
students. This means one of two things. meetings guarantee that all papers are
Either the pupils will find that the exams marked to the same standard. Whatever
bear little relation to the course they have form of assessment you use, grade inflation
been studying, which can cause disillu- could be an issue. It is not an exam-
sionment and surprisingly poor results; or specific problem.
the teachers must anticipate the exams so [6] Intelligence tests are highly contro-
carefully that they are enslaved to the versial and can only differentiate between
curriculum, without the ability to adjust right and wrong answers. They cannot
their syllabus to the needs of their classes. judge whether the pupil used the right
Creativity and initiative from the teachers thought process in reaching the answer,
are lost. and cannot measure creativity, initiative,
[4] For the most part, examinations are set hard work, structure and the ability to
and taken as if students had reached the communicate. All of these qualities are
same level of understanding at the same evaluated by examinations. Coursework is
age.This is not true; boys and girls mature too open to cheating by candidates (see
mentally at different rates, as do many the increasing market for buying essays on
individuals within the same sex. Exams the Internet) and to teacher corruption
make no allowance for this. due to the huge pressure they are under to
push up grades.
[5] Examination success frequently
depends on the individual examiner who
marks a certain paper. Since academics
often disagree over interpretation of the
same facts, a student’s essay or opinion may
be thought correct by one examiner and
incorrect by another. Two examiners
could indeed mark the same set of papers
and grade them completely differently.
This is why marks given for exams are
176 GAMBLING, BANNING OF

frequently moderated and raised or

lowered by a second examiner – clearly Possible motions
the process does not provide an accurate This House would abolish the A-level.
evaluation of the candidate. Such a system This House would replace exams with course-
also gives the impression that candidates work.
from different years can be compared, This House believes that exams undermine a
when in fact, with ‘grade inflation’, a B good education.
grade achieved by a student a year ago
may be worth an A[*] today. Related topics
Co-education
[6] Intelligence tests should be used
instead as a more reliable indicator of a
student’s potential, both for education and
for employers. They do not favour the
student with a good short-term memory.
They may also be used to pinpoint exact
strengths and weaknesses, profiling a pupil
as, for example, being ‘strong at logical
inference while poor at lateral thinking’.
These evaluations are much more use-
ful to employers in selecting the right
candidate for the right job. Meanwhile,
coursework and regular evaluation should
be used in school and university to make
sure that students are working consistently
and understanding their entire course.

Gambling, banning of

Gambling can cover many activities from betting on sports results, to buying a ticket for
the national lottery, to playing cards or slot machines in a casino. Some forms of
gambling are illegal or heavily regulated in many countries. In the twenty-first century,
the debate has changed somewhat because of the emergence of the huge online
gambling market. A debate could focus on Internet gambling or it could look at all
forms of the activity.

Pros Cons
[1] Gambling is immoral because it gives [1] Gambling brings a bit of real excite-
false hope to those least able to afford the ment and hope to the lives of many,
financial outlay involved. This is particu- especially those whose daily realities bring
larly true of state lotteries and football them very little of either. Someone will win
pools. The psychological lure of a huge the jackpot in a lottery, and some people
GAMBLING, BANNING OF 177

prize is immorally used to lure the poor win each time there is a horse race, dog
into parting with money they cannot race, etc. Those who say gambling is
afford for the sake of a near-zero chance immoral are puritanical killjoys who do
of becoming a millionaire. not appreciate the value that simple fun
and escapism can add to life.
[2] The more widely acceptable and avail-
able gambling becomes, the more people [2] Virtually anything can be the object of
will become addicted to it. Gambling is an addiction – sex, coffee, jogging, tele-
as addictive as any drug and as ruinous. vision, computer games – but that does
Those who become addicted invariably not mean that we should ban them.
turn to crime to fund their habit. All Gambling is, for the huge majority, an
gamblers lose in the end – that is why affordable luxury, an inexpensive distrac-
bookmakers, lottery companies, fruit tion, not a problem on a par with heroin
machine companies and casinos continue addiction. A weekly lottery ticket, a night
to make huge profits year after year. We at the casino or a day at the races should
should regard gambling with the same not be denied to the masses because of a
moral disapproval with which we regard minority psychological disorder, though
other activities (e.g. taking hard drugs) that support such as gambling helplines should
lead via addiction to anti-social behaviour, be offered to the vulnerable.
financial ruin and crime. Online gambling
[3] People should be free to spend their
sites have made it possible for people to
money however they wish even if they
play, for example, poker for hours on end
make ‘bad’ choices which lead to financial
without ever having to leave their homes.
strife. It may not be a good idea to get into
This has greatly exacerbated the problems
debt buying a hundred pairs of expensive
with gambling addiction.
shoes, but we do not ban expensive shoes
[3] Freedom of choice should be limited and we should not ban casinos which are
in the case of gambling for two reasons: a legitimate avenue for spending your
first, because once you are addicted you money without harming others.
cannot freely choose to stop, especially if
[4] People do not gamble expecting huge
you believe your only way to pay off a big
wealth – they gamble for fun, for the buzz,
gambling debt is with a huge win; second,
and they spend money on gambling as on
because gambling may also harm the
any other form of entertainment. In any
families of the gamblers, who may lose
case, it is silly to assert that material wealth
their homes and face destitution through
does not improve one’s standard of living.
no fault of their own.
It is all very well for someone who is
[4] The social toleration and state sanc- financially secure to eschew the impor-
tioning of gambling inculcate materialistic tance of material goods, but for the many
values in society. People are led to believe who live in poverty, the acquisition of
that their greatest aspiration should be to wealth could buy them security, educa-
increase their wealth by whatever means tion, healthcare and many other oppor-
possible – the advertising of state lotteries tunities that are central to human
suggests that huge amounts of money fulfilment.
178 GAMBLING, BANNING OF

would transform a person’s life immeasur- [5] The gambling industries provide
ably for the good. This is not the case. services that bring people excitement,
Many who have become millionaires hope and sometimes wealth.The demand
through luck in a lottery have found that for gambling industries is there and its
their marriages, families or friendships supply does not harm anybody other
have been destroyed through greed, envy than those voluntarily taking risks for
and bitterness. The materialistic life themselves. Banning gambling will harm
idealised by the gambling ethos is shallow the economy, lead to huge job losses
and unfulfilling. and, in the case of state lotteries, reduce
revenue to the government and charities.
[5] There comes a time when – as with the
firearms or drugs industries – we must [6] Given that anybody can host a card
take a stand against certain ways of mak- game in their home, it is virtually impos-
ing money. It may be hoped that those sible to enforce a ban on gambling. If
employed in the gambling industries you take away legal avenues for gambling
could be employed in alternative, more like betting shops and casinos, organised
constructive industries. In some cases, criminals will step in and provide the
casinos provide criminals with a legal front alternatives, getting rich as a result.
for their other activities. Casinos have
been associated with drugs, prostitution, Possible motions
money laundering and intimidation in This House would ban all gambling for people
debt recovery. under 21.
[6] We cannot shut down every private This House condemns gambling.
card game, but we can do a lot to limit This House would ban online gambling.
people’s exposure and opportunities. If This House would end all state lotteries.
there were no bookmakers on your high
street and no online poker site on your Related topics
browser, you would be less likely to fall Protective legislation v. individual freedom
into gambling in the first place, and thus Alcohol, prohibition of
less likely to become addicted, even if you Music lyrics, censorship of
do have a first experience of gambling. By
removing advertising for state lotteries and
casinos and taking away the flashing lights
of slot machines, you also reduce the allure
of gambling.
I N D I G E N O U S L A N G UAG E S , P R OT E C T I O N O F 179

Indigenous languages, protection of

Many countries have minority, indigenous languages spoken within their borders (for
example, the Basque language in France and Spain, or Welsh in the UK). There is a
debate that can be had about the principle of protecting these languages, or you could
look at specific policies such as broadcasting quotas or compulsory teaching in schools.
There is also a related issue of protecting the purity of a country’s dominant language
(for example, protecting the French language from the influence of English).

Pros Cons
[1] Languages are a rich and valuable part [1] A language only has the value that
of culture in their own right and should be people place on it. If people of a certain
protected as part of a country’s heritage culture feel that the language is key to
like old buildings or works of art. Language them, they will keep it alive. They may,
provides the key to literature, history, however, feel that their culture has moved
traditions and psychology which cannot be on and they should not be forced to
properly understood or appreciated if a remain static. A language can always be
language becomes extinct. studied by academics so you do not lose
the insight into the past. Latin and Ancient
[2] Allowing a more powerful language to
Greek are widely learned in order to study
subsume an indigenous language is an
ancient civilisation; it does not matter that
aggressive type of cultural imperialism.
the languages are not living.
Speakers of dominant languages such as
English and Spanish have a duty to protect [2] Cultural practices, including languages,
what came before them, not trample other evolve.A dominant language may emerge,
cultures out of existence just because they but it will have taken on features of the
can. indigenous languages it has encountered
and been enriched by them.The resulting
[3] Indigenous languages do need state
‘soup’ can be claimed and celebrated by
support to survive and thrive. Bilingual
all.
street signs, television programming, music,
parliamentary business and classes in [3] It is the responsibility of communities
schools all keep the language alive and give to protect their own languages. Often it is
it an equal status, thereby providing the the older generation who will need to
incentive to speak it.The Welsh language is persuade the youth of the value in carry-
protected by legislation and this has helped ing the language forward. A community
to stop its demise. that is proud of its culture and language
will speak it as a badge of that pride. It is
patronising and inappropriate for the state
to intervene.
180 M U S I C LY R I C S , C E N S O R S H I P O F

This House would protect its language from

Possible motions outside influences.
This House believes that the state should protect
indigenous languages. Related topics
This House believes that there is a duty to keep Arts funding by the state, abolition of
endangered languages alive. Cultural treasures, returning of

Music lyrics, censorship of

The censorship of music could cover lyrics containing expletive words, racism and
misogyny, espousing or glorifying violence, using explicit sexual imagery, condoning
drug use or any other such messages which support illegal behaviour. Rap and hip-hop
in particular have been accused of spreading social problems through their lyrics, but all
kinds of music could be targeted by this policy. Should freedom of artistic expression
be absolute, or should the government intervene in the name of protecting all its citizens
from violence and discrimination?

Pros Cons
[1] Uncensored music is dangerous. The [1] Freedom of speech must be protected.
right of expression is undermined by the The government should not be censoring
collective right to freedom from the words, which can offend but not hurt its
violence and poor societal values which citizens.The government should pass laws
certain music promotes. against violence and intimidation and
enforce these, but go no further in restrict-
[2] Music artists are role models, having
ing liberty.
influence over their fans. Those listening
to violent or discriminatory lyrics can be [2] Music does not create reality, it reflects
influenced in their own actions by the reality. Gang culture, violence and preju-
behaviour that their hero glorifies. Music dice are what many people grow up with
is not like films,TV or video games when and they have as much right to sing about,
the audience knows that it is fantasy. or listen to, their experiences as anyone
Musicians are themselves and are under- else. Romantic love and social tolerance
stood to be singing about their own lives. are not themes that resonate for everyone,
Therefore, the lifestyle that they espouse which is why earthier music is often very
seems achievable and aspirational. In popular. Artists often are singing or rap-
particular, music which glamorises gang ping in character – for example, Eminem
culture can push people into joining as Slim Shady – and the listeners under-
gangs. stand this even if wider society does not.
[3] Music lyrics can affect the subconsci- [3] Violence plays a part in most art forms
ous because they are listened to repeatedly, and always has, as it is part of the human
but often without deliberate concentra- condition that art seeks to examine. Films,
N U R S E RY E D U C AT I O N , F R E E P R OV I S I O N O F B Y T H E S TAT E 181

tion. They are not therefore considered TV and the visual arts all contain
and challenged, but rather seep into examples of gratuitous violence. Music
people’s thought processes in an insidious along with literature may actually have
way.A continual diet of misogyny, homo- less of an effect on the consumer as they
phobia and casual violence affects the do not contain the graphic images that
societal norms for those listening in a make the violence so real and immediate.
highly damaging way. It is important to protect artistic expres-
sion from government control as art often
[4] It is very difficult to keep children
seeks to challenge authority.
from listening to music, available as it is on
the radio, TV and Internet. Children are [4] Parents should be monitoring the
particularly susceptible to being affected music their children listen to along with
by the negative messages that are being monitoring their Internet use and viewing
sent. The Columbine High School mass- habits. Adults cannot have their liberty
acre (2004) has been linked to the vio- restricted because an activity is unsuitable
lent rock music that the perpetrators for children.
listened to.
[5] The fact that the privileged, educated,
[5] All of society would benefit from not white chattering classes find street culture
having to hear the vile outpourings of the offensive does not give them the right to
worst lyrics. You cannot shield yourself ban it. Shakespeare’s plays can be grue-
from music, and so many people are some, classic literature can be anti-Semitic
offended by having to listen to the boast- and opera can be sexist, yet there are
ing about violence to women and homo- no calls for these to be banned. Society
sexuals, and the sexual conquests and drug should be able to accommodate all art.
taking of the singer or rapper. The more
extreme the lyrics, the more notoriety the
Possible motions
artist gets, so the culture purveys increas-
This House would censor music lyrics.
ingly outrageous content.
This House would censor rap and hip-hop.

Related topics
Censorship by the state
Pornography

Nursery education, free provision of by the state

Some countries, including Britain, provide free nursery or kindergarten education for
one or two years before the start of school. But is this a good use of state funding?
Should children be left to play at this age, or can these years be the foundation of success
in education?
182 N U R S E RY E D U C AT I O N , F R E E P R OV I S I O N O F B Y T H E S TAT E

Pros Cons
[1] Developmental psychology has demon- [1] Up to the age of four or five, it is right
strated how crucial the early education of and proper that children be educated in
children is for their later progress. In other the home. Parents are biologically adapted
words, science has shown that nursery to be the best carers for and educators of
education should be a priority for any their children. Development during this
government. Many more doors are closed period is important, but it can best be
in the long term by a lack of education fostered by parental attention and stimu-
and stimulation at an early age than by lation. Children need to play and discover,
the lack of free degree-level education. but do not need any formal education at
Specially trained nursery school teachers this age. Given that parents can fulfil this
are needed to help to fully realise the role, nursery education need not be
development potential of all pre-school seen as an essential part of a financially
children, since most parents are not well stretched public sector education system.
equipped or trained to do this entirely by Public education spending can properly
themselves. If a child has slipped behind in be concentrated on the school years when
language development by the time they specialist teachers are required, rather than
reach school, studies have shown that they being stretched and depleted to cover, in
are likely to continue to struggle with addition, nursery education, university
literacy throughout their education. This education and museums.
also means they will need costly inter-
[2] It is, sadly, already the case that the
ventions later on.
children of the rich will receive a better
[2] If free nursery education is not pro- pre-school education, with or without
vided by the state, then only the rich will nursery schools. It is the rich who can
continue to provide it for their children. afford books, educational toys and
This is particularly pernicious, as it means advanced technology for their children,and
that social and economic inequalities are who are often better educated themselves.
being engrained in the next generation With or without free nursery school
from the first few years of their lives.Those education,socio-economic inequalities will
whose parents could not afford nursery be active in children’s lives from the start.
education will be at an intellectual and
[3] Young children can get the social
educational disadvantage from the outset.
development they need by going to
Free nursery education is a crucial way for
playgroups, parent and toddler groups,
a government to fight against the per-
classes (such as music or gymnastics) and
petuation of elitism and inequality. We
by playing with siblings and friends. If they
should not be totally fatalistic about
are closely supervised by a parent during
inequality – free nursery education will do
their early social interactions then they are
something to redress the balance, even
more likely to have lessons in proper
though it will not, of course, wipe out
behaviour, such as sharing and turn-
economic differences.
taking. With a ratio of one adult to eight
[3] Nursery schools provide crucial social or 10 children in a nursery school, bad
training for young children as well as habits can be formed unnoticed.
PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS IN SPORT 183

preparation for academic work and [4] It is not clear that providing free
school. Without free nursery education, nursery education for all is the most effi-
more and more children will grow up cient way to deal with child abuse. The
socially underdeveloped – a real worry in money would be better spent if it were
our modern society where the idea of targeted directly at child abuse, in particu-
community has almost completely broken lar via charities and social workers. This
down. Socially undeveloped children can would be cheaper and more effective than
grow into anti-social and even criminal having free nursery education for all. In
adolescents. addition, there have been cases where
children have been abused in nurseries by
[4] Nursery schools also fulfil a pastoral, the workers there.
social-work role. Teachers can be on the
lookout for disturbed or abused children. [5] Most nursery hours are very short,
It will be harder for parents to hide the perhaps 9 am to 2 pm, so this will not
neglect or abuse of their child if nursery enable women to return to work. Either
school is compulsory and the child is in they will need wraparound childcare
regular contact with teachers from an which means that their children will never
early age. Hence, as well as enhancing see them, or they will be at home on their
equality of educational opportunity, socio- own during the day when they could have
economic equality and social adaptation, been looking after their children and
free nursery education is a weapon against saving the government money.
child abuse.
[5] A culture of nursery education means Possible motions
that parents (usually women) will take This House believes that nursery education is a
shorter career breaks when they have right, not a privilege.
children. This is good for the economy, This House believes that the child is father of
and in particular is good for women and the man.
gender equality, as studies show that the
longer women are off work, the more Related topics
their careers suffer. Welfare state
University education, free for all

Performance-enhancing drugs in sport

There is a variety of substances and procedures which enhance physical performance

that are banned in sports; for example, steroids, hormones and blood doping. Some
sports such as cycling and athletics have seen many high-profile sports stars caught
breaking the rules. Despite increased screening, some people believe that drug taking is
still rife. The Proposition team must decide whether to allow everything in their
definition, which will open them up to an attack of serious health risks; or whether to
regulate the substances, which may undermine the point about a level playing field.
184 PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS IN SPORT

Pros Cons
[1] Performance-enhancing drugs are a [1] Until all amounts of every drug are
reality in sport that we cannot combat. legalised, some people will always break
Given that, it is fairer to allow everyone the rules in order to gain an edge over
access to the drugs, thereby creating a level their competitors. This measure would
playing field.At present, the cheats have an also disadvantage those who do not wish
advantage, and the honest are penalised. to compromise their health by taking
steroids and other harmful drugs or who
[2] The current situation, with the expo- wish to achieve success naturally.You are
sure of drugs cheats, undermines sports. not therefore creating a level playing field.
When Ben Johnson had to be stripped of The best way to create that is to continue
his 100m sprint Olympic gold medal in improving detection technology, pur-
1988, or Lance Armstrong was stripped of sue thorough investigations and provide
seven Tour de France titles in 2012, it strong deterrents through lifetime bans for
made a mockery of the sport and the fans those who are caught.
who had been duped. People see their role
[2] The exposure of drugs cheats shows
models fall and children are sent the
that the status quo is working. People do
message that successful people cheat to
not get away with cheating, and when
win.
they are caught they face public disgrace.
[3] The use of performance-enhancing The messages that are sent through this are
drugs will make sport more exciting; that drug use is not acceptable and also
it will literally become faster, higher, that there are consequences to breaking
stronger. Imagine how fast Usain Bolt the rules. Both of these are positive values
could run on steroids! It would be amaz- to be communicating through sport.
ing to use drugs technology to push the [3] Sport would be damaged by this
limits of human performance in this way. change. People want to watch human
It would still ultimately remain a com- achievement, not a battle between phar-
petition between individuals and their maceutical companies. It would also give
training programmes.This would become an advantage to developed countries that
one more enhancement like the right have the funds for research and devel-
shoes, wetsuit, cycle, diet or altitude opment of the substances.At the moment,
training. The athlete and his/her talent, there is no financial barrier to access sports
drive and hard work would remain the such as running, in the way there is for
most important factor (in fact, this would sailing or horse riding. This will damage
be truer because of the level playing field that. Because it will also discriminate
created by the policy). against athletes who do not wish to take
the health risks associated with drug
[4] Athletes should be given the freedom
taking, they may find they lose their places
of choice to take drugs, having been
on teams, and sport could be denied some
informed about the risks. Many athletes
of its future talent.
decide that the risk is worth it.There are
risks associated with many sports already [4] Taking performance-enhancing drugs
(paralysis in rugby, mental damage in box- can be extremely detrimental to an ath-
P R E S S , S TAT E R E G U L AT I O N O F T H E 185

ing, possible death in motor sports), and lete’s health. The stakes are so high for
we allow individuals to assess these risks. If athletes to win that there would be
the drugs were being taken in an open and enormous pressure on them to take the
regulated manner, then there would drugs, risking their health and even their
actually be fewer health risks (albeit to lives. In the 1980s, deaths of young cyclists
more people). were linked to taking the steroid EPO
(Erythropoietin). Freedom of choice is
compromised because of that pressure.
Possible motions
Drug use would also trickle down from
This House would legalise performance-
professional sport to amateur and junior
enhancing drugs in sport.
leagues and young people would be
This House believes that it is time to lift the
harmed.
doping ban in sports.

Related topics
Protective legislation v. individual freedom
Sport, regretting the commercialisation of
Boxing, banning of
Drugs, legalisation of

Press, state regulation of the

Renewed interest in state regulation of the press was spurred by the 2012 Leveson
Inquiry in the UK, which examined the various models by which the media can be
regulated. In essence, the two basic models used in most countries are ‘self-regulation’,
in which the media establishes its own body to monitor and punish non-compliance
with a Code of Ethics; whereas in a ‘statutory regulation’ model, an independent press
regulator is created by the government, but run at arm’s length. One important
difference between the two systems is that with self-regulation, newspapers can opt out,
so some may simply be unregulated. Statutory regulators often have greater powers, such
as levelling fines, whereas self-regulators may be limited to powers of condemnation.

Pros Cons
[1] The threat to freedom from state [1] While it is attractive to believe that a
involvement in the media is not an auto- government agency might be totally
matic one; rather, it arises from the loss of insulated from politics, this is simply not
independence from the government that possible. Inevitably, things like funding
might ensue, leading to the state being arrangements and appointments will get
able to control what is said about it. some input from the government of the
However, this is not at all a necessary day, and this will allow it to influence the
consequence of state regulation; rather, it regulator, however indirectly. Moreover,
can be prevented by a sufficient separation there is no guarantee that, even if the
186 P R E S S , S TAT E R E G U L AT I O N O F T H E

between the regulators and the govern- regulator is fairly appointed, it will not be
ment, such as making sure that the mem- politicised in a way that reflects certain
bership of the regulator is balanced, and powerful interests.
none of the members can be fired by the
[2] The right to opt out of regulation is
government.
ultimately one that newspapers must
[2] The right to opt out of regulation is possess.While it might seem like they can
ultimately destructive of any system of never have good reasons to do so, in fact,
regulation. First, it allows some people they may wish to pursue a course of the
simply to get away with unacceptable higher-risk, more investigative journalism
stories; Britain’s Daily Express opted out of that a regulator may try to prevent, even
the Press Complaints Commission, in large though it is ultimately in the public
part because it was often cautioned against interest. For instance, Britain’s Private Eye
its invasions of privacy of public figures. chose to opt out of the Press Complaints
Second, once one paper can opt out, others Commission because it wanted to pursue
will follow, as being outside the regulatory the more revelatory stories that the PCC
system is profitable; it allows newspapers to was often dubious about.
capture readers by running stories that the
self-regulated press could not. [3] Laws against libel and criminal inva-
sions of privacy are sufficient to provide
[3] Laws against libel and harassment are individuals with the protection that they
not sufficient to prevent the serious threats require from the press. If anything false
posed by the media to a free society. First, and harmful is said about them, then they
full legal proceedings can be very expen- can sue for damages, and the same is
sive; a regulator can offer a fast, efficient true if their privacy is breached. In other
system of arbitration to allow individuals words, if the media do anything illegal,
to vindicate their legal rights against the they will be punished; but otherwise, they
press without recourse to the courts. must be given a substantial area of free-
Second, often there are gaps in the law dom in which to operate.
where individuals still deserve protection;
for instance, privacy may often be unac- [4] A state-imposed Code of Ethics will
ceptably breached without violating not be sufficiently attuned to the subtle
criminal laws on harassment. difficulties that editors face when working
under pressure, and so will not in fact be
[4] A major problem with self-regulation properly designed; it is better to let editors
is that the Code of Ethics that a self- set their own code, as they are experts and
regulator applies is also set by the press; understand the tasks that a newspaper is
this means that it is often weak, and engaged in. Moreover, whereas a state-
reflects a view of the role of the media in imposed code has to be written into
society that places press freedom ahead of statute and so cannot easily be changed, a
privacy and accuracy. It should be up to self-regulated code can be more flexible,
democratic institutions to decide how the
and so can be added to or adapted as
media should be constrained, which is
circumstances change.
only done when the state lays down the
rules for its operation.
P R I VAC Y O F P U B L I C F I G U R E S 187

Related topics
Possible motions BBC, privatisation of
This House supports state regulation of the Privacy of public figures
media. Censorship by the state
This House would have a ‘Press Law’.

Privacy of public figures

The ‘tabloid’ press has a particular reputation for relishing the details of the private lives
of public figures.The death in Paris in a car crash of Diana, Princess of Wales in 1997
refuelled calls for restrictions on the paparazzi (press photographers) from whom she
and Dodi Al Fayed had been fleeing. In 2012, The News of the World was shut down after
it emerged that its journalists had been hacking the phones of some politicians and
celebrities.The private lives (and particularly the sex lives) of politicians, actors, singers
and sports personalities are constantly subjected to media scrutiny. In France, the media
respect privacy much more. Is it fair that every aspect of the lives of public figures and
celebrities should become public property, or should something be done to protect
these figures’ privacy? The arguments vary slightly if the debate is narrowed to just
politicians or just celebrities.The debate may be argued in principle, or the definition
may specify a privacy law, self-regulation or an independent regulatory body.

Pros Cons
[1] Public figures and their families [1] Public exposure is one of the prices of
deserve privacy and protection from fame and power. Politicians and celebrities
media intrusion. What they do in their realise this from the start, and if they do
private lives, unless it has implications for not like it, they should not enter the
national security, for example, should not public sphere. These figures rely on the
be investigated and reported by the media. media for their fame and wealth – they
The distress caused to politicians and their cannot then complain if their lives
families by revelations about sexual indis- become, to a large extent, public property.
cretions is unjustifiable. If a person goes into politics, has sexual
[2] What a politician does in private has no affairs, and is caught, it is s/he who is to be
bearing on his or her ability to do the job. blamed for the distress caused to his/her
Throughout history there are examples family, not the media.
of effective leaders who have had affairs. [2] It is in the public interest to know
They may well have been forced to resign whether a politician is unfaithful to his or
with today’s media intrusion. her spouse. If someone cannot be trusted
[3] Politicians are public servants, entrusted to keep a promise in their personal life,
with running the economy and the public then it is to be doubted if they can be
services in an efficient and responsible trusted more generally with important
way. They should not be seen as moral matters of state.The public have a right to
188 P R I VAC Y O F P U B L I C F I G U R E S

paragons. Religions are there to provide take into account character when they
moral leadership. We should follow the elect their leaders.
example of France where there are strict
[3] In an increasingly secular world, we
privacy laws and the people accept that
need politicians to be the moral leaders
their politicians are not saints.The hound-
that they claim to be. Hence it is right
ing of politicians by the press could be
that the media scrutinise their personal
putting off many talented individuals from
life to reveal the all-too-frequent cases of
running for office. If you have to be ‘whiter
hypocrisy (such as secretly gay politicians
than white’ and willing to put up with
speaking out against the gay community,
constant intrusion into your life, you have
or a politician cheating on his wife and
narrowed the pool of possible represen-
preaching ‘family values’). The media
tatives.
perform an invaluable task as moral and
[4] Giving public figures a right to privacy political watchdogs and investigators.
is not a form of censorship. Investigative Public figures may well feel invulnerable
journalism into immoral and criminal to charges such as sexual harassment, and
activities with a demonstrable element of in these cases, it is the victims who need
public interest (rather than seedy gossip) the protection of the press, not the
will still be allowed. powerful.
[5] We should condemn the media for [4] Giving public figures a ‘right to privacy’
printing intrusive photographs of celebri- is in effect condoning media censorship
ties and ‘kiss and tell’ stories from their and gagging the press.There is no clear line
alleged lovers. Everybody should be between what is in the public interest and
allowed to be off duty sometimes. Stories what is not, so valuable investigative
are often unchecked, untrue or exag- journalism will suffer. For example, when
gerated.They may harm third parties (such investigating the bogus expenses claims of
as children) more than the celebrities British politicians, various personal details
themselves, and they have not chosen the emerged, including secret relationships and
spotlight. The bodies that regulate the the use of pornography.
media should take the lead in banning the
printing of such material, and if that does [5] Interest in the private lives of public
not work, privacy laws will have to be figures is an inevitable part of the modern
introduced. media world. And as long as we keep on
buying, in our millions, the newspapers
[6] Libel and slander laws are not good and magazines that dish out the salacious
enough. People will assume that there is stories and pictures, it is hypocritical to
no smoke without fire, and so a politician feign outrage at each new media intru-
or celebrity’s name can be permanently
sion. These stories sell because of our
smeared even if they subsequently win a
fascination with fame and celebrity.
libel suit or an apology is printed. Distress
has already been caused to politicians and [6] Libel and slander laws already exist to
their families by revelations and the protect public figures from unfair press
damage to their reputation has already coverage. There is no need to introduce
been done. any more legislation.
P R I VAT E S C H O O L S 189

[7] We are catching up with regulating [7] The Internet and the profusion of indi-
new technologies.Twitter has taken down vidual bloggers and tweeters have meant
tweets which have gone against privacy that giving public figures protection in the
injunctions and bloggers have been prose- media is meaningless. In 2012, the UK
cuted. It is not perfect, but we cannot give press may not have published topless
up because of this.Any individual tweeter pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge, but
still has a small readership compared to the pictures were online for everyone to
The Sun in the UK or the National see. When Manchester United footballer
Enquirer in the USA, so it is still worth Ryan Giggs took out an injunction to
regulating the media even if an occasional stop details of his affair being reported, it
blogger slips through the net. did not stop the Internet from reporting it
and so created a ludicrous two-tier system.
[8] The hunger for salacious details about
celebrities’ lives has led to unacceptable [8] It is possible to regulate the behaviour
behaviour from journalists. Many celebri- of journalists without censoring the con-
ties, including those who do not them- tent of articles. Believing in the freedom
selves court the media, have journalists of the press does not mean supporting any
camped outside their homes 24 hours a means of gathering information. Phone
day and are intimidated by paparazzi who hacking, in particular, is always wrong and
pursue them ruthlessly when they step members of the paper involved are facing
outside. The incentives have also become criminal charges.
high enough to encourage law-breaking,
and the phone hacking scandal in the UK
Possible motions
in 2012 revealed the appalling depths to
This House believes that public figures have a
which tabloids had sunk.
right to private lives.
This House condemns the paparazzi.
This House believes in the right to privacy.

Related topics
Censorship by the state
Politicians’ outside interests, banning of
BBC, privatisation of
Homosexuals, outing of
Press, state regulation of the

Private schools

Private schools are those that receive no funding from the state and are instead usually
financed through parental fees. They are sometimes called ‘independent schools’ and,
confusingly, in the UK they are often referred to as ‘public schools’, whereas most of the
world would use that term to describe state schools. Opponents of private schools usually
point to the inequality that they believe the schools perpetuate in society, whereas
supporters argue that parents should be able to spend their money how they wish.
190 P R I VAT E S C H O O L S

Pros Cons
[1] Freedom of choice is a fundamental [1] In a moral society, freedom of choice is
principle of our democratic, capitalist right because it is available to everyone. If
society. If parents can afford to send their a choice is available only to the few who
child to a private school, and wish to do can afford it, then it upholds the class-
so, why should any restrictions be put on ridden, elitist society we are struggling
that choice? We are, after all, allowed to to overthrow. Education is necessary for
buy the best car or the best stereo equip- everyone and should be freely available –
ment if we have the money. it is far more important than a car or a
stereo and any comparison between them
[2] A good education costs money. It is
is fatuous.
the government’s responsibility to provide
proper funding for state sector schools, [2] The wealth of private schools, no
but there is no doubt that private schools, matter how good an education they pro-
with better funding raised from tuition vide, causes more problems than it solves.
fees, consistently achieve better academic As long as these institutions exist, they will
results for their pupils – far better than any attract the best teachers, eager for high
school could do if private schools were salaries, and the best resources.This means
abolished. At present, parents who opt for that schools in the state sector, which cater
private education pay twice – once to the vast majority of students, receive
through their taxes and once through their disproportionately poor resources. Only
fees. If you abolished private schools, you when private schools are abolished will it
would flood the state system with extra be possible for staff and facilities to be
pupils without giving it any extra money, distributed equitably. Standards will not
so the standards would fall. fall because if the children of the elite are
in these schools, then those parents will
[3] Many private schools offer facilities that
demand the highest standards.
are considered extremely worthwhile and
are not found in most state schools. Many [3] Most of these facilities are not as
are still predominantly boarding schools, welcome in a modern world. Boarding
providing a secure community feeling schools offer sheltered existences where
which builds confidence in their students. outdated traditions and prejudice flourish,
Extra-curricular activities are strongly leaving their alumni entirely inadequately
encouraged to complete a well-rounded prepared for adulthood. Co-educational
and enjoyable education, instructing pupils schools provide a better education for all
in many skills useful for adult life. Some sorts of reasons. Extra-curricular activities
private schools exist in old manor houses in should be encouraged in the state sector;
the countryside, where pupils have wider where they do not exist, it is through lack
opportunities for sports.A large proportion of resources which are taken by the pri-
of the schools are single-sex with all of the vate schools.
benefits that such a system brings.
[4] The whole point of standardised public
[4] Following a national or a local school examinations is that we can ensure that all
board curriculum results in two damaging students are given equal opportunity of
R E L I G I O U S T E AC H I N G I N S C H O O L S 191

side-effects for the student. First, teachers education; private schools opting out of
become enslaved to the curriculum and this simply worsens the ‘old school
lose their freedom for imaginative, network’ of academic elitism that already
unorthodox teaching techniques suited to exists. Pupils should be judged by how
their particular pupils. Second, the stan- successfully they passed the exams, not by
dards required to pass public examinations which exams they were privileged to
continue to fall and become meaningless take. In terms of curriculum, movements
for the most academic students.Teachers at within the state sector such as charter
private schools have far more leeway in schools in the USA or free schools in the
how and what to teach. For example, they UK have given individual schools more
can choose to offer the International freedom to set their own curriculum, and
Baccalaureate instead of the A-level if they there is no reason why this should not be
believe it would challenge their brightest more widespread within the state sector.
students more effectively.
[5] If children have special needs or special
[5] Private schools have more freedom to talents, then the state sector can accom-
specialise within an open market. The modate these either in programmes
government may only be obsessed with within mainstream schools or in special
inspecting state schools on their academic schools. In general, however, the principle
performance, but parents may choose to of choice is dangerous within the edu-
support a private school because of its cation market as the more privileged will
strong artistic tradition, its child-led pas- always find a way to play the system to
toral approach, its language of instruc- choose the ‘best’ schools for their off-
tion or its extra support for children with spring. Allocation by the state of all
dyslexia. children to a local school, preferably
through a lottery, is the only way to
address inequality in education.
Possible motions
This House would pay for its education.
This House believes that private schools are not
in the public interest.

Related topics
Capitalism v. socialism
Marxism
Privatisation
Welfare state

Religious teaching in schools

This entry looks at the teaching of religious studies (RS) as a subject rather than the
existence of religious schools. Some countries, such as France, believe that religion has
no place within state education. Other countries, such as the UK, offer RS, but allow
192 R E L I G I O U S T E AC H I N G I N S C H O O L S

parents to remove their children from the classes. A definition would need to clarify
whether the debate was about instruction in one particular religion, or whether it was
the study of all religions as a subject, or both.

Pros Cons
[1] Religion has been so important to [1] A large number of people also happen
history – and is so important to a vast to regard religious belief as unimportant
number of people alive today – that it or wrong. Religious history, where rele-
clearly merits its place as an academic vant, can be taught as part of a History
subject alongside History and Literature. syllabus, but religious and spiritual dis-
In fact, the increasing secularisation and cussion should be entirely optional, the
scientific progress of the world make it choice of the student or the student’s
doubly important that the spiritual side of family, and conducted outside school.Too
humanity is not ignored. many people regard religion as irrelevant
to have it imposed on everyone.
[2] Religious teaching can cover many
faiths and denominations, outside specifi- [2] Even if religious teaching covers all
cally denominational schools (e.g. Roman faiths, it discriminates against the non-
Catholic), so it need not be discriminatory religious. Usually, however, it is focused
against minorities. In the UK, much of the largely on a small number of faiths or even
teaching is analysis of the history and the one relevant to the majority of its
beliefs of different religions rather than students; this is clearly unfair on the
instruction in any one set of doctrines. minority who may have another faith.

[3] Religious teaching is the only frame- [3] Just because the law is based on
work for students to discuss morals and religious morals does not mean that it
morality.That they should form a code of needs to be studied in that context.
morals is clearly a useful benefit to respon- Atheists can have a moral code. Morals
sible adulthood. In many Western democ- should be discussed in school, as should
racies, the entire legal system is founded the law, but in a modern setting dealing
on the basis of Christian morality, so with citizenship.
whether or not the theology is accepted, [4] Tolerance is not promoted through
the morality of that religion is still con- knowing the names of religious festi-
sidered ‘right’ in those countries. Generally, vals and clothing. Taking religion out of
all faiths aim to improve society and to schools and asking all pupils to be treated
alleviate injustice. equally regardless of their faith is a better
[4] In increasingly multicultural, multi- way to encourage respect in a multi-
faith societies it is important to understand cultural society. It concentrates on the
each other’s religions in order to foster similarities between all students rather
tolerance and respect.Traditions and prac- than highlighting their differences.
tices can be mischaracterised by bigots, [5] The danger is not that a child will not
and RS can help to protect against this. find their destined religion (religions are
S C H O O L S P O R T, C O M P U L S O RY 193

[5] Religious Studies can expose young good recruiters of the eager and impres-
students to ideas that they have not, and sionable), but rather that they will be
would not otherwise, have come across.A brainwashed into religious belief by a
teenager may be encouraged, for example, dynamic, religious teacher. Children
to find out more about Buddhism and should be free of indoctrination at school
may ultimately decide to follow this reli- and RS provides too easy an avenue for
gion. Education should be about open- bias to come through.
ing up the world of human existence to
enquiring minds, not deeming some ideas
Possible motions
as inappropriate to the classroom. If a child
This House believes that religion has no place in
comes from a strongly atheist home,
our schools.
school may be their only chance to under-
This House would keep schools secular.
stand people of faith.
Related topics
Churches in politics
Disestablishment of the Church of England
God, existence of

School sport, compulsory

Should sport form a part of compulsory education, should it be an optional extra on

offer to pupils, or is it a complete waste of time and resources to have it on offer in
schools? The debate is set against a backdrop of both rising obesity in the West and an
increasingly stretched school timetable.

Pros Cons
[1] A school education should involve [1] There are far too many ‘life skills’ for all
much more than the simple acquisition of of them to be satisfactorily taught in
facts.All sorts of skills needed in adult life school. An alternative to sport in many
should be developed. Sport provides many schools is involvement in charity work,
of these: the value of keeping fit, team- where students visit local residents with
work and discipline in particular. special needs – surely these aspects of
good citizenship should also be taught?
[2] Many children are unwilling to play
When something is enforced, it tends to
sports simply because they have not been
engender resentment which undoes the
encouraged towards physical pursuits in
benefits it may bring when voluntarily
the past: toddlers who are left to play or
chosen. Sport should therefore be
read in their bedrooms by their parents
optional, although encouraged.
instead of being sent to play outside with
friends. These children, when older, may [2] Students who start school sports as
choose to avoid sports if given the chance. inexperienced, reluctant participants and
194 S C H O O L S P O R T, C O M P U L S O RY

In fact, if forced to take part, they may well then go on to shine are very few in
discover a surprising enthusiasm and talent number. Most of the resources – especially
for certain sports. Many notable sports- the attention of games teachers – are
men and sportswomen started their devoted to children who are already very
careers this way. sporty. Beginners are therefore ignored
and lose enthusiasm. Or worse, they are
[3] Exercise is necessary to keep the body
bullied for their sporting ineptitude and
and mind healthy. While children are
put off sport for life.
naturally more fit and energetic than
adults, they need exercise to let off steam [3] The fitness vogue of recent years has
and to sleep properly; it is also advisable meant that adults are certainly aware of
that they are prepared for a habit of regular the value of exercise whether they choose
exercise when reaching adulthood. It to do it or not. They are more likely to
has been shown that academic work is continue sports they enjoy and have
generally better when coupled with chosen to play. Many adults choose to get
exercise. the benefits of exercise through using a
[4] Most aspects of school life are com- gym rather than playing sport. If children
pulsory and the enforced teaching of are over-energetic, they will run around
anything is not usually regarded as con- anyway.
troversial. Students accept sport as part of [4] Most aspects of school are compulsory
the curriculum just as they accept other only for younger ages; teenagers develop
mandatory subjects. Many students have discriminatory abilities that give them
no enthusiasm or talent for other subjects clear likes and dislikes. Curricula recognise
such as mathematics, but that does not this and allow students to choose between
stop us mandating them in the interest of optional subjects.Those that are enforced
the student. are frequently resented.
[5] Most sports also entail social pro- [5] The competition of sport engenders an
grammes and those who have chosen not inevitable elitism among the best parti-
to play sports miss out on these; they cipants; poor sports players who take part
frequently feel excluded from events and are ridiculed far more than those who do
social circles they would actually like to not play them in the first place.
take part in.
[6] Sport is one of the most expensive
[6] School sport need not be expensive. It parts of a school curriculum. Many
could involve taking a football to the local schools have facilities such as sports halls,
park or running races through local fields. playing fields or swimming pools. Almost
Many schools invest more in sport because all sports require special equipment and a
they see the benefits for motivating their high ratio of well-qualified staff to ensure
pupils and producing better rounded safety. This money could be better spent,
students with higher levels of concen- within an overstretched budget, on text-
tration and discipline.
books, computers, more staff and other
[7] Obesity levels are on the increase in investments that will advance pupils’ aca-
the Western world and child obesity is a demic achievement.
SCHOOL UNIFORM 195

particular problem. Obesity can cause [7] Neither child nor adult obesity can be
heart disease, strokes, diabetes and other tackled through a couple of hours of
serious health conditions. It is imperative school PE lessons. The time would be
that we do all we can to encourage healthy better spent on health awareness classes
lifestyles and schools are the best way of coupled with cookery lessons so that
forming positive habits in the young. people have the knowledge about what
they should eat and the skills to prepare it.
Possible motions
This House would make school sport voluntary.
This House believes that all students should take
part in compulsory PE.

Related topics
Child curfews
Obese children, compulsory attendance at
weight-loss camps
School uniform

School uniform

The norms for school dress code vary around the world from a strict uniform through
dress codes to no, or very few, restrictions on clothing.This is usually a debate that school
pupils themselves have very strong opinions on. A definition may want to address the
age range it is targeting, and the anti-uniform side could clarify how free it wants dress
to be.

Pros Cons
[1] A school should encourage tidiness and [1] Many schools do not have uniforms,
discipline in its pupils.A uniform aids this, while still demanding certain standards of
whereas freedom of dress tends to make dress, such as banning jeans, or requiring
pupils too eager to express their indi- long skirts while allowing a choice of
viduality, becoming obsessed with clothes colour.There is no reason why pupils not
and appearance. Teenagers may often wearing uniform cannot still be smart.
choose clothes that are unsuitable such as When pupils reach a certain age, they are
skirts which are too short or trousers old enough to behave responsibly while
which are too tight.There is also a widely still making their own decisions, and this
accepted connection between smart dress is what schools should be encouraging
and good behaviour as the clothes help to rather than a blind following of the rules.
create a work ethos. Why should they not be able to choose
how to dress?
196 S E X E D U C AT I O N

[2] School uniforms remove the oppor- [2] Expressing their individuality is impor-
tunity for fashion-related bullying and the tant to many young people. Clothing can
pressure to spend money on labels to be a powerful way of establishing your
impress friends and fit in with the crowd. identity. A uniform seeks to turn pupils
A uniform is a leveller and emphasises the into drones rather than allowing them to
similarities between students rather than grow and experiment.
pointing out the differences.
[3] Uniforms also help the pupils to stand
[3] School teachers must manage a large out to other people as well; fights are
number of pupils in a variety of situations. frequently picked between pupils from
Uniforms inevitably make that task much different schools who recognise each
easier when the pupils are out in public, other’s uniforms. Sometimes anonymity is
on school trips. It is an administrative preferable!
nightmare trying to monitor a group of
[4] A relatively small percentage of jobs
pupils who are dressed casually. Uniforms
require uniforms to be worn.Why should
also allow the public to recognise pupils
pupils planning to be doctors not wear
and report bad (or good) behaviour back
white coats, or future computer program-
to the school.
mers not wear t-shirts and jeans?
[4] Uniforms prepare students for the
[5] Uniforms are very expensive and have
smartness demanded in office life. Many
no value or chance of use outside school.
people have no choice in what they wear
Parents end up buying double as children
to work, either wearing a uniform or the
still need clothes for the evenings and
semi-uniform of jacket and tie. Children
weekends.
should not expect total freedom in their
working lives.
Possible motions
[5] Uniforms reduce the cost for parents
This House believes school uniforms are a good
on their children’s clothing, as they do not
idea.
have to replace wardrobes every few
This House would rather wear ‘mufti’.
months to follow the latest fashion trends.

Related Topics
School sport, compulsory
Child curfews

Sex education

It is generally agreed that we are living in an increasingly sexualised society and that
children are exposed to the world of sex earlier than ever before. Many countries are
seeing increased teenage pregnancy, abortion and STD rates. How should schools
respond to this? By teaching more sex education and doing it earlier or by preaching
abstinence?
S E X E D U C AT I O N 197

Pros Cons
[1] The increase in sexually transmitted [1] Yes, awareness of the need for safe sex
diseases (STDs) is due to ignorance about is important, but teachers are not the right
safe sex. In this age, when chlamydia, people to raise it. Many countries whose
herpes, gonorrhoea and HIV are being STD and teenage pregnancy rates are
passed on through sex, and only individual soaring do have sex education program-
responsibility with condoms can prevent mes, so clearly this is not working if so
it, a full discussion is essential. Sex educa- many pupils are still careless. Safe sex (i.e.
tion must form a significant part of the the use of condoms) is seen as unfashion-
curriculum. able, and its espousal by teachers will only
confirm that view. It is better to promote
[2] Sex education can help to prevent it through style magazines, television pro-
teenage pregnancies. Girls can be given grammes and other sources that will
information about how to access, and emphasise how acceptable it is.
properly use, a range of contraception and
about the ‘morning after pill’. Both sexes [2] The age of consent varies from country
to country (in the UK, it is 16) and teach-
can be educated about condoms. Myths
ing sex education before that age is
such as ‘you can’t get pregnant if it’s your
essentially asking schools to collude with
first time’ or ‘you can’t get pregnant if you
young people in breaking the law. Sex
have a bath afterwards’ can be exploded.
education actually adds to the sexualisa-
Teenage pregnancy is a major problem in
tion of childhood. If you show 12 year
many countries and schools must play
olds how to put a condom on a test tube,
their part in tackling it.
you are sending the message that you are
[3] There is also a need to understand sex expecting them to be sexually active.This
and its role in society, whether in a stable will only lead to more unwanted preg-
relationship or outside it, to ensure it is nancies and STDs. It is better to teach
treated responsibly and with respect. abstinence or nothing at all.
Too much distress is caused by sexual [3] School is not an arena in which
encounters where the two partners have teenagers take such things seriously.
different expectations. The media glam- Any discussion of sex in a classroom is
orise meaningless sex and yet are appalled likely to lead to ridicule, especially in co-
by the rise in casual sex and date rape educational classes. Respect for sex can
which they play a part in causing. Again, only be encouraged on a one-to-one
classroom discussion can engender a more basis, probably in the family by older
responsible attitude among students. siblings or parents. To try to teach it in
[4] If you leave it to families to discuss sex, school can only be detrimental.
you will get widely different results. Some [4] Schools are there to help children pass
parents may leave it too late and others exams and develop their talents. Asking
may not themselves be aware of the school staff to step into the personal lives of
changes in contraception and STDs since their students is not fair on the teachers
they were young. Children will end up who may not want to discuss sex with their
with a collection of half-facts and mis- pupils, and is particularly not fair on parents
198 SIZE ZERO MODELS, BANNING OF

understanding gathered from friends and who will want to decide how and when
magazines, and will not be equipped to their children find out about sex.The ‘facts
deal responsibly with the choices they of life’ chat is for families, not the state.
will face. Schools can provide a uniform
knowledge and it is part of their role to
Possible motions
develop young people socially and emo-
This House would keep the bedroom out of the
tionally as well as academically.
classroom.
This House would start sex education in
primary schools.
This House believes that parents should not be
allowed to remove their children from sex
education.

Related topics
Censorship by the state
Population control
Co-education
Contraception for under-age girls

Size zero models, banning of

The modern fashion industry typically uses thin models; this debate focuses on the
extreme of that trend, with (almost exclusively female) models becoming dangerously
underweight. Reasons vary; many models simply profess a desire to improve their
employment prospects, or the need to do so for a particular show, but the phenomenon
is also linked very closely with eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia. Public
outcry reached its height when two Brazilian model sisters, Luisel and Eliana Ramos, died
within six months of each other, both for reasons believed to be related to malnutrition.
In 2007, the Madrid and Milan Fashion Weeks both banned size zero models, and Spain
and Israel both have legislation preventing the use of underweight models. However, they
are still legal, and widely deployed, in the USA, the UK and France.

Pros Cons
[1] Most obviously, being size zero is [1] There is no reliable measure for decid-
highly dangerous for these models’ health. ing what really constitutes a ‘size zero’.
While a ban would not guarantee that Many people are simply naturally very
they would pursue a healthier lifestyle, it thin, and this policy discriminates against
gives them a strong economic incentive to them by preventing them earning a living
do so, because they have to gain weight to in their chosen career. Moreover, for those
be employable. At the extreme end, this people, this policy is simply unnecessary.
will prevent deaths, but it will also ensure ‘Size zero’ is not always absurdly thin; for
SIZE ZERO MODELS, BANNING OF 199

that far more young women avoid doing many, it actually represents a perfectly
long-term damage to their bodies by healthy body shape.
being dangerously underweight for much
[2] This policy is an unreasonable restric-
of their teens and twenties.
tion on liberty. The state does not, in
[2] Size zero models can serve as very general, prevent people from doing harm
dangerous role models for young girls. to their own bodies, even where it might
Their fame and wealth often make their be fatal; cigarettes, alcohol and bungee-
lifestyles seem highly desirable, and so girls jumping are all examples of this. These
seek to emulate them in every way; this women are perfectly capable of making
often includes crash dieting, taking pills to rational decisions; many of them are not
speed up their metabolisms and competi- anorexic, and it is offensive to suppose that
tive undereating. Banning such models is they are incapable of choosing to look a
merely protecting some of the most certain way of their own free will.
vulnerable people in our society from [3] Runway models simply do not have
highly dangerous influences. that much of an impact on the real prob-
[3] The decision to be size zero is not a lems of unhealthy body images within
free or rational one, but is typically driven society. So it would be inconsistent to
by severe psychological illnesses.Anorexia, outlaw them, while keeping actors and
bulimia and other eating disorders are musicians with unhealthy body images
recognised medical conditions which legal. Few people watch runway shows or
impair these models’ ability to think freely read high-fashion magazines; indeed,
about their weight, quite literally distort- adverts for the clothes that most ordinary
ing their self-perception so that they think women wear and buy are modelled by
themselves hideously fat even when they those with a much healthier body image.
are in fact very thin.The state often steps It is absurd to suggest that a size zero
in where people’s decisions are ultimately model does more damage to society than
harmful and they cannot rationally magazines running stories on which
choose, and this is a paradigm case. celebrities are ‘looking fat this month’.

[4] Banning size zero models sends a [4] This policy is ultimately counter-
powerful message that women should not productive.Anorexic and bulimic women
be objectified. Much of the size zero trend need help and support, not exclusion.
rests on the idea that it is acceptable for The message of disapproval sent by the
anything to be demanded of women’s criminalisation of their activities does
bodies, even when extreme or unhealthy, not encourage them to approach family,
as long as it makes them more attractive. friends and medical professionals for
This places a clear limit on that trend, and support, but rather demonises them and
in doing so refocuses the fashion industry blames them for their conduct. Particu-
on normal, healthy body shapes, which do larly with an illness so strongly bound up
with low self-esteem, this is obviously
not require women to transform them-
ineffective as a solution.
selves because of a dominant perception of
how they ‘should’ look.
200 S P O R T, E Q UA L I S E S TAT U S O F M E N A N D W O M E N I N

Related topics
Possible motions Beauty contests, banning of
This House would ban size zero models. Cosmetic surgery, banning of
This House would require all models to have a
minimum BMI.
This House believes that models should also be
role models.

Sport, equalise status of men and women in

The arguments below consider the general arguments for equalising the status of men
and women in sport.You may debate this issue in principle or a motion may specifically
ask you to look at equalising airtime, prizes or salaries. In all areas, the debate asks
whether the market should be allowed to dictate terms or whether intervention is
needed to produce equality.

Pros Cons
[1] Men and women are equal and by [1] Sport is commercial and is driven by
giving different prizes or different cover- the market. Prizes reflect what sponsors
age, you suggest otherwise and send out are willing to pay. Sky shows the fixtures
the message to society that women are that people will watch. Commercial TV
inferior. companies are not, and should not be
asked to be, an engine for social change.
[2] Men’s sport has had a head start in
attracting a following.The current bias in [2] If people want to watch more women’s
reporting exacerbates this by giving less sport, they should start buying tickets and
exposure and profile to women’s sport. the money and profile will follow.Already
Many people assume that women’s sports women’s sport has a higher profile than it
such as cricket or football are dull or slow used to, and it will continue to grow
without having seen them. If the media without intervention.There is no inherent
gave more attention to women’s sports, sexism in coverage. In sports where there
then the fan base would follow. This is an audience for watching women (ath-
can be seen with women’s tennis which letics, gymnastics and tennis, for example),
attracts large audiences. the events are shown on television.There
is not the same audience for women’s
[3] Women, and young girls in particular,
rugby or cricket. Similarly, since 2007, the
need to see prominent role models in
prizes for Wimbledon champions are
sport. At the moment, they see cheer-
equal.
leaders on television who are there to
support the men, not to achieve success in [3] Men’s sport is faster, higher and
their own right. stronger. People want the most enter-
taining spectacle and they find it watching
S P O R T, R E G R E T T I N G T H E C O M M E R C I A L I S AT I O N O F 201

men. The fastest 100m will (probably)

Possible motions always be run by a man. Men’s sport will
This House believes that men’s and women’s probably always maintain an edge because
sports should be given equal airtime. of this and there is nothing wrong with
This House would equalise the status of men that. Countries will always highlight the
and women in sport. international success of their female sports
This House supports equal prizes for men and stars (Russia and China celebrate their
women in sport. gymnasts, the USA their tennis stars
and the UK their cyclists and sailors), so
Related topics there will always be role models, even if
Affirmative action domestic leagues are not given as much
Women fighting on the frontline airtime.
Sport, regretting the commercialisation of

Sport, regretting the commercialisation of

The influence of money in sport has long been present, but in recent years, the sums
involved have risen exponentially. Gone are the days of local footballers earning small
sums of money playing for a local team; in 2009, Real Madrid paid a whopping
€98 million to sign Cristiano Ronaldo from Manchester United, while Lionel Messi’s
contract at FC Barcelona sees him earning €34 million. Outside football, the money is
in fact even bigger; boxers Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao earned US$85
million and US$62 million respectively in 2011. All of this also means that prices rise
as well; a season ticket is now beyond the reach of traditional supporters.

Pros Cons
[1] The commercialisation of sport [1] Far from harming sports, commer-
directly harms the sports themselves. The cialisation aids them. With new money
team loyalties that were once a major come better facilities and better training
factor in many sports have been replaced for sportsmen and sportswomen, allowing
by modern transfers, by which sportsmen them to perform at their very best and
and sportswomen move from one team to fulfil their potential. Better competitors
another in pursuit of a higher salary. Some make for better events; therefore, increa-
events are staged for purely commercial sing investment in sport can only be a
purposes, especially in boxing, where good thing for the sports themselves.
ageing fighters are brought out of retire- Although there are occasional abuses, the
ment and mismatched against younger spirit of sport – and the desire to win on
opponents. Other sports are under pres- the field as well as with the bank balance
sure to alter their rules to make them – is as vibrant as ever.
more ‘watchable’. For instance, profes-
sional cricket is now dominated by the [2] The extra money in sport is in fact
T20 version of the game, a shorter version good for the sports fan. Obviously, the
202 S P O R T, R E G R E T T I N G T H E C O M M E R C I A L I S AT I O N O F

for those with poor attention spans or more highly trained athletes result in a
limited time to spare. more exciting spectacle. Also, major
sporting fixtures have become national
[2] Commercialised sport is also bad for
events. For those dedicated enough to
the viewer. As covering major events has
attend in person, expensive new stadia
become more expensive, rights to do so
provide room for more fans in more
have been bought by subscription and
comfort and safety than ever before; for
pay-per-view channels; public broadcast-
others, well thought-out comprehensive
ing can compete only with the aid of state
coverage is provided on television and
intervention, which is heavily opposed by
radio. Even though rights are increasingly
sporting bodies greedy for more cash,
bought up by satellite and cable channels,
leaving fans out of pocket. Coverage is in
deregulation of the broadcasting market
danger of becoming ever more revenue-
means that ever more people have access
led – football in particular is under pres-
to these. Moreover, national governments
sure to become a game of four quarters to
can, and do, stop the sale of certain events
allow more advertising.
to pay-per-view channels, to ensure uni-
[3] Sportsmen and sportswomen simply versal access.
do not deserve the inflated salaries they
[3] Modern sportsmen and sportswomen
earn. For boxers such as Mayweather to
deserve the money they are paid. Their
have earned US$85 million in a year for
activities entertain millions worldwide, yet
just two fights is obscene when teachers
their professional lives are often short.
and nurses are paid barely enough to make
Recognition should be given to those
a living. The market is no longer paying
who have given their all in pursuit of a
what these people are worth; rather,
sporting ideal, and who are often heroes to
structural problems in the market mean
many members of the public. They also
that sportsmen and sportswomen are
train obsessively all year round; it is not as
systematically overpaid.
though they are lazy or just lucky.
[4] The amount of money in sport
[4] In fact, large cash injections improve
damages competition, because only teams
competition because they give previously
with enormous sums of money have any
unsuccessful clubs a means of challenging
meaningful chance of being competitive;
the dominance of the previous top tier.
for instance, big-money takeovers of
Chelsea’s takeover allowed the club to
Chelsea and Manchester City have unbal-
buy players who would never previously
anced Premiership football heavily in
have joined the club, and so challenge
favour of a small number of wealthy clubs.
Manchester United’s dominance over the
That group is very hard to break into, and
sport.
as that will only happen rarely, the sport
will become more predictable.
S P O R T S T E A M S P U N I S H E D F O R T H E B E H AV I O U R O F FA N S 203

Related topics
Possible motions Capitalism v. socialism
This House believes that there is too much Salary capping, mandatory
money in sport. Performance-enhancing drugs in sport
This House regrets the commercialisation of
sport.
This House believes in the ‘Olympic Ideal’.

Sports teams punished for the behaviour of fans

Many football matches have been marred in recent years by the violent or abusive
behaviour of the fans. This has included mass rioting as in the Juventus v. Liverpool
European Cup Final in 1985. More often the behaviour manifests itself in the throwing
of objects at players, or insulting players because of their racial/ethnic background.
Nowadays, CCTV may bring the perpetrators to justice, but there is a feeling that since
the club is a community, the team should also face the consequences.

Pros Cons
[1] There is a problem in some sports [1] If there is a problem with the behavi-
(especially soccer) in that racism and our of fans, then it is better to tackle the
violence are rife. The crowd situation fans themselves. It is possible to identify
makes it hard to target individuals. This and strongly punish offenders. If necessary,
means there are few consequences for hold games with no spectators so that it is
offending and if some perpetrators are the fans who suffer and not the team.
caught, plenty are left to continue making
[2] This policy will not be effective as a
trouble. It is essential to find a solution that
combination of alcohol and the high
tackles the group nature of the issue and
emotion of matches mean that bad
this proposal does just that.
behaviour is not a rational decision, but
[2] This action would be effective. Fans an out-of-control response to stimulus.
love their teams and do not want them to Deterrents only work when people are
suffer, therefore this will act as a powerful thinking logically about consequences.
deterrent. This deterrent will act on an
[3] Sport already works hard to send
individual level, but also especially at a
strong messages on values and behaviour;
group level where peer pressure will act to
for example, through the UEFA Respect
stamp out anti-social behaviour to protect
campaign. We should work with not
a team’s success. It also incentivises teams
against teams to stamp out problems.
to promote the good behaviour of their
fans. They know they need their fans to [4] This is exceptionally unfair. A team
behave for their own self-interest and so cannot control their fans’ behaviour and
will get involved more in policing and yet their hard work is overturned by the
setting a good example. actions of others. Sporting results should
204 U N I V E R S I T Y E D U C AT I O N , F R E E F O R A L L

[3] This policy carries a strong message be based on sporting skill and nothing
that racism and violence are not accept- else. It is also open to abuse. How do you
able and will not be tolerated.This is good know if someone is really a fan or trying
for the sport and for the whole of society. to sabotage a team?
Many young people are obsessive about
sport and they can learn lessons through
Possible motions
this arena about values and about the
This House would punish sports teams for the
consequences of their actions.
behaviour of their fans.
[4] This punishment is consistent with This House would penalise football clubs for the
other policies. For example, in Premier- hooliganism of their fans.
ship football, a club can be penalised for its
financial mismanagement, which is not Related topics
the fault of the players. Games can also be Zero tolerance
held in private which affects all fans even Sport, regretting the commercialisation of
if only a minority have engaged in hooli- Parents, responsibility for the criminal acts of
ganism.This is accepted as fair, as a club is their children
seen as more than just the players.

University education, free for all

University education is very expensive and there are a number of models for funding it.
Some countries such as Germany, France and Sweden fund it fully through taxation and
it is free to the students. Other countries such as the USA,Australia and England expect
students to pay some or all of the fees.There may be loans available so that the students
do not have to pay the fees until they are earning, and there may be exemptions for the
poorest students. Another option is a graduate tax to raise money for higher education
funding. It is not essential for the Opposition team to put forward a model of how they
would make students pay, but they may choose to, to clarify the terms of the debate.

Pros Cons
[1] As developed countries become more [1] There is always only a finite amount
technologically advanced and richer, there of money available that can be spent on
is a need for a fuller education for young education by the government. It is right
people, and there are the resources to pay that the focus should be on the years of
for it. Where there is the political will, compulsory schooling (e.g. 5–18 or 7–16)
university education can still be free – as this is the core period of education
even if that might involve raising taxes to which everybody is entitled. Higher
by 1 per cent or 2 per cent. We should education is not part of the core education
campaign for free university education for that the state must provide free of charge
all as part of the education the state for all. University education, like nursery
provides to each citizen as a right. education, is a bonus, a privilege that
U N I V E R S I T Y E D U C AT I O N , F R E E F O R A L L 205

[2] Individuals do not exist in a vacuum – people opt for rather than a right. It is
we are all part of one organic society. Just therefore acceptable to raise money for
as students are dependent on the work of higher education by charging fees.
others (e.g. parents, teachers, cleaners) for
[2] It is right to follow the principle that
their educational opportunities, so society
the consumer pays. It is the students
is dependent on well-educated graduates
(e.g. academics, scientists, economists, themselves who benefit most directly
bankers, doctors) to prosper and flourish. from their university education – earning
Society at large benefits from the skills and as much as 50 per cent more, on average,
wealth generation of graduates, and so than a non-graduate in later life. It is
society at large (i.e. the state) should pay. therefore they themselves who should pay
It is in the nature of taxation that people for their university fees. Why should
pay for services that they do not use, cleaners or bus drivers who never went to
and if graduates earn more, then they will university themselves pay for those who
contribute more through their taxes. do? A majority of university students
come from more affluent backgrounds,
[3] Charging tuition fees discriminates while most taxpayers are poorer; clearly it
against the poor and perpetuates elitism in is inequitable to make them pay.
the university system. Those from poorer
backgrounds are particularly unwilling to [3] The important consideration is
take on debt in order to gain a university equality of access and opportunity – a
education, so those young people who system that discriminated against the poor
happen to have rich parents will, on aver- would be elitist and unacceptable. Such
age, get a better education. University equality can be guaranteed by a loan
education should be a key engine in social system where those who cannot afford
mobility and equality by allowing every- fees will not have to pay them until they
one to make the most of their academic are earning enough to pay them back, or
abilities. by having bursaries for the poorest in
society.There is no need to have university
[4] A free system removes barriers to as a universal benefit in order just to
entry and the disincentive of debt and promote access.
therefore leads to a greater percentage of
society attending university, which bene- [4] There is no conclusive evidence that
fits society. Industry, commerce, science charging tuition fees leads to a drop in
and the culture of a country all need the student numbers. With awareness of the
benefit of graduates, and society should be different ways of paying and the benefits
prepared to invest in having a well- of a university education, most people
educated population. choose it as worth paying for.
[5] It is patronising and elitist to say that [5] It would not necessarily be a bad thing
some people who go to university are not if fewer people applied to university. Not
really up to it. It is up to the students and everyone is suited to an academic degree,
the universities to decide whether these and it is questionable whether so many
people have the ability to do a degree. people should be encouraged to go to
Employers continue to prefer graduates university. Politicians often boast of the
206 VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES, BANNING OF

over non-graduates, and so in the interest increasing numbers of people going to

of equality, a free university education university, but this, in fact, means that
should be available for all. University standards drop, resources are stretched to
education is a right, not a privilege. breaking point, and many young people
find themselves spending three more
[6] Some people will always be lazy and
years studying for little long-term gain
prefer socialising to studying.Tuition fees
when they could have been working.
will not change this as the student will not
Introducing tuition fees teaches people to
feel the effect of them until after their
value a university education as a privilege
degree. Students may, however, feel under
rather than a right – if this means a drop
extra pressure to get paid work through-
in numbers and a raising of standards, then
out their time at university to reduce their
that is no bad thing.
debts, and this acts as a distraction to the
diligent. [6] Tuition fees ensure that students make
the most of the opportunity. When it is
free, some students skip lectures, do the
Possible motions
minimum work and see the experience as
This House believes in free university education.
the chance to party. If they are paying, they
This House would charge university tuition
are more likely to value the experience.
fees.
Additionally, if they are customers, then
This House believes in a ‘graduate tax’.
they have more chance of guaranteeing
that the university is providing them with
Related topics
the best education.
Capitalism v. socialism
Privatisation
Welfare state
Private schools
Nursery education, free provision of by the state

Violent video games, banning of

This debate considers whether state censorship can be justified by the harms caused by
violent video games. Games such as Grand Theft Auto have attracted increasing criticism
over recent years as the amount of violence has escalated.

Pros Cons
[1] Violent video games encourage a more [1] Violent video games are just enter-
violent society. The constant exposure to tainment and the government should not
horrific acts desensitises the user to assault intervene to limit people’s freedom of
and killing.The extent of the brutality in choice to play them, as they do not harm
today’s games is shocking and people play the player or anyone else. People know
them for hours a day, meaning they are on that it is make-believe and it does not
VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES, BANNING OF 207

a constant diet of shooting, beating and therefore influence their views of reality.
bludgeoning. This normalises violence in People who are psychologically disturbed
society. There is also a specific issue of and commit awful crimes would do so
copycat crimes where a player enacts in without video games. The games cannot
real life the atrocities that they have be blamed when the overwhelming
played. Recently in Britain, a 14-year-old majority of people play and are unaf-
boy committed murder with a hammer fected. In fact it may be that video games
after repeatedly playing Manhunt which can channel aggression which might
rewards the same type of attack. otherwise come out in real violence.
[2] Video games are a particularly harmful [2] It is wrong to target video games. Film
medium because of their immersive and television have just as much gratuitous
quality. Violence in film and TV should violence as video games, and some music
also be limited, but video games are the genres also feature violence in their lyrics.
worst culprit because the player is in If anything, these media are worse as they
control, committing the violence them- show real people rather than graphics, and
selves, rather than watching somebody else they create action heroes for the audience
do it. It is this feature which leads to a to admire.
programming effect and can embed vio- [3] Video games have age certification to
lence in the brain of those using the make sure that they are used appropriately.
games. It is up to parents to monitor use, just as it
is with films. Adults should not be denied
[3] Violent video games are especially access to video games in order to protect
harmful to impressionable children and it children any more than they should be
is very hard to prevent access to them. denied access to alcohol or gambling.
There has always been a problem with
older friends and siblings buying games for [4] There always has and always will be
youngsters, but now that you can down- violence in entertainment because people
load games straight to your computer, find it entertaining. Before the technology
children can access the games themselves for video games was here, children played
with ease. with toy guns and when there are no
toys, children will still engage in imagina-
[4] Violence as entertainment is immoral. tive play using their fingers as shooters.
If society wants to take a stand against Computer games are just a different way
violence, then it should not allow enter- of doing the same thing.
tainment media to glorify it. This only
muddies the message and undermines our
values. Possible motions
This House would ban violent video games.
This House believes that violent video games
damage society.

Related topics
Boxing, banning of
Music lyrics, censorship of
208 ZOOS, ABOLITION OF

Zoos, abolition of

See the introduction to the debate on ‘animal experimentation and vivisection, banning
of ’ (Section E) and the entry on ‘animal rights’ (Section A).The conditions of animals
in captivity vary hugely around the world. If the debate is set in your own country, you
will need to consider the specific treatment of the animals. The definition could also
include or exclude safari parks, where the animals roam around an open area that visitors
drive through, rather than living in cages.

Pros Cons
[1] Animals have rights just as humans do. [1] Animals do not have rights. It is
They have evolved from nature and each entirely at our discretion how we treat
belongs undisturbed in its own natural them, since we are a stronger predatory
habitat, left alone to live, breed and seek species.The use of a weaker species for the
food. To remove them against their will needs of a stronger one is entirely natural.
from this habitat is immoral.
[2] It is easy to pick shocking, isolated
[2] Even if animals do not have rights, we examples of animal cruelty. In fact, the
as humans still have a duty to treat them general treatment afforded to most ani-
humanely in our role as ‘stewards of the mals in zoos is very good.They are given
Earth’. Although we may breed them for regular food and water, comfortable envi-
our purposes, to use for entertainment, for ronments suited to their particular needs,
company, or to wear or eat, we must still and most importantly, medical treatment –
avoid causing them to suffer. Zoos do this something they would not benefit from in
in two ways. First, the animals frequently the wild. In many cases, their chance of
suffer abuse, neglect and even death, survival is better than in their ‘natural’
through boredom, unfamiliarity with habitat. It is certainly not worse than a
their new habitats and cruel treatment by life as a pet or on a farm. Zoos do not
zookeepers. A San Francisco zookeeper, condone cruelty to animals; the public is
explaining an incident in which an taught that all animals are interesting and
African elephant was beaten with axe precious.
handles for two days, described the treat-
[3] By all means close down roadside
ment as ‘the only way to motivate them’.
zoos, or at least subject them to the same
Birds’ wings may be clipped, aquatic
stringent safeguards as municipal zoos.
animals may have too little water, herd
animals are kept alone or in pairs, and [4] Zoos are useful for educational
many animals contract ‘zoochosis’ – purposes. In particular, they allow children
abnormal and self-destructive behaviour an opportunity to observe closely animals
caused by their confinement. Second, the from other countries that they might
exhibition of animals in captivity tells an never have a chance to see, as well as learn
impressionable public that cruelty to about all the species of the animal king-
animals can be condoned. dom and how they are related.
ZOOS, ABOLITION OF 209

[3] Few zoos approach satisfactory stan- [5] Endangered species may be protected
dards of care for their animals. Many make from extinction in zoos, or in wildlife
no attempt to do so, such as ‘roadside’ zoos sanctuaries. Scientists are also afforded
or menageries, where the primary pur- valuable opportunities to study animals in
pose of the animals is to attract customers strange environments, and draw conclu-
to another facility such as a restaurant, sions about how we can affect their
store or hotel. There is no educational natural habitats.
benefit to these zoos.
[4] Larger zoos that claim to be for edu- Possible motions
cational benefit are kidding themselves; This House would free the animals.
visitors usually spend no more than a few This House would shut down zoos.
minutes at each exhibit, using the animals
rather for entertainment. The public can Related topics
watch nature documentaries and find out Animal experimentation and vivisection, ban-
about how animals act in their own ning of
habitat, which is more educational than Blood sports, abolition of
seeing them in cages. Their primary use Animal rights
for research is to devise ways to breed and Vegetarianism
maintain more animals in captivity. If zoos
ceased to exist, so would the need for their
research.
[5] Animals chosen for zoos are usually the
popular breeds, which will attract crowds.
Endangered species in need of protection
may not necessarily attract audiences.
SECTION G

Crime and punishment

C A P I TA L P U N I S H M E N T 213

Capital punishment

In 2013, 58 countries still use the death penalty as a form of punishment. The vast
majority of executions take place in China, which is thought to execute more than
4,000 people a year; Iran comes second with about 400; no other state executes more
than 100 prisoners a year.As such, it is a punishment mostly used sparingly and for the
most serious crimes; murder is the primary one, though some countries retain it for
drug-related offences as well.The methods of capital punishment also vary; some US
states retain the use of gas chambers to execute prisoners, but most use lethal injection.

Pros Cons
[1] In any country – democracy or dicta- [1] If killing is a crime and immoral in the
torship – one of the roles of the state is to eyes of society, then for the state to kill its
punish criminals. In the case of serial citizens is equally barbaric.Two wrongs do
murderers, terrorists,‘cop killers’ etc., they not make a right, and it is never right to
should be punished by death. Our human put someone to death, no matter what the
rights are given to us as part of a contract crime. The death penalty is a ‘cruel and
– which says that we can do anything we unusual punishment’, especially in view of
want as long as it does not hurt anyone the psychological torture inflicted on
else – and so, if we take away the life of those on Death Row, who know that they
another person, then surely we forfeit the are going to be executed, but do not know
right to our own life. when.
[2] Use of the death penalty deters crimi- [2] If the death penalty is such a deterrent,
nals from murdering. Numerous studies then why is the murder rate so high in the
in the USA show a noticeable drop in USA? There has been virtually no change
murder rates in the months directly in the overall rate since 1976 when the
following any execution. One study con- death penalty was reinstated, despite an
cludes that each execution prevents, on enormous increase in the number of exe-
average, 18 further murders. Since capital cutions. Also, death penalty states often
punishment was abolished in the UK in have a higher murder rate than their
1965 (for all crimes except treason), the neighbouring states that do not use the
murder rate has doubled. death penalty. A distinction also needs to
[3] Executing murderers prevents them be made between local short-term deter-
from killing again. Given that the rate of rents (immediately after executions in
re-offending is so high, these people particular places) and long-term deter-
must be removed from society altogether. rents that have an effect on national crime
Serial killers – those who are so ‘evil’ or rates, for which there is less evidence.
hardened as to be incapable of reform – [3] Execution may remove some killers
can be removed permanently from society. from society, but in return, it brutalises
[4] The death penalty is only given when society and invests killing with state-
the facts are certain and the jury has no sanctioned acceptability. Not only is capital
214 CHILD CURFEWS

doubt whatsoever, and only carried out punishment not a deterrent, but it can even
when every right to appeal has been increase the murder rate; California’s rate
exhausted. There have admittedly been showed its biggest increases between 1952
some cases of wrongful conviction lead- and 1967, when executions occurred every
ing to execution in the UK (notably two months on average.
Timothy Evans in 1950 and, probably,
[4] A single mistaken execution of an
James Hanratty in 1962), but although it
innocent person, among no matter how
may seem harsh, this is negligible when
many thousands of cases, is utterly unjusti-
compared with the number of murders
fiable and is enough to destroy our trust in
prevented by the death penalty. The
discrimination between various degrees of the death penalty and in any judicial
homicide or manslaughter allows the jury system that uses it. Rehabilitation is part of
plenty of opportunity for clemency, and the purpose of punishment, and who is to
insane murderers are never executed. say that any guilty criminal cannot be
reformed? Any prisoner must be given
[5] If there is no death penalty, then there every chance to come to terms with their
is no incentive for prisoners sentenced to wrongdoing and perhaps be rehabilitated
life without parole not to commit crimes into society – a chance that execution
while in prison – to kill warders, other denies.
prisoners, or to try to escape and kill
again. Nothing they can do can result in [5] There are several ways of dealing with
further punishment. misbehaving prisoners: the revoking of
privileges if their disorder is on a minor
scale, and solitary confinement in a
Possible motions maximum-security cell if they are violent.
This House would reintroduce the death penalty. There will always be psychopaths who
This House would hang murderers. need to be confined in this way. Those
who are not psychopaths should not be
Related topics sentenced to life without parole – if they
Smacking, remove parents’ right to have the chance of parole, they have an
Mandatory prison sentences incentive towards good behaviour.
Prison v. rehabilitation
Zero tolerance
Dictators, assassination of

Child curfews

Punishing children and preventing them from committing crimes poses a peculiar
problem for law enforcement. Often it is harder to prosecute children, and the available
punishments are less severe; in addition, governments are keen to emphasise the need
for softer measures to deal with youth crime, which focus on enhancing parental
involvement in crime prevention. Curfews can be part of a broader strategy to prevent
youth crime before it takes place, rather than only punishing it after the event.
CHILD CURFEWS 215

Pros Cons
[1] There is a worrying increase in anti- [1] The sort of children who would
social and criminal behaviour among murder, or even those who would get
young children.There have been horrific involved in gangs, drugs and car theft, will
cases of crimes perpetrated by children not take the slightest bit of notice of a
under the age of 13; many of the curfew. Children who behave in these
participants in the 2011 London riots criminal and anti-social ways are well past
were very young.We need to take action taking notice of bedtimes.Youth crime is a
to stem this tide of young offending. radical and alarming problem that calls
Children pick up anti-social and criminal for a more radical solution. The age of
behaviour and habits from older children criminal responsibility should be lowered
with whom they associate. Much of this to eight, and sentences for young offenders
crime (car theft, drugs, vandalism, gang should be more severe, and imposed after a
fights) takes place at night, and child single ‘final warning’, rather than children
curfews will give the police an additional receiving several ‘cautions’ before any
weapon with which to fight offending by punishment is dished out.
young people.
[2] Most young offenders learn violent
[2] Parents would also have a responsibility behaviour, lack of respect for property,
to enforce the curfew.Any policy to com- indiscipline and dishonesty from their
bat youth crime must include an impor- parents. Others learn it from their peers,
tant role for parents who must be made to and the need to impress these peers and be
take responsibility for their children.They, included by them outweighs any worthy
along with their child, would be liable to parental entreaties. In the first case, the
punishment if the curfew is broken. This parent would not care whether a curfew
would serve as an incentive to better and was enforced; and in the second case, they
more responsible parenting. would be powerless to see that it was. So
introducing a curfew would be an empty
[3] Curfews also protect young people
and futile gesture.
from crime; it is much harder to protect
them at night, when there are fewer [3] If anything, curfews put children in
passers-by or people looking out of their more danger, because they discourage
windows, than during the day, when the them from seeking help from the police or
eyes and ears of a community are all other adults if they are out late at night
around to watch out for them. Parents and get into trouble; this is because they
cannot know where their children are at will fear admitting that they have broken
all times; thus, the state should assist them the curfew rules. Moreover, parents may
in making sure that they are at home wrongly assume that their children are not
when they are most in danger. breaching curfew, and so fail to protect
them sufficiently.
216 COMMUNIT Y SENTENCING

Related topics
Possible motions Smacking, remove parents’ right to
This House would put a curfew on children. School uniform
This House would not allow kids out after dark. Zero tolerance
Parents, responsibility for the criminal acts of
their children

Community sentencing

Most legal systems that allow local communities to play a prominent role in sentencing
limit this right to relatively cohesive and isolated indigenous or religious communities,
but there is no reason in principle that this must be so. A crucial distinction is made
between setting the law, conducting the trial to see if a suspect is guilty, and then
sentencing; these debates only allow the local community in at the final stage, while
retaining the state’s power to set the law and administer it. However, there are profound
implications in those areas as well.The most prominent example is ‘sentencing circles’
in Australia and Canada, where judges sit with indigenous elders to determine sentences
and explain them to both offender and victim. Such circles often take into account
different considerations from normal courts focusing on healing and restoring the
community rather than a strict emphasis on retribution.

Pros Cons
[1] The main damage done by a crime is [1] The state depends for its legitimacy
done, after that to the victim, to the com- on the ability to enforce its laws, and this
munity in which it is committed; any policy undermines that. While the law
secondary impact on ‘the state’ is minimal. may remain the same, it is only meaningful
As such, it should be up to the community if punishment follows a breach. Here, the
to determine appropriate sentences, rather state loses its power to punish breaches of
than judges who may have little or no particular laws, and so risks individual
involvement with the real lives of those communities weakening the state’s ability
affected by crime.This can cut both ways. to prevent certain social harms. Moreover,
Communities may want to punish some because different areas will choose to pun-
crimes more harshly; for instance, gun ish things differently, this creates ‘patch-
crime in a neighbourhood where those work justice’, where a crime may be
offences are especially prevalent might be punished more harshly in one area than in
seen as a particularly serious crime. But its neighbour, which is dangerous and
equally, they may want to display more illogical.
mercy; poor areas might display greater [2] The state also loses the power to pro-
understanding about burglary driven by tect internal minority groups. Sentencing
desperation, for example. circles may reflect biases against a ‘minor-
ity within a minority’, such as the ‘Native
COMMUNIT Y SENTENCING 217

[2] The world contains many different Freeman’ in the USA, who are the
moral value sets, and the state should be descendants of African-American slaves
less stubborn about privileging one at the that belong to Native American groups, so
expense of all others. Many indigenous crimes against them will be punished less
communities do not have firmly fixed harshly. Moreover, it may simply be that
conceptions of ‘rights’, but instead think of certain crimes are ignored within a com-
moral relationships in a more community- munity; for instance, if a community
focused way, which places special emphasis decides to sentence rape less harshly, then
on mercy and restoration of past relation- women are left vulnerable within that
ships. The state should be more open to group.This also means that the state loses
bringing these moral concepts into its its power to propel social change; if a
operations, especially where all the parties minority group lags behind mainstream
understand them better. society in reducing homophobia, they
may also punish homophobic violence less
[3] These punishments will be more harshly.
effective. Often, minority communities
feel disconnected from the justice system, [3] Rather than improving relations with
because its primary role in their lives is the these groups, this policy undermines these
arrest and prosecution of their young groups’ relationships with the state, by
men. As such, they have little respect for emphasising their cultural and social
the justice system, and so do not acknow- differences. This sends the message that
ledge the moral force of its punishments. those differences are so deep that they
Community sentencing makes it more cannot be contained by the criminal jus-
likely that both the offender and his/her tice system. If we need separate sentenc-
community will acknowledge the punish- ing, why not also have separate police
ment as valid, making re-offending less forces and courts? This proposal will ulti-
likely. mately increase crime, as minority groups
become less willing to avail themselves of
[4] Mainstream justice in these societies is the justice system altogether.
far from perfect; indeed, often its emphasis
on retribution over rehabilitation is sub- [4] Such sentencing powers actually risk
stantially flawed. The justice system doing significant damage to cohesion
potentially has much to learn from other within these communities, as it is far from
value systems. It is not enough merely to clear who is to control these sentencing
listen to them; they must be seen to be put powers, or how they will do so. If it is
into practice and experimented with, in elected leaders in these communities, then
order that the lessons from them can be those elections will become vastly more
seen in action and then deployed by intense, and may spill over into violence.
judges and juries in all courts. But more dangerous still is the possibility
that decisions will be made on familial or
patrimonial lines, based on traditional
connections, rather than as a fair reflection
of the group’s beliefs.
M A N DATO RY P R I S O N S E N T E N C E S 223

Related topics
Possible motions Judges, election of
This House would abolish jury trials. Community sentencing
This House would not use juries in civil cases.
This House would leave tough cases to judges.

Mandatory prison sentences

In many countries, certain crimes carry mandatory prison sentences; that is, there is a
level beyond which a judge cannot go, whatever the circumstances of the case. In some
cases, such sentences are for a specific crime; for instance, many jurisdictions demand
that murder carries a life sentence, and the USA has ‘mandatory minimums’ for
particular drugs offences. In other cases, sentences are mandatory only if the offender
has committed previous crimes; for instance, a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy which
demands prison time for a third-time offender, whatever the crime.

Pros Cons
[1] Governments need to be tough on [1] The fact that mandatory sentences
crime to counteract the alarming increases may have a deterrent effect does not begin
in crime that characterise some modern to compensate for the injustices that such
societies. Mandatory prison sentences of, a system produces. A third offence in
for instance, five years for a third burglary exceptional extenuating circumstances
conviction, and 10-year (or life) prison can technically qualify for a mandatory
sentences for a third conviction for serious 10-year or life sentence despite clearly
violent or sexual crimes are powerful and not deserving it. In an infamous case in
effective deterrents in the fight against California, the third felony that carried
crime. the mandatory life sentence for one
unfortunate young man was the theft of a
[2] Political gestures are important for
slice of pizza from a child on a beach. In
public confidence. The government must
another case, a man was sentenced to 51
be seen to be tough on crime. Mandatory
years for owning a forged driving licence,
sentencing will increase public confidence
because it was his third felony. Judicial
in the judicial process and make people
discretion must be allowed to decide each
feel safer in the face of the threat of serious
case on its merits. Also, prison sentences
crime.
are an expensive way to make bad people
[3] It is particularly important for more worse and we should not be seeking to
serious crimes that there is consistency increase them. Probation and rehabilita-
of sentencing. For prison sentences to be tion through community work and social
effective deterrents and for them to be reintegration (through measures such as
seen to be justly and uniformly imposed, help to return to employment) are the
they must be imposed at the same level for really effective ways to tackle crime.
224 M A N DATO RY P R I S O N S E N T E N C E S

the same crime by all judges. If repeat [2] Mandatory sentencing is an unneces-
offences against property (theft and sary political gesture, and an inappropriate
burglary) are given substantial custodial meddling by politicians with a judiciary
sentences by some judges and not by that should be kept apolitical and inde-
others, then the sentence will not serve as pendent. There are already sentencing
a deterrent, but instead the criminal will guidelines which are laid down by appel-
be tempted to take the risk. Allowing late courts and statute, and prosecutors
judicial discretion will result in too many have the power to appeal (often success-
freak verdicts of over-lenient sentences, fully) against sentences they consider to be
and hence an erosion of the deterrent too lenient.There are already mechanisms
effect. The sentence received should be in place to ensure that appropriately severe
determined by the crime, not by the biases punishments are meted out.
of the judge.
[3] The whole problem with mandatory
[4] It is already the case that a criminal’s sentencing is that it makes sentencing
previous convictions are taken into artificially ‘consistent’, whereas every crime
account when a judge passes sentence. A and every criminal is in fact unique. The
first-time offender is always sentenced punishment should fit the crime. That is
more leniently, and a repeat offender will why we should rely on judges to use their
be treated more harshly. Mandatory experience, expertise and discretion to
sentencing for third-time burglars, sexual apply sentencing guidelines in a fair and
and violent offenders is simply a for- appropriate way. Governments legislating
malisation and standardisation of this for mandatory sentences send out the
existing judicial procedure. message that the judiciary cannot be
[5] It is a concern that crackdowns on trusted to pass the correct sentence. Far
crime often seem to have harsher conse- from bolstering public confidence, this
quences on black, Hispanic and Asian will undermine confidence in the fairness
individuals than on white members of the and reliability of the judiciary.
community. But mandatory sentencing is [4] There are already mechanisms and
not the cause of this discrepancy – it is an guidelines that ensure that a criminal’s
endemic problem for the judicial system previous convictions are taken into
and for society as a whole, and has com- account in the appropriate way. Mandatory
plex socio-economic causes. Black com- sentencing is an unnecessary and unwel-
munities are often poorer than white – a come political gesture.
hangover of centuries of discrimination
and inequalities – and poverty causes [5] Mandatory sentencing has been seen
crime. to hit ethnic minorities disproportionately
hard. It is a worrying fact that law-and-
order crackdowns are often used by law
enforcement officers and the judicial sys-
tem as an occasion for racist oppression of
non-white communities. The best exam-
ple of this is in the USA, where the
PA R E N TA L R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y F O R C H I L D R E N ’ S C R I M E S 225

‘mandatory minimums’ for crack cocaine

Possible motions are substantially higher than those for
This House would give mandatory sentences to powdered cocaine; crack is cheaper, and
repeat offenders. therefore mainly a drug used by black
This House believes in ‘Three strikes and you’re youth, while powder is often used by
out’. white people.
Related topics
Zero tolerance
Prison v. rehabilitation
Capital punishment

Parents, responsibility for the criminal acts of

their children

This is a policy that sits ill with the long-held legal doctrine that for most crimes, a person
must have the relevant mens rea (state of mind) for that crime; it is hard to see how parents
can have the state of mind for a crime committed by someone else. But it is easy to
borrow from other areas of law, such as the doctrine of ‘vicarious liability’ which holds
employers civilly liable for the actions of their employees, to make this work.While there
are no examples of this policy being enacted in a complete way, there are some smaller-
scale examples of it, such as punishing parents for their children playing truant from
school or bullying other children (the former in Florida, the latter in Michigan).

Pros Cons
[1] Parents are responsible for giving their [1] It is wrong to punish somebody for
children a sense of morality and bringing something they could not have prevented.
them up from an early age to have good Even if parents instil sound values in their
moral habits. Committing a crime is a children, there are numerous other sources
violation of those moral norms and atti- of influence that mean that could go
tudes that parents should have instilled in wrong: peers, schools, a social culture of
their children from a young age, so it is violence, etc. It is ridiculous to say that bad
perfectly reasonable to hold them respon- parenting is the only cause of criminal
sible. behaviour; as such, it is wrong to punish
parents for it.
[2] Influence is not just about moral
values, but about practical control. Parents [2] This is a romanticised view of parent-
have substantial control over their chil- ing. Some parents may have that control,
dren’s lives; they control their money, but many do not; a single mother who
when they can go out, etc. Parents should is substantially weaker than her violent
know where their children are, and if they son might have little control over him,
226 P R I S O N E R S ’ R I G H T TO VOT E , D E N I A L O F

are with the kind of people who might physically or mentally. Moreover, it is not
influence them to commit crimes. If they practical for parents to have total control
are, then they should stop them; this is the over their children’s lives; children have a
duty of a parent, which they ought to be degree of autonomy which they can use
given serious incentives to fulfil. to sneak out, work for or steal money, etc.
It would be undesirable for this autonomy
[3] This will act as a powerful deterrent
to be shut down.
against children committing crimes. If
children love their parents, they will think [3] This will not deter children from
twice before committing crimes, knowing crimes; the reason that children commit
that they could not only land themselves crimes is not because of a rational cost-
in prison, but potentially leave themselves benefit analysis, but because they believe
and their siblings parentless. It is thus they will not get caught. Moreover, some
highly useful to manipulate potential children may not love their parents, but
criminals into behaving themselves. will see this as an opportunity for revenge,
especially if they themselves are too young
to be sent to prison for the crime as
Possible motions
well; that is a win-win scenario for a child
This House would punish parents for their
criminal.
children’s crimes.
This House would visit the sins of the son upon
the father.

Related topics
Smacking, remove parents’ right to
Child curfews

Prisoners’ right to vote, denial of

This debate was made prominent by a series of rulings by the European Court of
Human Rights and the United States Supreme Court, which aimed to oblige
governments to grant prisoners the right to vote.There are several forms that denial of
voting rights can take, ranging in severity from a lifelong ban for felony commission
(Kentucky and Louisiana in the USA), a ban for all prisoners (the UK, Italy) or
disenfranchisement for particular crimes, as in most of the rest of Europe.An interesting
side issue is about the severity of crime at which the threshold should be set, and in
particular, for property crimes, how inflation has slowly made certain offences felonies
‘by creep’; for example, in Massachusetts, it has been law for decades that a property
crime of more than US$250 is a felony, for which you lose voting rights, but inflation
has made that a much larger range of crimes.
P R I S O N E R S ’ R I G H T TO VOT E , D E N I A L O F 227

Pros Cons
[1] Voting is a right, but with rights come [1] Voting is an absolute right which
responsibilities, and one of those respon- should never be denied.The point of vot-
sibilities is to obey the law. Once you ing is to allow people to hold govern-
refuse to obey the law, you lose certain ments accountable and represent their
rights, and voting is an obvious candidate. interests, but prisoners undeniably have
If you have shown a flagrant disregard for interests that deserve to be represented:
the law, you should have no say in making being treated properly in prison, fair
it; you should not be allowed to benefit sentencing, etc. Breaking the law is not
from the democratic system that you have always a matter of failure of moral respon-
rejected. sibility; many people do so because of
psychological difficulties, drugs or poverty,
[2] Taking away voting rights from crimi-
that are not necessarily blameworthy.
nals represents a strong deterrent for com-
mitting crime. The right to vote is not [2] It is ridiculous to suggest that people
just practically important in terms of considering committing crimes would
influencing government policy, but also care about the right to vote. They are,
symbolically important as a clear state- after all, willing to give up their rights to
ment of social membership. No one wants freedom of movement, and of associa-
to be made an outcast from society, which tion, so it hardly seems as though they are
is what the deprivation of votes does. thinking through permutations for the
future. Rather, they commit crimes rashly
[3] Rehabilitation is not the primary
or out of necessity, and something as
purpose of criminal justice. But even if it
minor as voting rights for the one election
were, this policy would not primarily be
they will likely be in prison for will not
about that. Rather, governments will be
influence them.
encouraged to pander to prisoners, mak-
ing short-term promises for their benefit, [3] Giving prisoners the vote is an inte-
such as more lenient punishments, which gral part of allowing them to rehabilitate
hurt the rest of society. and integrate fully into society. Telling
prisoners that they have no say encourages
them to perpetuate precisely the kind of
Possible motions
beliefs about politics that led to them
This House would give prisoners the vote.
committing crimes in the first place,
This House believes that if you lose your right
namely that no one listens to them. By
to freedom, you should lose your vote.
giving them the vote, they will be encour-
aged to develop political opinions, which
Related topics
can give them a real focus in prison.
Democracy
Social contract, existence of the
Prison v. rehabilitation
228 P R I S O N V. R E H A B I L I TAT I O N

Prison v. rehabilitation

This debate is clearly a broad one, about a spectrum of different cases; no one would
advocate abolishing prison altogether, but equally, very few people think it should be
possible to imprison someone for literally any crime. The central theme is about a
comparison between different systems. In Norway, prison sentences are very rare, and
the country has just a single prison, which is broadly quite ‘soft’; prisoners are allowed
to leave their cells at most times, and are referred to primarily as ‘students’, as they spend
most of their time in education. By contrast, in the USA, more than 2 million people
are imprisoned at any one time, with a further 5 million on parole or probation
(allowing them to be called back if they misbehave); this means that fully 2.2 per cent
of the US population is under ‘correctional supervision’.

Pros Cons
[1] Prison is the right punishment for all [1] Prison is the wrong form of punish-
crimes against property and all violent ment for all but the most serious crimes
crimes. The primary purposes of punish- (e.g. rape, murder). If we really want to
ment are deterrent, retribution and pre- reduce crime and live in a safer society, we
vention. Prison serves all of these purposes need to understand criminals as well as
well. The threat of the complete loss of having our retribution against them for
liberty in a prison sentence deters poten- the wrongs they have done. Punishment
tial criminals; criminals who are in prison without rehabilitation is merely dealing
are prevented, for that period, from com- temporarily with the symptoms rather
mitting further crimes; and prison is also than addressing the root causes.A criminal
society’s way to gain retribution from an who is put in prison cannot offend for that
offender for what he or she has done. period of time, but when s/he comes out,
Rehabilitation is not part of the purpose s/he will be the same person – or worse –
of punishment and is very much a sec- and will simply go straight back to a life of
ondary concern of the justice system. crime. Rehabilitation must go together
with deterrence, retribution and preven-
[2] Prison works. Rehabilitation (coun-
tion as an integral primary concern of the
selling, psychiatric treatment, and work
justice system.
in the community) is a soft option for
criminals who will simply feel that they [2] Prison does not work. Centuries of
can continue to offend with virtual reliance on the retributive imprisonment
impunity so long as they volunteer for system have failed to stem the increasing
counselling and community work. The crime rate.The way to reduce crime is to
justice system must be seen to be strong in change people’s beliefs and habits of
its imposition of punishments if the fight behaviour – this is most effectively done
against crime is to be won. Prison is the by counselling and especially by inte-
best form of punishment to send out this gration into the community. If young
strong message. people can be set to work on community
R AC I A L P R O F I L I N G 229

[3] For society to function we must main- regeneration projects rather than sent to
tain a strong sense of individual moral young offenders’ centres – which in effect
responsibility. We cannot allow people to are often little more than ‘academies of
absolve themselves of moral responsibility crime’ – they will have a greatly increased
on the grounds of ‘medical’, ‘psycho- chance of living a life free of crime in the
logical’ or ‘social’ dysfunction. People have future. In one American study, drugs
even claimed in their defence that they are offenders who spent 12 months in prison
genetically predisposed to crime and so followed by 6 months’ drugs rehabilitation
should be treated leniently.These excuses and training in skills for future employ-
are simply ways of hiding from the fact of ment had a 50 per cent lower re-offence
moral transgression. A culture of rehabili- rate than those imprisoned for similar
tation denies individual responsibility and offences for the whole 18 months.
thus erodes the moral fabric of society.
[3] The autonomous morally responsible
Prison sentences, enforced strictly, rein-
self is a myth.The victims of sexual abusers
force the crucial notion of individual
do not go on to become sexual abusers
responsibility for actions.
themselves just because, by coincidence,
they are morally wicked people too.
Possible motions Children brought up with poverty, drugs
This House would condemn more and under- and violence do not grow up to be crimi-
stand less. nals or drug users because they are just
This House would be tough on crime. morally bad individuals. The advocate of
This House would only use prison for violent radical individual responsibility is peddling
offenders. an ineffective, simplistic and vindictive
myth. In truth, criminal behaviours have
Related topics complex psychological and social causes
Mandatory prison sentences that stretch well beyond the boundary
Capital punishment of the individual. Parents, teachers and
Prisoners’ right to vote, denial of society at large must be responsible for
Zero tolerance teaching by example and understanding
Community sentencing and healing disturbed individuals. Social
regeneration through employment, reinte-
gration of offenders into communities, the
renewal of the family, counselling and
psychiatry, rather than blank retribution
through imprisonment, are the ways to
reduce crime.

Racial profiling

Racial profiling refers to the policing policy of focusing efforts in crime prevention on
particular minority groups who are thought to be involved more often in certain types
of crime. The policy is not about acting on specific pieces of intelligence (‘There is a
230 R AC I A L P R O F I L I N G

suspect, who is 6 foot 3 and Afro-Caribbean’), but about a more general approach to
the use of stop-and-search powers, extra checks at airports and so on. Clearly, which
minorities are targeted is a contextual factor; if seeking to prevent Islamic terrorism, it
will probably involve searching South Asian men more often at airports, but if
concerned about gun crime in inner-city Baltimore, it will focus on young male African
Americans.

Pros Cons
[1] Racial profiling is the best way of [1] It is unacceptable to tar whole groups
deploying scarce police resources. We with the brush of a particularly trouble-
cannot search everyone, so we should some subgroup. No one should be treated
search those whom we can, based on unfairly just on the basis of their race, but
factors which make them more likely to this policy does exactly that; people are
be involved in criminal activity. Nothing more likely to have their liberties invaded
about this says that such relationships are by being searched, merely because they are
innate, or that ‘all of X minority are black or Muslim.
criminals’, but simply works off statistical
[2] Terrorists will readily be able to cir-
facts that we know exist.
cumvent this policy, because terrorist
[2] This policy will catch criminals. Too groups represent ideological, not purely
often, gangs are based on race; in New ethnic, causes, and so they will use non-
York, for instance, many gangs divide stereotypical ethnicities to conduct their
along the lines of the African countries terrorist acts. For instance, the hijacking of
from which they first migrated. This an El Al plane from Israel to Entebbe,
makes it easy to identify specific types of Uganda, in 1976 was conducted on behalf
crime, and catch the potential perpetrators of Palestinian terrorists, but by white
and prevent them. members of Germany’s Baader-Meinhof
gang; such sharing agreements between
[3] This policy will not radicalise
terror groups will simply be revived.
minorities. In fact, they will welcome it, as
criminal acts often disproportionately [3] This policy will massively radicalise
affect the minorities from which they minorities. If we treat every member of a
emanate. Ultimately, if we are able to minority as though they are a criminal or
reduce violent and drug-related crime a terrorist, they will rightly and under-
among African Americans, for instance, standably be hugely offended.That in turn
that is something for which they will be makes them turn against the state, and
grateful. That is particularly so as, often, so be less likely to co-operate with the
predominantly minority areas are aban- police. But this becomes particularly prob-
doned by the police altogether – an lematic when people are falsely accused or
approach this policy reverses. convicted, cementing the impression of
the state and police as evil, and driving
people into the arms of terrorists.
R I G H T TO B E A R A R M S 231

Related topics
Possible motions DNA database, universal
This House would use racial profiling in the war Police, arming of the
on terror.
This House believes that the police should not
have to waste time searching non-suspects.

Right to bear arms

The continued and rising death toll from gun crime in the USA often makes it seem
baffling that that country has stuck so closely to the right to bear arms contained in the
Second Amendment to its Constitution, but there is still strong public support for it.
The most high-profile incidents tend to occur in schools and universities (Columbine
High,Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook), but gun crime clearly in fact kills far more people as
a result of gang violence and other more run-of-the-mill crime. This debate requires
the Proposition team to take a strong, principled stance on self-defence, but even so,
they cannot ignore practical consequences.

Pros Cons
[1] Ownership of guns must be allowed [1] Self-defence is, of course, important,
because it is necessary to vindicate the but handguns are not the answer. When
basic human right to self-defence. We an assailant or intruder is armed with a
acknowledge that the state cannot be gun, pulling a gun oneself is merely dan-
everywhere at all times for us, and in those gerous and inflammatory, greatly increas-
instances, we need the ability to defend ing the chance that one or both parties
ourselves. Given that criminals will always will be injured or killed. Allowing the
have guns, individual citizens must be able ownership of handguns (rather than
to protect themselves against them in a teaching unarmed forms of self-defence)
similarly effective manner. will engender a mentality of vigilantism,
encouraged further by rhetoric about
[2] Tragedies involving the use of hand- ‘criminals getting the upper hand’. It is the
guns by criminals and by psychopaths and job of the police, not of private citizens, to
other unbalanced individuals will always be armed and capable of tackling armed
occur. Such people will not be deterred by criminals.
legislation any more than they are by
reason, humanity or conscience.The inci- [2] Tragedies such as the massacre at Sandy
dence of such tragedies will not be Hook in November 2012 are the indirect
affected by banning handguns. result of the ownership of handguns.The
Columbine High School shooter (2004)
[3] Ownership of guns actually reduces had been able to own guns in advance of
aggregate crime, because it makes crimi- his shooting and practise his actions; if that
nals less willing to start criminal activities had not been allowed, he would not have
232 S E X O F F E N D E R S , C H E M I C A L C A S T R AT I O N O F

because of the fear of armed retaliation. been able to use a gun and the tragedy
Finland, Israel and Switzerland all have would most likely not have occurred.
very low rates of crime and allow people Banning handguns would not eliminate
to own guns and carry them in public; if such tragedies altogether, but would
they see an attack beginning, they are able significantly reduce their incidence.There
to intervene and end it instantaneously. would simply be fewer guns in circulation
and fewer people capable of using them.
Possible motions [3] The correlation between gun owner-
This House believes that the right to bear arms ship and higher death rates is not a perfect
is dependent on the existence of a ‘well- one; there are some outliers, like the
regulated militia’. countries mentioned by the Proposition
This House would legalise handguns. team, but all of them have compulsory
national service, and so anyone using a
Related topics gun is trained. By contrast, in the USA,
Police, arming of the where the users of guns are untrained,
they are highly dangerous; they may mis-
fire, or not be able to defend themselves in
time to prevent their attacker also opening
fire. Overall, citizen gun ownership creates
an ‘arms race’ with criminals, making
them more likely to use offensive weapons
in their crimes.

Sex offenders, chemical castration of

Castration is the removal of any sexual gland (the testes or ovaries) in males or females.
This debate is about the process of administering drugs to sex offenders to remove all
function in those glands; the main drug used to destroy testicular function is called
Depo-Provera. Policies are of two types: voluntary and mandatory.Voluntary castrations
are less contentious; sex offenders may opt to take the drugs. Mandatory ones are the
meat of this debate. In some US states, castration is mandatory after two sexual offences;
in others, it is at the judge’s discretion. In some countries including Poland, Moldova
and Estonia, castration can be compulsory immediately upon conviction.

Pros Cons
[1] One of the principal purposes of the [1] Chemical castration is not an accept-
punishment for any crime is prevention able form of punishment. In a civilised
of re-offence. Chemical castration would society, we do not permanently physically
take away the sex drive of sex offenders alter people as a form of punishment, but
and thus guarantee that they would not always allow for rehabilitation of some
re-offend. It would also be a strong deter- kind after a prison sentence has been
TELEVISED TRIALS 233

rent. It is therefore an effective and appro- served.Also, as with the death penalty, mis-
priate punishment. carriages of justice would have disastrous
permanent consequences if chemical
[2] Sex offenders currently pose a problem
castration were the sentence for all sex
for the criminal justice system. They are
offences.Would first-time sex offenders be
often victimised in prison and subjected
chemically castrated? The punishment is
to a witch-hunt and, on their release, are
extreme and crude. Prison sentences and
hounded out of each new community
psychiatric treatment are to be preferred.
by concerned members of the public.
Chemical castration would make these [2] We cannot be confident that chemical
people safe – they could live in the com- castration would be such a magical cure.
munity without posing a threat. This If sex offending really is just the result of
would avoid their abuse in prisons, would chemical drives, then whatever the pun-
help reduce the ever-increasing prison ishment, it will not work as a deterrent.
population and would allay the fears of Prison would still be needed as a form of
concerned members of a community. deterrent and also to protect society even
from those who have been chemically
[3] For the sake of the offender, chemical
castrated. As for the public’s response, the
castration is the best solution. Offenders
fear of parents and other members of the
often feel that they are ill, or possessed by
community will not be allayed by a
a physical force outside their control from
chemical procedure – sex offenders will
which they long to be freed. Chemical
still be feared and hated and the objects of
castration would liberate them from the
witch-hunts.
mental torture and resulting crimes of
their condition by removing their sexual [3] Our first thought should be to punish
drive. the sex offender. Second, when it comes
to treating the sex offender, a more subtle
form of counselling and rehabilitation is
Possible motions
required, rather than just putting our faith
This House would chemically castrate sex
in a one-off physical treatment.
offenders.
This House believes that sex offending can be
chemically cured.

Related topics
Prison v. rehabilitation

Televised trials

In some countries, especially the USA, criminal trials are commonly televised, and can
be both broadcast live in full, or shown in highlight form. In other countries, especially
the UK, there has generally been a strong ban on such coverage, although in 2004 it
was briefly experimented with.This debate is about criminal trials; civil cases are rarely
dramatic enough, or of enough public interest, for anyone to care about broadcasting
234 TELEVISED TRIALS

them (although the UK Supreme Court does live-stream its hearings on the Internet,
without many viewers!). Perhaps the most famous example is the 1995 trial of former
American footballer O. J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and a male friend, but
other high-profile cases, such as singer Michael Jackson’s sexual abuse trial, have also
been broadcast.

Pros Cons
[1] The judicial process is currently mys- [1] Mock trials in films and soap operas are
terious and threatening to most ordinary often realistic and give everybody a very
people. If they find themselves in court, good idea of what happens in a court-
they will be baffled and intimidated by the room. Increasingly great attention is paid
strange language and procedures. The to detail in historical and popular films,
televising of trials and other judicial pro- and the picture of the judicial system
ceedings will demystify the legal process portrayed is reliable and accurate. If this is
and serve to educate the public about the not considered enough, public informa-
judicial process. Only real court pro- tion films of mock trials or recon-
ceedings can truly perform this educative structions of famous past trials can be
function – TV and film portrayals are shown – television coverage of actual trials
over-dramatised, glamorised and unreal- is not necessary.
istic. Nobody will watch a public infor-
[2] There are already full and accurate
mation film, but people will watch a real
records of court proceedings available
trial.
to anyone who is interested in them.
[2] Currently, judicial proceedings are Legal reports in reputable newspapers are
only accessible to the public at large via reliable and objective. Anyone truly
news reports in the media, which are interested in the judicial system can also sit
partial and potentially biased. The tele- in the public gallery of most courts. The
vision camera does not lie. Allowing TV TV media will in fact invariably create a
cameras in courts will provide full, much more distorted picture of a trial – as
accurate and honest coverage of exactly in the famous case of the O. J. Simpson
what happens in any given case.Whatever trial which became a ‘media zoo’. Most
media spin or reportage is laid over the TV people will not have the time or incli-
coverage, the proceedings will be in full nation to sit and watch every minute of
view of the public, which at the moment the process of a trial, but will rely on 30-
they are not. second ‘sound bites’ in the evening news
with the biased spin of the TV journalists
[3] It is democratic to allow cameras in
presenting the case. Cameras in courts will
courts.The scrutiny made widely possible
increase media distortion of trials.
by television coverage of court proceed-
ings will create healthy criticism of the [3] Injustices in the judicial system and
process and personnel of the judicial incompetence of judges and lawyers are
system, and will make them answerable. already fully reported in the press and
Unfair laws, prejudicial practices and broadcast media. There is no need to see
T E R R O R I S T S U S P E C T S , TO R T U R E O F 235

incompetent lawyers and judges will be actual pictures of scenes in a courtroom to

exposed to a wide public. believe these news stories or to act upon
them. Judges have been forced to resign
[4] If trials are televised, a huge audience
for widely publicised incompetence in
is made aware of the case and the evi-
Britain, despite the lack of television
dence, and crucial witnesses may come
cameras in courts. There are also many
forward who would otherwise have been
groups campaigning for fairer legal status;
ignorant of the case and their potential
for instance, for homosexual rights, despite
role in it.Televising trials will thus increase
the lack of televised judicial proceedings.
the chance of a fair trial.
Unfairness and incompetence will be
reported on and campaigned against with
Possible motions or without cameras in courts.
This House would put cameras in the court-
[4] Far from creating fairer trials, TV
room.
coverage will create more miscarriages of
This House believes that justice should be blind.
justice. Jurors will inevitably be swayed by
high-profile TV reporting of cases and
Related topics
people will come forward as witnesses not
Community sentencing
because they have crucial evidence, but
Judges, election of
because they want to become TV stars.
Privacy of public figures
American TV talk shows demonstrate
what people are prepared to do and say to
get on television – the same cannot be said
about getting into the legal pages of a
national newspaper.Also, in countries such
as the USA where judges are elected, the
televising of trials will lead to judges per-
forming to the electorate by, for example,
imposing harsher sentences than they
otherwise might.

Terrorist suspects, torture of

It is hard to know precisely how widespread torture by security services is, because it is
typically kept secret, since it is a clear violation of international, European and (in most
states) domestic law, which governments do not want to admit to. It is often referred to
by euphemisms, of which ‘enhanced interrogation’ has recently become the best known.
Torture techniques vary; some countries are thought to use beatings or electric shocks
to torture, but Western techniques tend to be more clinical; IRA suspects were often
forced to stand in uncomfortable positions for hours on end, or subjected to light and
noise torture, while the US military at Guantanamo Bay used ‘water-boarding’, where
suspects are wrapped in cling film and have water poured on them to simulate
236 T E R R O R I S T S U S P E C T S , TO R T U R E O F

drowning. It is hard to know exactly how much information is obtained from torture,
given that it is so secret. It is also hard to deal with the problem of complicity with
torture, because many security services who practise it routinely are those with whom
Western intelligence must co-operate (in the Middle East and South Asia); in
consequence, even when they do not know about it directly, the CIA and MI6 will
often be working from information obtained via torture.

Pros Cons
[1] Sometimes torture is necessary to [1] The right not to be tortured is not the
save lives.Where a terrorist possesses infor- kind of right that can be overridden for
mation that might lead to the prevention mere utilitarian considerations. The inva-
of imminent terrorist attacks, it is legiti- sion of rights is so serious that it is not
mate to violate their rights to ensure the the kind of thing that civilised societies
protection of many others’ lives.This argu- should ever be complicit in. In particular,
ment has two components. First, while the deliberate infliction of pain on fellow
torture is undeniably a serious invasion of human beings is something we should
someone’s bodily autonomy, that is less treat with great caution, especially when it
bad than death; thus, if just one life can be involves such cruel and dehumanising
saved as a result, we should use torture. practices.
Second, because terrorist acts often
have high death tolls, many lives may be [2] Torture involves punishing those who
saved by torturing just one person. As have not been found guilty of the offence
such, balancing the competing interests on which information is being sought.
involved favours torture. This is an unacceptable curtailment of due
process, especially as it creates a very real
[2] While torture is typically used on those risk that innocent people will be subjected
who have not yet been convicted, that to the cruellest punishments available to
should not be a bar to using it. First, it us, when they have done nothing wrong.
will rarely be the case that someone who
is totally innocent is tortured; they are [3] In fact, there is no known example of
only being detained in the first instance a real ‘ticking bomb’ scenario ever occur-
because security services have some rea- ring; rather, this commonly made argu-
sonable suspicion of their guilt. Moreover, ment for torture rests on an imaginary and
if the occasional innocent person is tor- distant set of facts coming about, which in
tured, that is an acceptable cost of the need practice rarely would, if ever. Rather,
to protect the public. torture becomes a crutch for security
services, who do not look to alternative
[3] The ‘ticking bomb’ scenario is perhaps
ways of obtaining the information, and so
the best illustration of why torture will
it becomes far more widespread than it
sometimes be morally acceptable. Suppose
needs to be.
we knew that a bomb was located some-
where, but were not sure where that was, [4] Rather than producing large amounts
and further knew that a particular terrorist of information, torture is necessarily highly
T E R R O R I S T S U S P E C T S , TO R T U R E O F 237

in our custody did possess that informa- limited for two reasons. First, terrorists can
tion, but was unwilling to give it to us. In give false information, which may in fact
that scenario, not torturing is to choose lead us down the wrong path in the short
the deaths of a large number of innocent term; such false ‘leads’ can in fact damage
civilians, when they are clearly prevent- anti-terrorist measures overall. Second,
able. This highlights the fact that, while they may well not possess the information
some might oppose torture on the grounds being sought, and so will say anything to
that there are alternative ways of gather- get out of the situation.Again, this leads to
ing information, sometimes, in the short incorrect information.
run, torture will be necessary.
[5] Torture runs the risk of radicalising
[4] Terrorists tend to be highly ideological, large groups of people to further acts
with a belief in the correctness of their of terrorism. Evidence from Israel, for
cause drilled into them. Often this is instance, shows that the families of victims
because they are religious, and so they of torture by the Israeli Defense Forces are
believe that Heaven awaits them if they much more likely to become terrorists
successfully fulfil their terrorist objectives. themselves; having witnessed people close
Such people are highly unlikely to ever to them being harmed, they are under-
give information unless they are coerced, standably angry, and more likely to turn to
so torture is necessary to acquire any violence. Moreover, torture serves as a
real information from terrorist cells. recruitment tool for terrorist groups by
Moreover, it is rarely possible to acquire advertising that the claims of Western
such information via other routes; ter- liberal democracies to be more ‘civilised’
rorists tend not to leave paper trails, or and respectful of human rights are, in fact,
even make many phone calls that could be far from true.
intercepted, and are located in complex
networks all around the world. So when a
Possible motions
terrorist is in our custody, it is vital that we
This House believes that torture is a necessary
act accordingly to get this information.
evil.
[5] Torture can help reduce radicalisation. This House would use torture in the war on
If torture can be used in a targeted way, this terror.
reduces the need for blanket, more invasive This House would never allow evidence
measures like racial profiling, stop-and- obtained by torture to be used in court.
search, phone tapping, etc., which are far
more likely to alienate minority commu- Related topics
nities, as they actually touch the everyday Terrorists, negotiation with
lives of far more people. Terrorism, justifiability of
Dictators, assassination of
238 Z E R O TO L E R A N C E

Zero tolerance

‘Zero tolerance’ is a phrase that first came to light as a description of the crackdown on
petty crime in New York City by William Bratton, police commissioner for that city,
appointed by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in January 1994.The aim of zero tolerance is to
prevent petty criminals graduating to serious crime by imposing immediate and harsh
sentences for petty offences such as underage drinking, small-scale drug use and dealing,
shoplifting or vandalism (rather than using cautions or fines). It is this particular law-
and-order policy that the arguments below are about. ‘Zero tolerance’ is, however, a
phrase that has come to be used in a panoply of other contexts to mean, for example,
a tough and uncompromising approach to racism, fascism or violence against women.

Pros Cons
[1] We need to find innovative and effec- [1] Zero tolerance is precisely the wrong
tive new weapons in the ongoing fight way to approach crime. Understanding
against crime. Zero tolerance is just such a and rehabilitation rather than the macho
weapon. It sends a clear, tough message rhetoric of punishment and condemna-
that the state will condemn and punish tion are the key to reducing crime.And far
rather than be soft and ‘understanding’. from raising public confidence in the
This stance functions as an effective police and judiciary, it makes them alien-
deterrent to potential offenders, especially ating and inflexible figures set against
potential young offenders, and also raises society, rather than agencies that can work
public confidence in the police and with and for members of their com-
judiciary. munity.

[2] Zero tolerance works. Murders in New [2] New York’s gain is its neighbours’ loss.
York City fell by 40 per cent between A high-profile crackdown on petty crime
1993 and 1997, while robberies and in one place simply makes the petty
shootings fell by 30 per cent and 35 per criminal move elsewhere to ply his/her
cent respectively.These are phenomenally trade. These results are bought at a heavy
impressive results. Cities in Britain (e.g. cost. Complaints of brutality against the
Coventry) and Australia (e.g. Melbourne) New York Police Department have soared
have achieved similar impressive results since the introduction of zero tolerance.
through implementing zero tolerance of Some police seem to have used the
the use of drugs and alcohol in public initiative as an occasion to oppress black
places. Racism in police forces and in communities. Zero tolerance may not
society at large is a problem, but it is long- cause racism, but it serves to increase and
term and endemic, not the result of this exacerbate it. Also, like mandatory sen-
tencing, zero tolerance necessarily reduces
particular policing initiative.
judicial discretion in individual cases. A
[3] Zero tolerance not only prevents young harsh fine or prison sentence may be
offenders from graduating to serious crime, inappropriate and counterproductive in
Z E R O TO L E R A N C E 239

it also breaks the back of organised crime many cases, but zero tolerance insists that
by depleting the ranks of the ‘foot soldiers’, no leniency, subtlety or professional
especially small-time drug dealers who judgement be shown by judges.
together provide the power base and
[3] Small-time drug dealers and petty
financial resources for drugs barons and
thieves are not the real criminals. They
Mafia bosses.Without these petty criminals
are unfortunates trying to escape from
on the streets, organised crime ceases to
poverty and deprivation through the
flourish.
income they can make through petty
crime. Not only are they not the real
Possible motions criminals, they are also indefinitely
This House would have zero tolerance. replaceable from among the ranks of the
This House would crack down on petty crime. poor and deprived. Once one set of petty
This House would be tough on crime. criminals is locked up, a new set will
emerge to replace them. The multi-
million dollar fraudsters, money laun-
Related topics
derers and drug barons are the ones who
Mandatory prison sentences
must really be removed to bring down the
Child curfews
criminal system.
Capital punishment
Sports teams punished for the behaviour of fans
Prison v. rehabilitation
SECTION H

Health, science and technology

CARS IN CIT Y CENTRES, BANNING OF 243

Cars in city centres, banning of

City centres around the world have taken different approaches to dealing with the
gridlock and pollution that an abundance of cars can cause. London has a congestion
charge, Los Angeles and Sydney have ‘carpool’ lanes and Athens restricts the days on
which cars can enter the city.This debate suggests going further with an outright ban
on cars in city centres. A definition should make sure to detail any exemptions the
Proposition team wishes to make, such as emergency vehicles, taxis, deliveries or cars for
people with disabilities, but be aware that too many exemptions could weaken the case.

Pros Cons
[1] We must lower CO2 emission levels to [1] Emissions of CO2 must be cut, but this
address global warming and cars are major is not the way to do it. Banning cars from
contributors. If we were to ban cars from city centres simply displaces the traffic to
city centres, we would significantly reduce the suburbs and out of town. It possibly
the overall number of journeys taken causes longer journeys leading to more
by car and we might well see lower car emissions overall. CO2 levels should be
ownership overall.This would be good for tackled at the level of industry and energy
the planet. reduction.
[2] Car emissions are worse in city centres
[2] Car emissions can be cut in city centres
because of their concentration. Pollution
without banning cars outright.This could
from car fumes causes serious health prob-
be done by incentivising car pools or
lems including asthma, especially for chil-
charging people to drive in the city.These
dren who grow up living near busy roads.
measures encourage people to make only
The same fumes also damage historic
essential journeys and to think about fuel
buildings. In some cities, the smog is so
efficiency without removing the liberty to
bad it is visible.
drive. Technology continues to clean up
[3] In many more economically developed cars. Catalytic converters and unleaded
countries, road accidents are the single petrol make a big difference to air quality
biggest cause of deaths in children and and the future may lie with hybrid or
teenagers. Banning cars from city centres electric cars.
would slash accident rates and save lives as
many schools and houses are on busy [3] Road safety should be a priority and
roads. Bus drivers do not drink and drive, speed limits and other driving regulations
speed, or talk on their phones while driv- should be pursued with zero tolerance to
ing; it is private car drivers who cause acci- keep accidents to a minimum. Road safety
dents.With the trend for more cycling, we education is also essential in schools.With
have also seen increased rates of cyclist these measures, it is not necessary to ban
fatalities that could be prevented. cars from city centres where traffic and
low speed limits keep accident rates down.
[4] Traffic in many city centres is horren-
dous. Banning cars would get the city
244 CARS IN CIT Y CENTRES, BANNING OF

moving again as buses and taxis would no [4] People can choose whether they wish
longer be stuck in gridlock. This would to drive in traffic or find an alternative way
also benefit emergency vehicles. of travelling. Bus lanes can protect buses
from the worst traffic and cars make way
[5] Banning cars would see an improve-
for emergency vehicles, so this is not a
ment in public transport as more money
problem. London operates a congestion
would be in the system. This in turn
charge to discourage car journeys, which
would remove the reason that many
is preferable to a ban.
people wish to drive (that public transport
is not good enough) and so would create [5] Public transport is not reliable. It is
a virtuous cycle. often an unpleasant experience where one
may be squashed in a crowded carriage.
[6] Shops and businesses would get a boost
People should have an alternative choice
as pedestrian areas are pleasant and attract
for travel. Public transport is also not
visitors. Al fresco dining and street enter-
appropriate for many journeys; for exam-
tainment would replace congested roads,
ple, a shopping trip where you have to
and this would improve everyone’s quality
carry heavy bags. It is also hard for those
of life. Many businesses are already seeing
travelling with children or those with
an increase in online shopping and this
illness or disabilities.
may increase as people find it more con-
venient, but there would be no net drop in [6] Banning cars from city centres would
sales as demand would not decrease. have negative economic effects. Shops and
businesses would be forced to close as
[7] Banning cars would also encourage
poor access to them would drive away
more people to walk and cycle which
customers who would instead visit super-
would lead to a public health benefit in
markets and malls outside the centre.
the reduction of conditions such as obe-
There would also be job losses in the car
sity, heart disease and strokes.
industry and related businesses which exist
in cities, such as garages, car parks and car
Possible motions washes.
This House would ban cars from city centres.
[7] It is not the job of the government to
This House believes that the modern city
force people to exercise. People should be
should be car-free.
informed of the benefits and then be
allowed to choose for themselves. The
Related topics
government can seek to influence people’s
Vegetarianism
behaviour through measures such as
Global warming: binding emission targets for
increasing fuel duty, but freedom of choice
should not be restricted.
C O N T R AC E P T I O N F O R U N D E R - AG E G I R L S 245

Contraception for under-age girls

Most countries have an ‘age of consent’ for sex of 16 or 18, under which it is illegal for
young people to engage in sexual activity. In spite of this, many such jurisdictions will
make contraceptives available, sometimes even free, to girls under the age of 16. This
debate questions whether that juxtaposition makes sense.The objectives of policy in this
area are, on the one hand, to prevent teenage pregnancy and the spread of sexually
transmitted diseases (STDs); and, on the other hand, to preserve young people’s
opportunities to live their lives free from the pressures and potential harms of sexual
activity.

Pros Cons
[1] Young people will experiment with [1] If it is illegal for an under-age girl to
sex regardless of what the state, their have sex, it should surely be illegal for
doctor or anyone else says. In recent years, anybody to aid and abet her in that
teen pregnancy has been rising dramati- activity. Moreover, the apparent official
cally in many countries. There has also sanctioning of such behaviour can only
been an increase in STDs. The relative encourage it. This is not just about the
difficulty of access to free contraception is enforcement of Victorian-era morality.
one of the most obvious reasons for this. If There are very sound policy reasons for
we know that young people will have sex under-age sex to be prohibited. First of all,
anyway, we should do whatever we can to if it is with an older person, there is a
make sure that it is as safe as possible. serious risk of emotional manipulation,
such that real consent is absent. But even
[2] Young women should be given the
with parties of the same age, young people
information and resources to stand up
may not be ready for the emotional
for themselves and make informed
consequences of sex.
choices. Not all parents are able or willing
to give their daughters these resources. [2] We should not be encouraging young
Contraception must be just one facet of a people to have sex at an early age.
comprehensive sexual health and edu- Contraception is far from being 100 per
cation programme, encompassing schools cent effective, and failure can lead to
and society at large. Research suggests that unwanted pregnancy and/or STDs. Most
such programmes delay sexual activity contraception, even if effective, cannot
rather than promoting it. prevent sexually transmitted diseases; in all
cases, it is not certain that transmission will
[3] Children should not be kept ignorant
be prevented. Our resources would be
and in the dark about sex, and then be
better targeted at discouraging under-age
expected suddenly to be ‘grown up’ when
sexual intercourse.
they hit 16. Delaying problems is no
substitute for solving them. Parents often [3] Children already have to cope with a
find it difficult to raise issues of sex with barrage of sexual images from a multitude
their children – and yet under 5 per cent of sources (pop videos, magazines, films,
246 C O S M E T I C S U R G E RY, B A N N I N G O F

of parents opt out of optional sex educa- the Internet); the state should not be
tion lessons for their children. Far from joining in the assault. It is parents who
fighting against sex education, parents are should be empowered to provide a moral
crying out for it. framework for their children, rather than
doctors or the government.
Possible motions
This House would make contraception freely
available.
This House believes that if you are old enough
to be having sex, then you are old enough to
use contraception.

Related topics
Sex education
Parents, responsibility for the criminal acts of
their children

Cosmetic surgery, banning of

Cosmetic surgery is a sub-category of ‘plastic’ surgery, which is the use of surgical

techniques to change physical appearance, and derives from the Greek word plastikos for
‘able to be moulded’. The other category, which this debate is not about, is
‘reconstructive’ surgery, which helps people recovering from severely deforming
accidents to look as they did before. Cosmetic surgery is about procedures to make
subjects more attractive. In 2011, there were over 1.6 million cosmetic procedures in
the USA alone; 91 per cent of those were performed on women.

Pros Cons
[1] Cosmetic surgery reflects an unhealthy [1] It is not clear that caring about physical
social obsession with physical appearance, appearance is ‘unhealthy’; we allow people
which is not one which we should accept. to work hard to improve their intelli-
Individuals are unlikely to be happy with gence, and taking steps to make them-
the way they see themselves after the pro- selves more attractive is not different.
cedure, because they have falsely been Second, even if it were, surgery cannot be
promised an unreasonable idea of beauty meaningfully distinguished from extreme
which they cannot in fact attain. Many dieting, the use of huge quantities of
people become ‘addicted’ to cosmetic sur- make-up or the huge numbers of non-
gery, having endless procedures in pursuit surgical cosmetic ‘procedures’ like Botox
of this unreasonable ideal. injections; if those things are to be
allowed, then surely cosmetic surgery is
D N A DATA B A S E , U N I V E R S A L 247

[2] Cosmetic surgery is high-risk; many merely a route by which something more
people end up with serious complications successfully transformative could be
because, like any surgery, there are unex- achieved.
pected surprises, such as infections or
[2] Cosmetic surgery may have some risks,
surgical errors. Given this possibility,
but it is far less risky than other forms of
individuals should not be allowed to make
surgery, including those such as eye
the irrational decision to take such risks
surgery which aim not at saving life, but
with their physical safety, especially for
simply making it better. Those are risks
such trivial gains.
that individuals have to be allowed to
[3] Cosmetic surgery objectifies women. balance for themselves. Moreover, for
Although there are cosmetic procedures for individuals with body dysmorphic dis-
men, they are the overwhelming minority; order (where they grow to hate a certain
for the most part, such procedures are aspect of their physical appearance), the
conceived for, marketed at and performed pain of living with that may be much
on women. This encourages women to greater than any risks from surgery.
believe that their physical appearance is of
[3] Cosmetic surgery is increasingly
primary importance, which is particularly
becoming a cross-gender choice, which
bad for young girls, who should not be
plenty of men make too. Moreover, who
taught that they must be permanently
is the government to tell individual
seeking to make themselves more attrac-
women what they should and should not
tive, even if it entails physical harm.
consider to be the ‘feminist’ choice? If
women believe that having cosmetic
Possible motions surgery is something that will make them
This House would ban cosmetic surgery. happy, then regardless of the social struc-
This House believes that going under the knife tures that might condition that choice,
for the sake of appearance is a step too far. they should be allowed to do so.

Related topics
Protective legislation v. individual freedom
Beauty contests, banning of
Size zero models, banning of

DNA database, universal

Many countries have set up DNA databases of convicted criminals. Britain has con-
troversially included the DNA of all those suspected of a crime even if there was no
conviction, but now must delete those records after two years if there has been no
conviction. But should governments set up DNA databases for all their citizens? Such
DNA databases could have wide-ranging uses for research, health and crime, but many
think the invasion of privacy is too great. A debate could be had just about criminal
databases, but this article looks at the introduction of a universal database.
248 D N A DATA B A S E , U N I V E R S A L

Pros Cons
[1] A universal database would be an [1] The police can already search for the
invaluable tool in fighting crime. Many DNA of convicted criminals.Additionally,
crime scenes contain blood, saliva or they can take samples from suspects to
semen and these could be matched against check. DNA is most useful in violent and
a database. Alongside more traditional sexual crimes, not many of which are
investigative methods, this could lead to committed by first-time criminals who do
more criminals being caught faster and not know the victims. The effect of this,
more criminals being caught overall. therefore, would be minimal and would
[2] A DNA database would also be useful not justify keeping the DNA of the whole
to the judicial process; it can help a jury population, most of whom will never
reach a verdict more expeditiously. It may commit a crime.The state should not treat
even act as a deterrent to crimes as people its citizens as potential criminals from
would know that their DNA would birth.
identify and convict them. [2] Once a suspect has been identified by
[3] There are public health benefits to a traditional policing methods, DNA evi-
universal DNA database. Researchers dence can be used. A sample can then be
would be able to use the database to track taken that can help to clear somebody’s
genes and advance our understanding of name or to establish a guilty verdict. If the
predictive and preventative medicine. As only available evidence is a DNA match
the Human Genome Project progresses, from the database, then something may
this is the next step in understanding our well be wrong, but juries can be unduly
genetic make-up. swayed by what they see as ‘indisputable’
[4] There are a range of other miscella- evidence.
neous benefits including identifying [3] The scientific community needs to
bodies, establishing paternity and tracing convince people to donate their DNA in
missing children. order to further research – it cannot
[5] We should not be concerned about the expect it to be taken without consent.
loss of privacy here. The information Blood and organs also have large medical
would be protected and its use would be benefits, but we accept that consent must
regulated; for example, legislation could be be given before they can be used, even
passed to prevent employers or insurance after death.
companies having access to an individual’s [4] People should be able voluntarily to
genetic information. Innocent people have give DNA samples if the situation arises;
nothing to fear from the police being able for example, to establish paternity or to
to run a DNA search on them. Research check for hereditary diseases, but the
would be done with anonymised data. choice should be theirs and the infor-
[6] The cost of producing and maintaining mation should not be stored afterwards.
a database may well be balanced out by the That way, many of the benefits of DNA
saving of police time and the advances in technology can be gained without the
preventative medicine. downsides.
E N V I R O N M E N TA L R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y, D E V E LO P E D W O R L D ’ S 249

[5] This is a huge invasion of privacy and

Possible motions a step towards a Big Brother state. The
This House would establish a universal DNA government should not be able to store
database. the very essence of our identity and infor-
This House asks the government to keep its mation about our genetic propensities
hands off my DNA. which we do not even know ourselves.
The potential for abuse of the database is
Related topics huge. Insurance companies, employers
Eugenics: IVF and genetic screening and even the government itself may all
Genetic engineering want to see what is encoded in our genes,
National identity cards but that is our private information. In
addition, we do not know what else we
will discover that DNA carries, so we do
not even understand the scale of the risk.
Governments do not have a good record
of keeping large amounts of information
secure, and if this data were hacked, any-
body could then have access to the secrets
of our genes.
[6] The financial cost of a DNA database
would be very high and cannot be justi-
fied by the limited benefits.

Environmental responsibility, developed world should

take more

The debate about how to tackle global warming presents a paradox. On the one hand,
most of the damage done to the environment historically was done by Western nations,
which industrialised first, and reaped the economic benefits. On the other hand, many
of the world’s most significant producers of CO2 today are developing countries, which
are only just industrialising, and their role in CO2 emissions is only growing. China is
the largest single polluter (though it pollutes less per person than the USA), with 16.4
per cent of the global emissions total in 2011, with America a close second with 15.7
per cent. Brazil, Indonesia, Russia and India (all developing as middle-income nations)
occupy places three to six in the league table of carbon producers (though if the EU is
counted as one entity rather than 27 separate countries, it rises to third place). This
paradox therefore presents a difficult question: should developed countries bear more
of the burden for reducing emissions and preventing global warming?
250 E N V I R O N M E N TA L R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y, D E V E LO P E D W O R L D ’ S

Pros Cons
[1] Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere as [1] The developed world did emit a lot of
a result of man-made action today was put CO2 in the past, but it did not know that
there by the developed world; thus, they what it was doing was damaging; at the
are the ones primarily responsible for the time that industrialisation began, we did
damage. Moreover, they are also the ones not realise that global warming was occur-
who have benefited from it historically, ring, and certainly not that it was a
getting rich by industrialising before the man-made phenomenon. By contrast, the
developing world could catch up, and so developing world’s current refusal means
are more able to absorb the substantial that it is wilfully and with foresight
economic costs of reducing emissions. destroying the environment.
[2] The developed world still produces a [2] It is simply not possible to create the
significant, if not the most significant, kind of change we need without involving
share of global emissions. As such, it the developing world. Not only do less
would be perfectly viable and successful developed countries now represent the
for these countries to prevent climate bulk of the world’s emissions, but their
change by reducing their own emissions. emissions are rising; as such, even if devel-
For instance, the G8 Club of rich nations oped countries were to cut their emis-
produces one-third of emissions on their sions, the emissions would simply be
own; they could make substantial inroads replaced. Moreover, a global political con-
into the problem of carbon emissions sensus is required to attain change, which
simply by cutting that number. cannot be done if the developing world
shirks responsibility.
[3] Who is affected by emissions is not the
question; what is important is who causes [3] The developing world should take the
them. If we accept that it is possible for lead in preventing emissions, because it is
countries to owe obligations to those out- these countries that will be most affected
side their borders, then surely the obliga- if they rise. For instance, flooding, one of
tion not to create brutal environmental the primary environmental consequences
destruction is one of them? Moreover, of global warming, threatens to largely
if we were to deny that obligation, then wipe out Bangladesh and create a refugee
treating the ‘developing world’ as a whole crisis in that region.That is a burden that
would make no sense; it is not a coherent the developing world must deal with.
collective that shares any kind of identity,
so could not be expected to act in collec-
tive interests.
EUGENICS: IVF AND GENETIC SCREENING 251

Related topics
Possible motions Child labour can be justified
This House believes that the developed world Cars in city centres, banning of
should bear the burden of fighting climate Global warming, binding emission targets for
change.
This House would require all countries to cut
emissions equally.

Eugenics: IVF and genetic screening

‘Eugenics’, meaning ‘good breeding’, was first used by the English scientist Francis
Galton in 1883 to refer to the study of ways to improve the mental and physical
characteristics of the human race through targeted mating. It did not then have the
sinister overtones that it has since acquired through association with the attempts in
Nazi Germany to exterminate entire racial and social groups. Modern techniques such
as genetic engineering – and in particular, the genetic screening of embryos created by
in vitro fertilisation (IVF) – have again raised the question of whether we should
intervene to determine the biological make-up of our children.

Pros Cons
[1] The process of IVF does not involve [1] It is right that those couples using IVF
any pernicious manipulation of genes, and because they cannot conceive by other
is already widely used. Using IVF, a large methods should be told whether their
number of embryos can be made from embryos have certain serious genetic
the sperm and eggs of the parents. A cell defects, but a line must be drawn between
biopsy can be done on each embryo and this and the widespread use of genetic
the DNA from the cell can be screened. screening to make ‘designer babies’.Apart
This will tell the parents which of the from its being an affront to people with
embryos has the lowest risk of heart disabilities to suggest that those born with
disease, cancer or diabetes and which physical or mental impairments should
will contract genetic diseases such as be ‘bred out’ of the human race, to use
Alzheimer’s, muscular dystrophy, haemo- genetic screening is to open up existing
philia or cystic fibrosis later in life. This technology to widespread abuse. It is not
technology already exists, and it is inevit- inevitable that genetic screening will
able and understandable that parents will become widespread, but it is inevitable
want to use it to ensure that their baby that if there is not an international mora-
is as healthy as possible. torium on this development (as there
[2] It is also right that the technology should be), people will use it to select
should be used. If we have the power to embryos conforming to stereotypes of
decide whether we bring a baby into the intelligence, physical beauty, athleticism
world with or without cystic fibrosis, with and so on.
252 EUGENICS: IVF AND GENETIC SCREENING

or without a genetic neurological disease [2] This is objectionable for three reasons.
such as Huntington’s chorea (which First, it envisages the use of human
brings on rapid and extreme mental embryos as commodities and as resources
dementia in middle age), then we surely of medical technology – as mere ‘things’
have a duty to choose the latter.This is not rather than potential people. Those
genetic engineering – it is merely a case of embryos that are rejected will be disposed
choosing which of the embryos ‘naturally’ of or indefinitely frozen. This is a dan-
created from the parents’ sperm and egg gerously cavalier attitude to take to human
should be implanted in the womb. At life. Second, it perpetuates the idea that
present, there is an in utero anomaly scan those with physical ‘defects’ are inferior
and parents can choose to abort an human beings. This is a narrow and dis-
embryo if it is found to have Down’s criminatory approach, which is offensive
syndrome or another genetic disorder. IVF to people with disabilities.
screening is morally preferable to that and
less distressing for the parents. [3] This proposal would make embryos
into commodities to be chosen between
[3] Healthy embryos not chosen after like objects on a supermarket shelf.
screening can be frozen (as surplus IVF Moreover, it is a fallacy to assume that
embryos often are) and offered up for everyone has a fundamental right to be a
‘adoption’ by childless couples. Govern- parent of their own biological children.
ment agencies can be set up (as opposed to Those who cannot have children should
the private clinics that trade in these foster or adopt children without homes of
embryos in some states of America), their own, given the enormous number of
analogous to adoption agencies, to admi- orphans desperately in need of a family.
nister and oversee this process. Couples
will not be allowed to dictate the genetic
make-up of the embryo, but could be Possible motions
offered a selection of healthy embryos This House supports universal genetic screen-
from which to choose. This method has ing.
two principal advantages over traditional This House would choose its babies.
adoption: first, the parents have an
assurance that the embryo is genetically Related topics
screened and so their child will be healthy; Genetic engineering
and second, the mother will carry the Surrogate mothers, payment of
child to term herself, thus forming an Abortion on demand
important additional physical and emo- Euthanasia, legalisation of
tional bond with her child.
GENETIC ENGINEERING 253

Genetic engineering

One must be careful to distinguish between genetic engineering – actual tampering

with the genetic code of a being or an embryo – and other forms of intervention in
the natural process.This debate focuses on both the genetic modification of crops, which
is generally done to produce better commercial and agricultural plant life by making
them last longer or be more resistant to disease, and genetic modification of human and
animal cells. Most debates will naturally focus on one of these or the other, but they do
contain overlapping issues (some of the issues in the human type are also dealt with in
the previous debate on ‘eugenics: IVF and genetic screening’).

Pros Cons
[1] Genetic engineering may sound [1] We should not readily intervene in
spooky, but in fact, it is a harmless and genetic codes, because we do not know
welcome initiative. There is nothing what the consequences will be.While we
special about genetic code that distin- believe that we are starting to understand
guishes intervention in it from any of the genetics better, we do not really under-
other ways in which we intervene in stand properly how genes interact; that is
natural biological processes. Moreover, we different from visible, tested interventions
know more and more about genetics with in medicine and science, because it is so
every passing year; now is the time to seize speculative.
on that knowledge.
[2] Genetic engineering involves human
[2] There are many benefits to the plant beings acting in a sphere that should be
world with the use of genetic engineer- the preserve of God, or at least of natural
ing, and these are of immense significance evolution. In the quest for ever greater
to the world’s starving millions. Perhaps profits, we are meddling with processes
the most immediate is the creation of crop that we barely understand.
varieties that are resistant to disease,
thereby requiring fewer pesticides and [3] The promises made now about genetic
thus safeguarding the environment. Even engineering are reminiscent of those
more important, the development of made about pesticides in the 1950s and
varieties that require little in the way of 1960s (e.g. DDT which threatened wild-
expensive chemical treatments will be a life), which proved disastrous for the food
boon to the developing world. chain. Like all science from nuclear power
to the ‘green revolution’, we can be sure
[3] Genetic engineering is nothing new. that genetic engineering will promise
Man has been ‘genetically engineering’ far more than it will deliver, and create
crops and livestock by artificial selection
problems no one can predict.
for thousands of years.Wheat could never
have evolved in the wild without it; the [4] Genetic engineering poses serious
domestic cat is an artificial animal, risks which we barely understand. For
the result of 4,000 years of ‘unnatural’ example, a soybean variety that had been
254 GENETIC ENGINEERING

breeding. But in the past we had to geneti- engineered to resist a herbicide was
cally engineer indirectly, by painstaking withdrawn from sale after it was dis-
cross-breeding with the hope of keeping covered that a Brazil nut gene inserted
certain genes. Genetic engineering allows into the soybean DNA caused an allergic
us to transfer genes one at a time, and with reaction in people allergic to nuts.
a far greater degree of certainty. It is a Genetically altered cotton plants lose their
revolution only in technique. own immune system, thus leaving them
[4] Problems of dysfunctional varieties vulnerable to aphid attack.
that may arise are nothing to be alarmed [5] Genes are related to each other in
about. They would equally have arisen complex ways that we do not always
from cross-breeding and simply illustrate understand. We know that some genes
that genetic engineering should be with negative effects (e.g. the gene for
employed with as much care as any other sickle cell anaemia) survive because of the
cross-breeding technique. positive benefits they also bring (immu-
[5] Genetic engineering can be used in nity from malaria).We do not know what
humans in two ways – either germ-line benefits and essential human traits we are
therapy or somatic therapy. The former playing with when we permanently alter
involves engineering genes in the sex cells genetic make-up at the germ-line level.
of potential parents to alter the genetic We should err on the side of caution and
material inherited by their offspring have a moratorium on genetic engineer-
(e.g. seeking to remove the gene for ing until our knowledge is better devel-
Alzheimer’s or MS) and thus has long- oped.The prejudices of the current age (in
term repercussions. Somatic therapy deals favour, perhaps, of very narrow sporting,
only with the individual during his or economic or intellectual abilities) will be
her lifetime and is not inherited – for inscribed into our genetic heritage for
example, giving a diabetic person a gene centuries to come. This sort of mentality
to produce insulin internally.We should be was behind the Nazi ideology that
more cautious with germ-line therapy, but resulted in the Jewish Holocaust.
both can be used for the medical benefit
of humanity. Possible motions
This House supports the use of genetic
engineering in the natural world.
This House calls for a stop to all research on
human genetic engineering.

Related topics
Eugenics: IVF and genetic screening
G LO B A L WA R M I N G , B I N D I N G E M I S S I O N TA R G E T S F O R 255

Global warming, binding emission targets for

There have been numerous global attempts to agree on limits to greenhouse gas
emissions, but thus far, nothing on the global scale has succeeded; the Kyoto Protocol
was rejected by the USA, withdrawn from by Canada, and had not imposed binding
targets on the developing world anyway. The closest thing to a serious inter-country
accord was the European Union’s cap-and-trade scheme, but that was largely disastrous,
with limits set too high to be effective.This debate represents a radical departure from
existing practice, to impose internationally binding obligations that require immediate
action.

Pros Cons
[1] The pollution we have pumped [1] The environmental lobbyists have been
into our atmosphere since the industrial prophesying doom for decades, but the
revolution threatens to cause long-term world still seems to continue with relative
climate change. In particular, CO2 from stability. There have always been natural
the burning of fossil fuels is thought to climactic cycles – ever since the last Ice
build up in the upper atmosphere and act Age, the world has been getting warmer.
like a greenhouse – letting sunlight in, but There is no conclusive evidence that man
preventing heat from escaping. Projections is responsible for the current change – in
show global temperatures rising by fact, the earth’s temperature fell between
3° Celsius in the next century, sufficient 1940 and 1970 despite a rapid injection of
to melt the polar ice caps and cause wide- CO2 into the atmosphere, and there has
spread flooding. The four hottest years been no warming in the Arctic despite
in recorded history have been in the ‘computer predictions’. So binding targets
last decade. Extreme weather phenom- are simply unnecessary.
ena have become more common, from [2] The West has built its prosperity upon
droughts and floods in sub-Saharan Africa industrial growth. Pollution controls will
to water shortages in South-East England. have the effect of preventing such growth
Countries such as Bangladesh and some of in the developing world – such controls
the Pacific island states are in danger of amount to environmental imperialism. It
being totally submerged in the near future is inevitable that at this economic stage,
if current levels of global warming emissions will be greater and it is hypo-
continue. Binding targets are necessary to critical of the West to insist that develop-
solve this problem. ing countries do not do what they
themselves have done for centuries. In the
[2] Tighter controls on emissions must be
absence of hard evidence for the causes of
introduced, but this need not sacrifice
global warming, emission limits should
economic growth. Western countries
not be further reduced.
should be allowed to ‘buy’ the emission
quotas of developing countries that suc- [3] Environmentalists wish to destroy jobs
ceed in bringing their levels down. This and reduce our nation’s wealth on the basis
256 N U C L E A R E N E R GY

will reduce total global emissions while of an unproven theory. Their scaremon-
also providing investment in, and financial gering and indoctrination (particularly of
incentives for, ‘green’ forms of industrial children) threatens our very way of life.
development in developing countries. Energy conservation and pollution con-
trols should be encouraged up to a point
[3] When the potential harm is so great,
(as they already are), but economic pro-
we cannot sit around waiting for
ductivity and improved standards of living
‘certainty’. Putting economics ahead of
must remain our number one priority.
the environment will mean that some
countries cease to exist – presumably the
worst economic scenario for any nation. Possible motions
The environment is fundamental to the This House supports internationally binding
flourishing of life from the most basic to emission targets for all countries.
the most prosperous and must be our This House believes that only binding emission
number one priority. Also, pollution targets can save the planet from global
controls have many beneficial side-effects warming.
– improving the quality of life for people
choking in polluted cities and encour- Related topics
aging energy conservation rather than Cars in city centres, banning of
consumption. Environmental responsibility, developed world
should take more
Vegetarianism

Nuclear energy

The disaster at Fukushima Daiichi, Japan in 2011, in which an earthquake triggered

meltdown at a major nuclear power plant, reignited the debate about nuclear energy.
Prior to that, the world appeared to be marching slowly towards the greater use of
nuclear power, but that progress is now somewhat in doubt. Fukushima caused five
deaths; however, it is hard to estimate the precise number of deaths, as many are likely
to occur in subsequent years from radiation increasing the risk of cancer.What seems
certain is that it will not be comparable to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which killed
6,000 people directly, and anywhere between 27,000 and 985,000 indirectly.

Pros Cons
[1] The world needs energy, and nuclear [1] Nuclear energy is not a viable alter-
power is the only way to get it. Fossil fuels native to renewables. First of all, it can take
will run out soon, and the truth is that 20–30 years to build a nuclear power
‘renewable energy’ is simply not ready plant, and it is hugely expensive. Second,
yet to provide the level of power that we many existing nuclear power plants are in
require. Nuclear energy is cheap and effi- fact about to be decommissioned. This
cient, and the technology is certain, which means that the existing network will also
makes it a much better choice than specu- have to be replaced, which makes such a
lative renewables development. project unreasonably expensive.
N U C L E A R E N E R GY 257

[2] Nuclear power is safe. Far from reveal- [2] Nuclear power is far from safe. As
ing that it is not safe, Fukushima showed Fukushima showed, the potential conse-
just how safe it is. In literally the worst quences of a nuclear power disaster are
possible combination of circumstances, a catastrophic. We were very lucky that
40-year-old power plant, on a tectonic Fukushima’s meltdown did not spread, but
fault, was hit by an earthquake, and still even so, it is highly likely that large
there are currently fewer than 100 deaths. numbers of deaths will result. Moreover,
Technology has improved immeasurably the consequences of such a meltdown
since Chernobyl, and that makes it sub- are so catastrophic as to outweigh any
stantially safer. potential benefits.
[3] Sources of uranium are mainly stable [3] Renewable energy is the only truly
countries with open trading relations, secure form of energy, because it is almost
which are traditional allies of the Western all domestic. Solar, wind, wave and hydro-
world.Australia controls 30 per cent of the electric power are all created in-country,
world’s uranium reserves, and Canada a and so do not suffer from the risks of
further 9 per cent. Moreover, they are international conflict or discord.
diversely located, with 12 per cent of
reserves in Kazakhstan, and 6 per cent in [4] Nuclear energy may be greener than
South Africa, while Brazil and Namibia fossil fuels in the short term, but that
each have 5 per cent.This means that most ignores the problem of nuclear waste.We
countries would have access to a secure could be storing up a catastrophe for
supply, and in the event of political generations who come after us.
difficulties with a supplier, could switch [5] In the 1950s, we were promised that
readily to another.This is in contrast to oil nuclear energy would be so cheap that it
and gas, where energy needs can influence would be uneconomic to meter elec-
foreign policy and providers are able to tricity. Today, nuclear energy is still sub-
hold importers to ransom. sidised by the taxpayer. Old power stations
[4] Nuclear energy is green and clean. require decommissioning; that will take
Many environmental charities such as 100 years and cost billions.
Greenpeace are now supporting nuclear
energy as they see it as the best way quickly Possible motions
to reduce the burning of emission- This House says ‘Yes, please’ to nuclear power.
producing fossil fuels. This House would extend the use of nuclear
[5] The problems of the nuclear energy power.
programme have been a result of bureau-
cracy and obsessive secrecy resulting from Related topics
nuclear energy’s roots in military research. Cars in city centres, banning of
These are problems of the past. In the Environmental responsibility, developed world
future, we can improve on even this – the should take more
development of nuclear fusion in the next Global warming: binding emission targets for
30 years will provide a virtually limitless Vegetarianism
energy source with no pollution. Nuclear weapons, right to possess
258 O B E S E C H I L D R E N : W E I G H T- LO S S C A M P S

Obese children, compulsory attendance at

weight-loss camps

This debate draws on the presence and growing use of voluntary ‘fat camps’, or weight-
loss camps, in the USA, the UK and Canada to deal with the problem of obesity,
especially childhood obesity.They involve people voluntarily checking into residential
camps where they eat carefully prescribed diets, away from temptation, and exercise
heavily. They can also involve nutrition classes and cognitive behavioural therapy
designed to achieve positive long-term outcomes. This policy obviously varies in
making them compulsory.

Pros Cons
[1] Children who are severely overweight [1] Although the harms of obesity are
are in urgent need of intervention. Their undeniably great, they are rarely so urgent
weight exposes them to the risk of long- as to warrant immediate intervention.
term health damage, such as the develop- Slow but steady weight loss is healthier,
ment of diabetes and heart damage, as more durable and more appropriate to the
well as significant short-term problems, problem at hand.
including chronic fatigue. The state must [2] This policy is simply a short-term fix,
step in immediately to protect them. which will quickly spring back as children
do not understand how to cope outside
[2] The reason for serious obesity is often
their controlled environment. We must
bad habits and/or psychological disorders.
teach children how to lose weight and
Weight-loss camps help to fix these by
exercise while facing their normal daily
offering participants counselling, and
circumstances, which this will not assist
educating them about ways to eat and live
with.
more healthily. Often weight loss is about
developing alternative diversionary activi- [3] The stigma of having been sent away
ties when stressed, or learning how to to ‘fat camp’ will be significant. When
cook with fresh ingredients. This policy children are released from such camps,
makes weight loss durable. they could become pariahs within their
social networks, and be unable to lead
[3] Rather than stigmatising them, a trip to normal lives.This would only increase the
a ‘weight-loss camp’ will be beneficial to stresses that made them overweight in the
children’s self-esteem.As they lose weight, first place.
they will be able to be more active, and so
[4] This is a violation of parents’ rights to
go out more and play with their friends.
parent as they see fit. Moreover, this is an
They will no longer be labelled as ‘the fat
area in which parents need to be ‘on side’
kid’, and so will in fact thrive socially.
with the government’s efforts to reduce
[4] Parents who allow their children to get their children’s obesity. This will make
severely obese are so irresponsible as to them angry and resentful, and is thus
lose their absolute right to control their ultimately counterproductive.
O R G A N D O N AT I O N : P R I O R I T Y F O R H E A LT H Y L I F E S T Y L E 259

children. When their children are so in

danger, and at risk of such severe harm, the Possible motions
state has a solemn obligation to step in This House would force obese children to
to protect them. Moreover, often their attend weight-loss camps.
parents need a shock to make them realise
that their attitude to their children’s Related topics
weight is unacceptable; once they receive Protective legislation v. individual freedom
it, they will become more supportive. School sport, compulsory
Child curfews

Organ donation: priority for healthy lifestyle

Debates about organ donation fall into two categories: those about how to increase the
overall size of the donor pool, to reduce scarcity of organs; and those about how to
allocate scarce organs. While the former are more common, the latter are also vitally
important. Given that organ scarcity is not going away any time soon, we also need to
think about the questions of principle and policy about how we give them out. Most
states adopt a broadly similar system of allocating organs based on need, without regard
to other factors, which means that patients typically have to wait until they are very ill
for transplant organs.The policy proposed here is already often enforced in a minimal
form; for instance, by denying liver transplants to alcoholics who have failed to stop
drinking.The policy is not mutually exclusive of other systems of allocation, such as the
sale of organs or prioritising those who are registered donors themselves, but gives
substantially greater weight to people’s prior choices.There is also a related debate about
prioritising a healthy lifestyle in other medical treatment such as changing the order on
waiting lists for surgery in favour of those who follow a healthy lifestyle, or (in national
health services) denying costly treatment to smokers or the obese.

Pros Cons
[1] Given that organs are scarce, we should [1] It is true that organs should do as much
make them do as much good as possible. good as possible, but this policy does not
Those who have lived healthy lifestyles are achieve that. The existing system of allo-
more likely to recover from their illnesses, cation by need, however, does exactly that;
and more likely to live longer after their when patients most need organs, they are
transplant; for instance, a smoker who available. Denying those who most need
requires a kidney transplant is more likely the organs is obviously counterproductive,
to die from other illnesses than a non- and will prevent doctors from saving many
smoker. This system of allocation thus lives. In particular, it is just not correct to
maximises the number of healthy years of claim that people who have led unhealthy
life that it is possible to create by allocating lifestyles are less likely to recover; in fact,
organs, and is thus the best we can do in they may have a very high chance of
the bad situation of organ scarcity. recovery, which this policy ignores.
260 O R G A N D O N AT I O N : P R I O R I T Y F O R H E A LT H Y L I F E S T Y L E

[2] It is a fundamental principle of a liberal [2] We do hold people responsible for

society that people are held responsible for their choices, but we also acknowledge
their choices, and judged accordingly. In that sometimes it is important to protect
this situation, we are in effect faced with a people from them.We do not, in general,
straight choice as to whose life we should deny medical care to anyone who has
save; the person who has led the healthy caused their own illness; rather, the state
lifestyle, or the person who has not. As recognises the importance of providing a
the latter will often be to blame for their safety net against people’s irrational or
illnesses (for instance, by drinking to short-term choices.A death sentence does
excess and so damaging their livers), it is not give someone a chance to learn from
more appropriate to save the former, their choices, which is also a very impor-
because their illnesses are mere chance, tant part of living in a free society.
and not self-induced.
[3] The main consequences of this policy
[3] This policy does not have a differential fall overwhelmingly on the poor. Obesity,
impact on the poor. That is to mischar- alcoholism and drugs are all, for various
acterise how poor people actually live. It is tragic social reasons, problems which
simply not that difficult to live a healthy occur predominantly in poor areas. For
lifestyle; it requires moderation in alcohol instance, ready meals tend to be cheaper
consumption, avoiding illegal substances, than fresh food, and so eating healthily is
and sensible calorie intake. None of these much harder on a lower income. This
things require enormous incomes; indeed, policy thus disproportionately punishes
it is important to send the message that those who, through no fault of their own,
poor people are equally expected to live have less money, which also sends the
healthily and sensibly, and should not be message that the state considers the poor
stigmatised as unable to do so. less worthy of life.
[4] This policy acts as an incentive for [4] It is just unrealistic to suppose that
people to live more healthily. While it anyone will in fact live more healthily
is obviously not plausible that teenagers because of this policy, because no one
will radically change their behaviour, expects that they will need an organ trans-
many people who persistently engage in plant; after all, if they did, getting so ill
unhealthy practices, like drinking to would presumably be a sufficient deter-
excess or smoking, are aware that they will rent, without much attention to the added
probably make themselves ill by doing so, worry of an organ transplant. Moreover,
but persist in this anyway. It is important many of the lifestyle choices that are under
for the government to send a signal that discussion (drinking, smoking, drug taking,
this type of behaviour is unacceptable; etc.) are addictive; those who engage in
individuals must be encouraged to clean them do not rationally calculate costs and
up their lives and behave in a way that is benefits, especially about the distant future.
conducive to public health generally.
[5] This policy will not increase the overall
[5] This policy also encourages the dona- number of organs donated; if anything, it
tion of organs. It is important to signify will reduce it.That is because it is harder
that governments take organ donation to understand why people who have lived
ORGANS, LEGAL SALE OF 261

seriously, and value it; in that way, being an healthily for their entire lives would need
organ donor becomes a ‘badge of honour’, organ transplants, so the PR effect of this
which makes people more likely to want policy is actually to reduce the perceived
to do it.At the moment, the fact that many demand for organs, thus discouraging
organs are ‘wasted’ on those who do not donation. Moreover, this policy seems
take adequate precautions with their lives like an acceptance that there will never
and lifestyles sends a message that organs be enough organs; that undermines the
are not important. This policy creates a strongest arguments for new policies on
link between the individual virtues of donation (such as opt-out systems).
those who are donating with those of the
recipients, establishing both as social role
models. Possible motions
This House would prioritise those who have
lived healthy lives when allocating organs for
transplants.
This House would deny liver transplants to
alcoholics.
This House believes that if the state is going to
take care of you, you should have taken care
of yourself.

Related topics
Organs, legal sale of

Organs, legal sale of

One thing that is indisputable in all debates about organs is that there is a shortage of
them in almost every country in the world; people die daily waiting for donor organs.
However, as soon as we proceed to the vexed question of how to solve that problem,
huge ethical and economic debates open up. Aside from compulsory organ donation,
creating a trade in organs is widely seen as the most common possible method by which
we could increase organ availability.There are few examples of this policy in practice;
only Iran currently allows the sale of human organs, although India did until 1994 and
the Philippines until 2008.The Proposition team can, though they are not required to,
bite the bullet and make the ability to obtain an organ depend on the ability to pay, but
more commonly, will seek to buy organs through a national health system.

Pros Cons
[1] The overarching goal of any organ [1] We should strive to obtain more
policy must be to increase the supply of organs, but this proposal will not achieve
organs.This policy achieves that by incen- that goal. Many people at the moment
tivising people to donate financially. It is donate out of a sense of altruism; as soon
262 ORGANS, LEGAL SALE OF

possible either to pay people while they as organs become a product with a mone-
are still alive for certain organs (like a tary value, that sense of altruism is lost.
kidney or part of the liver) or to leave that This policy means we would lose some
money to their family after they are dead. organs. Moreover, if the state is paying for
Either way, that represents a real cash these organs, that will represent an enor-
incentive to donate that is presently mous burden on the taxpayer that may
lacking. hurt other areas of healthcare. If it is being
left to the private sector, then though
[2] A belief in the principle of autonomy
there may be more organs, the poor will
dictates that we allow payment for dona-
be unable to obtain them, which is unac-
tions. We already allow people to donate
ceptable.
their organs, but if that is a legitimate
choice (so that there can be no objection [2] The difference between the choice
from them about damaging their bodies, made without money involved and one
for instance), then adding money into the with it is huge; namely, the possibility for
equation cannot possibly make that choice economic coercion. Under this policy, the
less legitimate. Indeed, all it does is make poor may find themselves selling their
someone who decides to make that choice organs, in spite of serious reservations
financially better off. about this as a health decision, just to get
some money quickly. It is wrong that
[3] Legalisation will wipe out the black
people might be forced into a choice that
market in organs.We know that there is a
is so fundamental.
thriving black market, especially in India
after it banned organ sales, because people [3] Far from wiping out the black market,
will always be willing to go to extreme this policy will only encourage it. First,
lengths to protect their lives. In a black if organs can now be sold legally, that
market, exploitation and donation without increases incentives to obtain them for free
informed consent are more likely, as are (by kidnap, or illegal purchase from coun-
unsafe medical procedures that threaten to tries like China that allegedly sell the
kill people as a result of donating. organs of executed prisoners). Second,
people will try to undercut the regulated
market by reducing costs, meaning that all
Possible motions
the problems remain.
This House would legalise the sale of organs.
This House believes in a free market in body
parts.

Related topics
Protective legislation v. individual freedom
Surrogate mothers, payment of
Prostitution, legalisation of
Organ donation: priority for healthy lifestyle
S O C I A L N E T W O R K I N G H A S I M P R OV E D O U R L I V E S 263

Social networking has improved our lives

It is a tribute to the speed of the rise of the online social network that, when this book’s
last edition was published in 1999, it is arguable that not a single social network existed.
Early context-specific social networks like Friends Reunited and Classmates emerged
in 2000, followed by more general ones such as Myspace, Bebo and Friendster in 2002
and 2003. But perhaps equally telling is that a teenager using Facebook today may well
not even have heard of the above, let alone used them, because Facebook and Twitter,
founded in 2004 and 2006 respectively, have swept through all competition, and become
the all-consuming means of online communication.This debate understandably focuses
on them.

Pros Cons
[1] Social networking allows unprece- [1] This speed of communication is pres-
dented ability to communicate at high ent, but disastrous. Face-to-face inter-
speed in many different forms, across huge action has died; we no longer make time
distances.The ability to contact friends on to catch up with friends because we
the other side of the world allows for the always know their news anyway. More-
maintenance of cross-border friendships, over, we are under constant stress to
while the flexibility of communication convey the right social media ‘presence’; it
is a huge advantage; ‘Events’ allow us to is oppressive to feel the need to ‘check in’
organise parties, while ‘Groups’ allow us to at every location we go to or answer
create communities for a specific purpose, messages in seconds.
in a much easier way than anything we
have seen before. [2] This kind of campaigning is pointless
talk, and encourages a ‘slacktivist’ mental-
[2] Social networks allow rapid political ity, with a superficial understanding of
campaigning over issues, connecting peo- issues and no actual intention of pressur-
ple who would otherwise never be able to ing politicians for change; for example,
meet to rally together. Hashtags on Twitter hundreds of millions of people shared the
allow us to attach a message to a particular Kony 2012 video which demanded action
issue, so that like-minded people can get a on the crimes of warlords by the end of
range of views. This also makes youth a 2012 – the deadline passed, and no one
powerful political constituency, as politi- cared.
cians and campaigners check social
networks to observe their opinions and [3] This is an unhelpful way to think about
capture votes. identity. We should live naturally, and let
our identities be expressed through our
[3] Social networks allow us to have actions, rather than requiring a hugely
greater control over our identities.We can contrived set of publicly available ways of
let others know more precisely what our portraying ourselves.
preferences are by ‘liking’ the relevant
movies, bands or brands. We can post
264 S PAC E E X P LO R AT I O N

quotations which express our political or [4] Social networks coerce us into joining;
philosophical views.All of this allows us to it is virtually impossible not to be a mem-
cultivate a personality that goes beyond a ber of one, and so we do not exercise
few short personal meetings, and also to meaningful choice over whether we use it
seek out like-minded people more easily; to run our lives. Once we do, they control
we do not need to have an initial con- all our data, in an invasive way.
versation with them, because we know
they share our interests from their online
presence. Possible motions
This House believes that social networking has
[4] Social networks are only ‘coercive’ in made us better off.
the sense that they provide us with huge This House ‘likes’ Facebook.
benefits, which we typically accept, but
there is nothing about them that restricts
our liberty; we can choose to opt out if we
so wish. Moreover, as long as we are care-
ful in protecting our data, social networks
do not own anything damaging.

Space exploration

In 1957, Sputnik 1 was put into space by the USSR, and in 1961,Yuri Gagarin became
the first man in space.The Cold War was a focal point for the early years of space travel,
with the USA landing on the moon in 1969. In the following years, focus has shifted
towards the possibility of using space for technological and scientific advancement, with
1998 seeing the launch of the International Space Station, a joint NASA–Russian project
to further develop space travel. In 1986, a stark reminder of the risks of space travel was
delivered with the disaster aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger, in which seven astronauts
perished, resulting in the USA grounding its shuttle fleet for two-and-a-half years.

Pros Cons
[1] Scientific understanding of the origins, [1] We cannot afford to spend billions on
nature and destiny of the universe we live space telescopes, space shuttles, space
in is both one of the crowning achieve- probes, space stations and the like when
ments of human civilisation and a goal to poverty and starvation exist on earth.
be pursued for its own sake.The pictures Quality of life for all must take priority
of nebulae, distant galaxies, white dwarfs over knowledge for its own sake.As for the
and other extraordinary phenomena, pro- existential dimension – scientific space
duced by the Hubble Space Telescope, research and cosmology have created a
may not be of immediate material use in bleak and depressing worldview of an
terms of day-to-day economics, but they impersonal and purposeless universe,
are wonderful and fascinating achieve- condemned either to thermodynamic
S PAC E E X P LO R AT I O N 265

ments. It is also of great existential impor- heat death or a ‘big crunch’ in which we
tance that we know where we came from are meaningless specks of cosmic dust.
and what our place is in the universe.The
[2] The earth itself provides ample testi-
Big Bang theory and speculations about
mony to the laws of nature and the nature
the future of the universe fulfil that exis-
of matter – testimony found in the dis-
tential need that used to be fulfilled by
coveries of geologists, biologists, chemists
religion.
and particle physicists. We will never
[2] Astronomy has always been used to encounter a black hole or a super-nova or
understand and predict our own planet an object travelling at the speed of light
better.Ancient Egyptians used the stars to and so do not need to understand them.
predict when the Nile would flood, and Only scientists who are not content with
astronomy has always been used for navi- everyday reality and earthly interactions
gation and meteorology as well. Studying seek comfort and escape in the speculative
the behaviour of light and chemical ele- fantasies of cosmology and space research.
ments in conditions characterised by
extremes of time, space, distance, heat and [3] Satellites are not really examples of
gravity tells us about the fundamental laws space exploration technology.They would
of nature and characteristics of matter – have been discovered without exploring
the same laws and matter that we seek to space per se.They are essentially examples
manipulate and predict here on earth. of terrestrial technology developed for
Space exploration may lead to the longed- purely terrestrial purposes.
for ‘Theory of Everything’ sought by [4] It is misleading to suggest that space
scientists such as Stephen Hawking, who exploration was a necessary prerequisite
are trying to unify general relativity and for all these discoveries. In the case of
quantum mechanics. computer technology, as with so many
[3] Through space exploration and the technologies, the driving force was large-
need to construct probes and satellites, scale military investment in research and
satellite technology has been developed development. We should also look at the
that has provided us with massively negative spin-offs – the Reagan admini-
increased and improved broadcasting, tele- stration’s Strategic Defense Initiative or
communications and weather-predicting ‘Star Wars’ project which developed tech-
capabilities. This alone would justify the nology for space-based nuclear missile
expenditure that has been put into space interceptors, and the escalation of the
research. Cold War arms race.
[4] Space research, especially experimen-
tation done in zero-gravity conditions in Possible motions
space stations, has resulted in many scien- This House would increase funding for space
tific and technological spin-offs, from exploration.
super-conductors and miniaturised micro- This House would boldly go where no House
chips to non-stick frying pans.We should has gone before.
continue to fund space research to allow This House believes the truth is out there.
more such breakthroughs to be made.
266 S U R R O G AT E M OT H E R S , PAY M E N T O F

Surrogate mothers, payment of

A surrogate mother is a woman who carries and gives birth to a baby for another couple
who are unable to have children in the normal way. A couple in which the woman is
infertile might use the man’s sperm and the surrogate mother’s egg to produce the foetus
– the surrogate would not need to have sex with the man, but could be inseminated in
another way. Alternatively, if the woman and man are both fertile but the woman
cannot, for some other reason, conceive and bear a child, one of the woman’s eggs,
fertilised by the man, can be implanted into the womb of the surrogate.When he or she
is born, the child is handed over by the surrogate to be adopted by the couple. In some
US states, and in India and Russia among others, it is legal to pay surrogate mothers for
their services; whereas in other countries such as the UK, Australia and France, only
altruistic surrogacy is allowed, which merely permits the payment of reasonable costs.
Some countries such as Italy have outlawed all forms of surrogacy, paid or not.

Pros Cons
[1] Surrogate motherhood is to be [1] Being a parent is not a right that
encouraged as it is a way for people who everybody is born with. If a couple are
could not otherwise do so to start their unable to have children themselves, then
own family. For some infertile couples, they should adopt or foster a child rather
surrogacy is the only chance to have their than bringing yet another child into the
own baby as procedures such as IVF world, particularly through surrogacy,
require the woman to be able to implant which is a method beset by emotional,
an embryo and then carry the baby to legal and financial wrangling.
term and many women cannot do this. It
is also a way for gay men to father children [2] It is wrong to make a trade in human
with a donated egg. Surrogacy allows lives. The result of commercial surrogacy
people to fulfil their deep desire to be will be that only the rich can afford to buy
biological parents. babies in this way.That is not the way that
parenthood should be decided.
[2] Commercial surrogacy makes the
procedure accessible to all. Countries such [3] It is naïve to believe that there will not
as India have set up clinics to facilitate be disputes in these instances of surrogacy.
matches.This is better than a couple rely- Surrogate mothers have been known
ing on finding a relative, friend or kindly to change their minds and keep the child
stranger to help. It prevents pressure being due to the strong biological and emotional
felt to comply and a sense of debt after- links made between mother and baby
wards. during pregnancy. There have also been
disputes where the parents have sued the
[3] When formal and commercial, the surrogate for her behaviour during preg-
process can be carried out within strict nancy and refused to take the child.
medical and legal guidelines. This offers
more protection both to the surrogate and
V E G E TA R I A N I S M 267

those who have hired her. In countries [4] Surrogacy, if it is practised at all, should
that allow altruistic surrogacy, the law is be an altruistic gift. Carrying a baby is not
often murky, with an adoption needed a ‘job’ any more than any other bodily
after birth. function. Paying for surrogacy is equiva-
lent to paying for an organ rather than
[4] A surrogate mother should be paid for
relying on donations.
her services. She is meeting a demand, at
some inconvenience, discomfort and risk [5] There are physical risks to pregnancy
to herself. It is only right to recognise this and childbirth and psychological harms in
through a fee. surrogacy, and women should not be
financially incentivised to go through this.
[5] In principle, there should be no objec-
It may seem like an easy choice of a career
tion to financial gain through surrogacy.
– money for nothing – but when com-
A surrogate mother can weigh up the
plications arise, it can be devastating. In
advantages and disadvantages of hiring out
principle, we should not treat the body as
her womb and should be free to do so if
a commodity that can be bought and sold.
the arrangement is between consenting
adults and nobody is harmed. The surro-
gate mother may feel fulfilled knowing Possible motions
that her work is helping people who are This House would allow paid surrogate mother-
infertile. Both parties benefit from the hood.
transaction and the only role of the state This House would let a woman rent out her
should be to make sure that contracts are womb.
enforced. Many other jobs are far riskier.
Related topics
Abortion on demand
Eugenics: IVF and genetic screening
Genetic engineering
Organs, legal sale of

Vegetarianism

Vegetarianism has always been an alternative lifestyle that has been practised by some
proponents of animal rights, by a faction of the health-conscious and by some religions.
In recent years, however, it has taken on an environmental dimension with some green
campaigners saying that widespread vegetarianism could be crucial to the planet’s future.
It is unlikely that this debate would call for a law banning the eating of meat; rather, it
should debate the practical and moral advantages and disadvantages of the lifestyle
choice. See the introduction to the debate on ‘animal experimentation and vivisection,
banning of ’ (Section E) and the entry on ‘animal rights’ (Section A) for an overview on
the issues of animal welfare.
268 V E G E TA R I A N I S M

Pros Cons
[1] We are animals ourselves, with shared [1] It is natural for people to farm and eat
ancestors with all other creatures. We other creatures. Humans have come to
should take responsibility for our animal flourish and dominate through their
cousins rather than exploiting and eating successful adaptation to and manipula-
them unnecessarily. Furthermore, we tion of other species. It is a strange and
cannot know exactly what feelings and unnatural idea that we have ‘duties’ to
emotions other animals can have.There is other animals – rights and duties are
good evidence that they feel fear and pain exclusively applicable to humans. It is true
like us.Therefore, we must err on the side that we cannot know what feelings or
of caution and not farm and kill animals at emotions animals have, but we can assume
all. As Jeremy Bentham said, the question that they are minimal.Vegetarianism rests
about animals is not ‘Can they think?’, but on sentimentalism and anthropomor-
‘Can they feel pain?’ phism. It is natural for us, like many other
animals, to kill and eat other species to
[2] Most mass meat-farming techniques survive.
are barbaric, especially the battery farming
of chickens and the force-feeding of veal [2] Modern farming techniques may often
calves. Supposedly quick slaughter tech- be cramped, but we cannot assume that
niques are often botched – leaving animals chickens or calves really have much of an
half-alive and in pain for hours when they awareness of their quality of life anyway.
were supposed to be dead. Cows are Their slaughter is generally swift and
pumped full of antibiotics and steroids to painless. If it is thought to be very impor-
force them to grow to an unnatural size, tant, free-range chickens, eggs and meat
and are forced to produce an unnatural can be purchased to ensure that the animal
quantity of milk, so that they become one is eating had a natural and more
exhausted and die at half the age they varied life.
would in nature. By buying and eating [3] Humans have evolved as an omnivo-
meat, the non-vegetarian is indirectly rous species. Therefore, the omnivorous
torturing animals that have unnaturally diet (meat and vegetables) is what we are
short, miserable and confined lives. adapted to flourish on. By cutting out half
[3] There is no need for meat in a balanced of this natural diet, we are bound to lose
diet. All sorts of fruits, vegetables and the natural balance and variety we need.
pulses provide the variety of carbohy- Meat is a rich source of minerals such
drates, proteins, fibre, minerals and vita- as iron and zinc, which are not easily
mins that we need. Our closest animal found in a vegetarian diet. Excessive meat
consumption might be bad for the health,
relatives – the apes – have all-vegetarian
but this is not a reason to cut it out
diets. It has been suggested that this is our
completely.
natural diet too. Meat consumption has
been linked to high blood pressure, high [4] The effects on the environment arising
cholesterol, heart disease and some from meat eating are disputed, as we
cancers. In addition, almost all of the worst would need vast amounts of land to farm
V E G E TA R I A N I S M 269

forms of food poisoning are transmitted the extra vegetables and meat substitutes
from meat (E. coli, BSE, salmonella). needed; it may also increase the impor-
Vegetarian diets are often lower in fat and tation of food, thereby adding more food
healthier all round. miles to our menus. Unless we all go
vegan, livestock farming would still have
[4] There is an environmental cost
to continue to produce dairy products and
attached to livestock farming. It is esti-
eggs. It may well be true that we should
mated that the farming of animals causes
eat less meat and not consider it the main
more greenhouse gas emissions than the
component of every meal, but switching
world’s entire transport system. The land
to a vegetarian diet is going too far.
needed to farm animals has led to mass
deforestation, with over 70 per cent of [5] Intensive farming allows the masses to
deforestation in the Amazon rainforest access cheap food. A vegetarian diet may
occurring for the raising of cattle. Meat is be healthy (if unbalanced), but it is
also a wasteful use of water. The only exceedingly expensive. Vegetarianism is
environmentally responsible thing to do is a luxury for the middle classes – fresh
to go vegetarian. vegetables are prohibitively expensive,
compared with processed meats, burgers
[5] Factory farming is increasingly dan-
and so on, which are affordable and filling.
gerous for human health. Agricultural
Safer farming techniques and increased
slurry is poisoning our rivers and nitrates
health awareness, not a wholesale switch
entering our water supply have been
to an unnatural vegetarian diet, are the
linked to increased rates of cancer.
solutions to the problems of unsafe meat
Antibiotics fed to animals in vast quantities
farming.
are causing the evolution of ‘super-bugs’ –
bacteria that are resistant or immune to
antibiotics.The inclusion of animal brains Possible motions
in their own feed has led to the disastrous This House believes that meat is murder.
spread of Bovine Spongiform Encephalo- This House believes that we should all be
pathy (‘mad cow disease’) and the human vegetarians.
equivalent, Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease
(CJD). Epidemics of foot and mouth Related topics
disease, bird flu and swine flu have all been Protective legislation v. individual freedom
linked to intensive livestock farming. Animal experimentation and vivisection,
banning of
Animal rights
Blood sports, abolition of
Zoos, abolition of